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

Long-term sockpuppetry at AFD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson (2nd nomination)
• Single-purpose accounts:
  • Ssmock (talk · contribs)
  • Ibson.writes (talk · contribs)
  • Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk · contribs)
• Timeline given by User:Koncorde:
  • 2019-03-13T04:19:54: edit to Sri Lanka Navy by Mzmadmike
  • 2019-03-13T04:20:27: edit to Sri Lanka Navy by Mzmadmike
  • 2019-03-13T04:22:36: edit to Sri Lanka Army by Ibson.writes
• Edits by Trasel (talk · contribs) confirmed sockpuppet accounts to Michael Z. Williamson:
  • edit
  • edit
  • edit
  • edit
  • edit
• Single-purpose accounts in the 2008 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson, whose edits were long-since stale for the 2013 checkuser check of Trasel:
  • Thomas Gooch (talk · contribs) — "who I know"
  • Logic11 (talk · contribs)
  • Flight-ER-Doc (talk · contribs)
• Single-purpose accounts in 2008 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wesley Rawles, whose edits were again long-since stale by the 2013 check-user check:
  • Matt mg (talk · contribs)
  • Mojoelvis (talk · contribs)
  • Flight-ER-Doc (talk · contribs)
  • one example out of several there of signature faking of an account that wasn't created (Special:Log/Kcs2c) until 7 months later.
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 23#James Wesley Rawles (closed)
• Article subject: Mzmadmike (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trasel/Archive points to this as a pattern, where at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Founders: A Novel of the Coming Collapse dormant accounts woke up to participate in the AFD discussion, as has happened here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Survive the End of the World as We Know It points out a connection between three people, the subject of this biographical article, James Wesley Rawles, and one Jeff Trasel. The Trasel sockpuppet-farm also edited James Wesley Rawles, not shown with diffs because there's quite a lot of it.

All of the new single-purpose accounts are, once again, failing to discuss sources and whether a biographical subject is properly documented by the world, making it likely that this 2nd AFD discussion will be as de-railed by that as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Wesley Rawles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Z. Williamson were.

In retrospect, the "did not materially affect outcome of AFD" conclusion in 2008 at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Trasel seems quite wrong.

Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Proof of not just canvassing but harassment from the author's FB account [1]has been posted to the AfD by an IP. User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång where do you think we should go with this now? Doug Weller talk 15:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm involved at the AfD, but I think a block for User:Mzmadmike is in order for calling User:Fabrictramp a pha66otte and linking to their Wikipedia user page. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I was just reading through that, even found an interesting source. I have no idea whatsoever, this is new to me, slightly creepy though. Wait and see? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Doug Weller The behavior of User:Mzmadmike and his toxic followers is so far beyond the pale... note that they also tried to doxx @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Concur with Doug Weller but note that I am now involved at the AFD as well.--Jorm (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Recommending blocking the editor-in-question. I'd post more, but these 'edit conflicts' are annoying. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we want this guy around anyway: "You are proof that Pinochet did nothing wrong". All of his edits to Talk:Nazi Party are, frankly, insane.--Jorm (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I just made the sound my cat makes when he's got a hairball. [2] 73.76.220.8 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant "out of order" and have fixed that. @Fabrictramp: my ping failed. I've had 2nd thoughts about the block, we need to crack down hard on harassment. A community ban seems in order. I'll still vote Keep if the evidence is there. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree and support block/ban. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this. The AfD is definitely a train wreck, much like the previous one. Sadly, if someone had added the info about being a Hugo nominee prior to the speedy request, I wouldn't have deleted the article.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• this bit of slander created by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uncle_G). However, if you bother looking at my user page (which, granted, I just got around to updating, not that I'd really given a damn about it otherwise), you'll see that your casual insult is invalid. Unless I've been a sockpuppet since 2006. That your first impulse with "but I don't like what these people are saying!" is to accuse all and sundry of being sockpuppets is insulting. The groupthink that "oh, it MUST be sockpuppeting/canvasing because a group of people disagree with me!" is simply astounding. NB - moved to end of comment stack per request. Do NOT revert my comments again. Edit to add: Folks, your behavior _in these discussion_ is evidence of harassment.

- Speedy deletion for no justifiable reason other than personal preference (note no RfD, and the deletor didn't bother to check to see if there was a prior RfD - just went ahead and deleted the page immediately on their personal choice) - accusations of sockpuppet/meatpuppet against any account that disagrees with this behavior - reversion of comments, de novo - proposed group punishment. From further down this discussion: "and I would go so far as to consider putting in place a "zero-tolerance" policy for everyone he's canvassed so that he can't use his supporters to proxy for him in his ban". Given that the original accusation (canvassing) doesn't hold up, it's an attempt to silence a group because they say things that you don't like. Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment. This is all personally witnessed in the last 18 hours, and is supported by the change logs. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• "[...] the original accusation (canvassing) doesn't hold up" He quite literally rallied his fanbase on Facebook to vote Keep at the AfD in question. If that's not WP:CANVASSING by definition, then I don't know what is. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment" as a response to the undeniable evidence of WP:CANVAS violations through the facebook post and the attacks directly on the admin involved in the initial deletion, along with the attempt to classify Uncle G's evidence summation as "slander". This seems to be DARVO as a tactic. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    • So how, then DO you classify an attempt to label a dissenting an opinion as a sockpuppet (in the discussion) then refer it here for further action, in a <16 hour window? What's the evidence supporting the assertion (and "hasn't edited a lot in the last 4 months" isn't evidence. If, for example, he'd asked for "what's your background" prior to making the assertion, I could have done _what _ wound up doing_, and documented prior wiki presence. But he pulled the trigger on sockpuppet allegation with essentially no supporting evidence. Given that the use of the term is not just technical, but specifically to denigrate statements in disagreement with his position, it meets the definition of the term slander "1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." Hell, at least I've got a verifiable user ID tied to this discussion. You're posting anon.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Posting anon" -- sounds Shakespearean. "Wilt thou be posting anon, milady?" EEng 05:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Alas, we must post post haste.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rumplestiltskin1992: if you were not canvassed, how did you come by the article to post a "KEEP" as a collective within 30 minutes of each other? Did you have this one article on your "watch-list"? Why this article? If your old user account is your only prior editing account, then that also shows limited editing history and certainly no inkling as to why or how this page would end up on your watchlist? Are there are other accounts than Cprael that you haven't revealed you have edited under? It is not slander to suggest that a whole swathe of individuals all joined one conversation thread in order to make an argument in favour of someone that they support. Sockpuppet also does not require you to be a single individual (i.e. Mike himself). You can sock (or meatpuppet) as individuals, but the intent remains the same - an attempt to unduly influence a process, or give the illusion of weight and support. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I have created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mzmadmike to compile the evidence of the numerous puppets by Mzmadmike, whether they be socks or meats or meatsocks or sockmeats or bacon socks[3]. I ask that @Koncorde: or @Uncle G: or another experienced individual review it and if they feel necessary, set it to request further attention by the investigators. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Koncorde: @Uncle G: Apparently someone has decided that my attempt to follow the process to collect this information is "vandalism" and deleted it. That's sad. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Imadethisstupidaccount: just use your Sandbox. Koncorde (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

[[re|Koncorde}} I'm going to quote directly from WP:CANVAS "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." Note that there is an explicit requirement of intent _written into the guideline_. At the time that I joined the discussion, the ENTIRE post/thread consisted of the following:

- MZW Post: Deleted because it's not a credible page? + link to his personal page
Down to
-- Michael Z Williamson Well, if anyone can find the archive and restore, please do so.
That was it. I happened to be online at the time, on Facebook, and the post popped on a refresh, which is why I saw it, and responded on Wiki. My browsing history supports that, and I'll post _that_ if necessary. Within 12 hours I'd been labelled a sockpuppet (despite the fact that my prior account dates back to 2006, and with no independent contact). So... in that subset, show me the intention? Because intent is _required_ by the Wiki standard, as cited above. If you can't demonstrate intent, you have no argument. Further, there's the attempt above to further push the "sockpuppet" argument. It's insulting, and as demonstrated above, the entire line of argument (sockpuppeting as slanderous allegation, and yes, I DO use that word within it's definition; allegations of canvassing when intent _can not_ be proven) proceeds from false premises and a refusal to actually read and abide by the published standards.
What I'm especially bothered by is that this is turning into an edit war. Someone has now started an AfD for a second Baen author for, apparently, no other reason than they participated here, found out the other author's name, and decided to delete them too. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Wikipha66otes" and more from his asshatted moron squad. http://www.facebook.com/michaelzwilliamson/posts/1021742094188013

He makes a claim about predicting something that was proposed on Wikipedia by JayMaynard. And he calls for his supporters to start vandalizing wikipedia. And he says "they're all -ha66ottes" and "burn it to the ground". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.0.54 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, he said it _was_ a predictable action. Given the extensive retaliation that came out of the whole "Sad Puppies" mess, he has a legitimate point.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Link is broken. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

So how do we go around dealing with the meatpuppets? Seeing as a couple of users on Michael's Facebook thread (not necessarily just Michael himself this time) are starting to link to pretty much *any* politics-related BLP that is being nominated for deletion. --letcreate123 (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why every SFF author nominated for AfD has been a midlist Baen author, that every one of them meets the requirement for significance, and that not one other author, from any other publisher or political persuasion, has been so nominated? In this case, I would suggest that (a) correlation _is_ causation, and (b) that the continued assertion of meatpuppetry are an attempt to pre-emptively taint adverse commentary. In the legal community, there's a concept called SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). This smells like the Wiki version of that. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Besides the fact that I can't understand your first sentence (ie how can someone explain "that every one of them meets the requirement for significance"), are you saying you checked all deletion nominations for science fiction authors to know that they've all been midlist Baen authors? Doug Weller talk 10:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Seconding @Letcreate123:, what can be done about the WP:CANVASsed issues going on? The article subject has been continually posting some of the most vile things [4] I've ever seen come out of someone's mouth to encourage people not only to come to wikipedia but to engage in vandalism [5]. There is also apparently a private page where further WP:CANVAS may be happening. [6] "Dovid Steele If they are able to read your posts, come over to FREEHOLD" "Dovid Steele Group. Not so much a fan group as just a place for Mad Mike to hide. if you seek admittance please answer all the vetting questions as they are designed to weed out the leftwing freaks." as well as apparently one Larry Correia has put out to a private WP:CANVAS call at [7], as described [8] "Jeff Paquet Larry C has noted it, also and asked if any of his fans can help" 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

AfD's just been indef semi'd by an admin, that should hopefully cut out any more canvassing in there. Peeps will still prolly talk in the AfD talk page but hopefully it should bear no disruptive effect on the AfD itself. --letcreate123 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Williamson's still sore because his puffy-shirt glam shot didn't make the cover of Women's Wear Daily. EEng 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this [9] is so far beyond the pale. Written by Williamson: "Prediction: The next author's page the dog-fellators at Wikipee will try to sabotage is Brad Torgersen." Can the prohibition on WP:MEATPUPPET please be extended to his ban? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Also his followers are now making up falsehoods ("Alicia Stockton That's in line with the hierarchy. They apparently tried to go after John Ringo's page yesterday with zero success."). This is something to be aware of as they may themselves be planning something, and I suggest John Ringo and Brad Torgersen both be pre-emptively locked to prevent any bad faith activity. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Huh. I wonder if his friend who uploaded the silk-nightie picture has any pictures illustrating his interest in zoophilia and urolagnia. I was going to label him a "potty mouth" but I have the awful feeling that might turn out to be literally rather than just figuratively true. EEng 15:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

At this point simply deny recognition of any kind to whatever schemes he's executing off-wiki, including (but not limited to) his "predictions". AfD's already been protected, user's already been banned, meats will eventually be dealt with individually, and all will be resolved. --letcreate123 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Letcreate123: FYI, [10] happened right before a commenter on the Facebook thread wrote "Brad R. Torgersen's page has been nominated for Deletion...", and Williamson previously called for his followers to log out and vandalize. I am going to request page protection for John Ringo and Brad Torgersen on this basis. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Pre-emptive protections aren't a thing. That said, there's no harm in pointing them out here so that admins and rollbackers can watchlist the pages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Propose community ban on User:Mzmadmike for harassment

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

---

See above. I might reconsider if he deletes his post, apologises there and here and halts the thread, but I don't know if he can do the latter.Doug Weller talk 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm very reluctant to go down the road of blocking people for comments made off-wiki, even when they're about Wikipedia editors, unless they fall into very specific categories like credible death threats. Sure, his fans are being annoying, disruptive and unacceptably rude, but admins get that kind of crap every time they delete an article on anyone with any kind of fan-base. If there's recent evidence of him being problematic on Wikipedia, that's obviously a different matter, but most of his recent edits just seem to be routine and appropriate updates to articles. ‑ Iridescent 17:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• • @Iridescent: there was a time when I would have agreed with you. But I think things have changed and we need to be a lot less tolerant of off-wiki abuse. And in this case he started the thread with the abuse - I don't care about his fans, but it's not surprising that they are being disruptive in a thread where he starts with abuse. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• • So, what category does specifically posting a link to the admin's talk page along with screenshots of the userpage, and calling them a "pha66otte" around a group of people to whom abusive behavior and slurs of all sorts are all over the common discussion, fall into? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Because to me that looks like posting a giant sign and saying "sic 'em". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban. I don't think we want this person in our playground, and I'm not particularly fussy about how they're kicked out. As long as the actions/comments are legitimately connected to Wikipedia, as they are here, it's certainly within our purview to act. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Pointing your Facebook fans at a Wikipedia user and making anti-gay slurs toward that person... you've demonstrated that you aren't interested in being a productive member of our community. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban I have a real problem with long term incivility. Should have been dealt with earlier. And if he's aiming fans at Wikipedia or using his reach on social media to cause problems for Wikipedia or its editors, then he is de facto not a member of this community.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  addendum His actions on Wiki are appalling and evident of a battleground, not here attitude. This is in addition to his actions off wiki and would be sufficient if we discount his use of social media to recruit meatpuppets to not only affect a consensus discussion but to harass editors he finds problematic to his his nothere agenda.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban - per p. much everyone else.--Jorm (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban - long term incivility and harassment. --MrClog (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support and pace Iridescent. The main difference here is that the fellow's deliberately relying on us ignoring what goes on in the rest of the web to give the site and our members a digital kicking. That kind of makes us enablers, and even if pour encourager les autres is not policy, it still very much applies philosophically. Or it bloody well should, anyhows. ——SerialNumber54129 18:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't mind him venting about it on Facebook, even if he did get his fanbase all stirred up. We can't hold that against him. But linking to the admin and calling them a "faggot" can be seen as nothing other than a blatant attempt to incite harassment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Can't say I've come across this before, but reviewing the above... yeesh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. (see below) I don't see the harassment. I see misconduct and canvassing, certainly, that may rise to the level of a block or some other sanction. But complaining about a particular Wikipedia editor off-wiki is not harassment. No matter how upsetting it may be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Also support indef block per WP:NLT following this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    •  Done.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Where is this "pha66ot" comment everyone's referring to? Has he edited the Facebook post? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The original comment link is [11]. He may have deleted that particular comment but he left up another one making fun of the admin's user page that was just below it. He seems to have deleted one or two more subthreads on the Facebook post once they were noted to the deletion discussion as evidence, as well. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I can now support community ban for disruption. I note that the FB discussion has now been deleted, which is great (I don't know who deleted it, though I'm reasonably sure someone reported it to Facebook). Anyway I still can't support based on harassment because frankly I don't think it rose to the level of harassment, and was rather off-wiki whining for which I'd prefer to deny recognition. That said, the canvassing and disruptive, offensive commentary on-wiki (including the legal threat) rise to the level of sufficiently disruptive to merit a CBAN. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Most likely he got a timeout from Facebook when Facebook deleted it. He has at least three accounts that he uses in alternation on Facebook to avoid bans there already, under the names of "Michael Williamson", "Michael Z Williamson" and "Michael Z. Williamson". The #2 sockpuppet facebook account, which uses a playboy bunny skull-and-crossbones icon, posted this [12] right after leaving a note that "My similarly named friend got a 30 day ban...". Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support, per editors' recent actions at the article-in-question & his recent comments at that article's Afd. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww. [13] I think this has taken the cake. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban, clear indications of WP:NOTHERE including recent comments on the Facebook thread he's posted and recent edits to the AfD. --letcreate123 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban, and I would go so far as to consider putting in place a "zero-tolerance" policy for everyone he's canvassed so that he can't use his supporters to proxy for him in his ban - iff the article doesn't already fall under general/discretionary sanctions of some stripe. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

did you say sneakers?  Dlohcierekim (talk)

It takes a lotta nerve to label someone a pha66otte when you go flouncing about in a getup like this. But then of course his infobox says he's a "bladesmith".

-EEng

• He's already been indef'd under NLT. Comments like this one at the AfD are objectionable / offensive. WP does not need editors who view everyone else here as "vile, fat, basement-dwelling wankers who have appointed themselves the keepers of knowledge." Mzmadmike has made ~1800 edits over more than 10 years and yet knows so little of WP culture that he sees notability questions / an AfD discussion as his "readers [having] to abase, degrade, and humiliate themselves to document that [he, as] a best-selling, award-winning author with over 20 publications and 100 editions in 3 languages is more culturally relevant than a disgusting freak who was fucked to death by a horse" (a reference to this article). He asserts that it is his decision alone whether the article on him stays or not, and he has issued an NLT-violating threat (in comparably objectionable terms) in an attempt to impose his will. He's referred to editors as "fucking pathetic", declared that describing the Nazi Party as of the far-right in "delusional crap" and that the Nazis "were left wing, and claiming otherwise requires mental contortions that indicate insanity". These led to a warning on his user talk page, which was not his first warning about civility (after this comment). He has blogged criticism of WP offsite (which is fine) but also named editors he disagrees with and linked to the on-wiki discussion, which is problematic. I support a community ban as I don't believe that Mzmadmike shares WP's goals and values and doubt that will change. EdChem (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• I was going to block for the edit linked by 73.76.220.8 (EEWWW) but found the NLT block there. I'm going to go revdel some of that, so look quick.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Request closure or this is going to turn into another train wreck as the AFD. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to state the words, "This person is banned", and not just "let's stop talking about this because they're blocked now". Here's why: The former makes a statement about expected behaviors and a precedent; the latter shuffles the problem to the future. Saying now, today, "This behavior gets you community banned" can help short-circuit discussions in the future.--Jorm (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The indef can be lifted by any individual admin, but a community ban can only be overturned by the community. That's what we need here. We keep his article, because he is notable, but we don't keep him in the community.

On a personal note, as a science fiction reader, I'm glad that I've never read anything by this (Redacted), and hope to never do so in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Community ban, obviously. EEng 04:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Community ban This person has behaved in an abominable fashion, both off-Wiki and here on Wikipedia. He has chosen his fate as an editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban He's done his dash on WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with users Jorm and Cullen328 above. Rong Qiqi (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• clarification While I am vile and fat, I do not have a basement to dwell in.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  My goodness, I wish I had a basement to dwell in. It'd be like a palace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  We used to dream of having a basement. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  We were evicted from our basement; we had to go and live in a lake. Rong Qiqi (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Luxury! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Currently looking for a basement. Willing to share with three Yorkshiremen. Vile/fat optional, but must have own socks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban. Full disclosure: I am one of the fat vile people who voted for "No award" above his book in the 2015 Hugo vote, and I am not going to get involved in the AfD (because of that and also because it makes me feel vaguely unclean.) However, that doesn't disqualify me from evaluating his behaviour as an editor. He is not here to improve Wikipedia, and his attacks are of course completely inappropriate. And like Dlochierekim I have no basement. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban- I as a card-carrying member of the Fat Vile Basement-dwellers' Association agree that this person is not here to constructively edit the encyclopedia. He's a deeply unpleasant and disruptive person. Reyk _YO! 11:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban - This Fat Vile Homeowner must show solidarity with his basement dwelling kin by confirming that this sort of comportment is inappropriate in the extreme on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support community ban - Sadly, I have to support this and I'm a pretty avid reader of Williamson and generally support his views. His actions here and on Facebook are not excusable though and especially in the current environment, show willingness to belittle and harass those with differing views. I'm even more disappointed that he apparently deleted the discussion on Facebook without so much as an apology. Take responsibility for your actions, don't try to hide them. I'm also a bit disappointed in some of the comments here that are stooping down to his level. Be better than that. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose ban An established writer understandably gets a little upset when someone anonymous suddenly declares them not notable. Canvassing, if you can call it that, was done by the writer, not the user. Get over it. I see no legal threat. Almond Plate (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  I will pursue whatever legal remedies are available if this page is not removed. was posted by Williamson, and is unquestionably a legal threat. Canvassing, if you can call it that, was done by the writer, not the user. Wikipedia sees no distinction between a Wikipedia contributor and the person who operates that account. Community bans like these are directed at the person operating the account, namely Williamson himself, and not merely his account. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The diff Mendaliv is referring to can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Z._Williamson&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=907294524&oldid=907286075 (scroll down a bit) Rong Qiqi (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:CAN pertains to editors, and there is no legal remedy available, so how can that be a threat. It's just words. You know, the tools of a writer. Almond Plate (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of if a legal remedy exists, the mere threat of a lawsuit has a chilling effect, as few people can afford to defend themselves in a civil suit. It doesn't matter if the threat has merit, what matters is the threat to drag you into court to waste your time and money, which exists as a technique to get your way. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Words have meaning, and our community matters. "Get over it" is the cry of those who wish to harass with impunity, because "it's just words." Sorry, that's not how it works. We're empowered to determine whether someone's choice use of words makes them a net negative to our community and, if so, whether or not we want to allow them to continue to participate. As usual, xkcd on point: Free Speech. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  We are supposed to look beyond the heat of the moment. A ban over something this small has a chilling effect on everyone. It will all be over when the AfD ends, which will be any moment now, and then I want to allow him to participate again. Almond Plate (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support community ban - His comments here and on Facebook are beyond the pale, It's one thing letting off steam about someone but to link them and then call them <that word> is on another level of stupid, Get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 15:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• reply to Almond Plate And he is free to pursue whatever legal means he pleases. We simply block from editing anyone who makes a legal threat. But that is just one example of his nothere behavior. The incivility alone is a sufficient reason to block or ban him. And his words, his writer's words, are the vehicle of his incivility. Should we shrug those off as well. What an excuse, "I'm a writer, so I should not be blocked or banned for what I have written, regardless of how hurtful." We are all writers here, of a sort. I cannot understand your need to defend him.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand why experienced editors waste their time with someone like Almond Plate. AP created their account on September 18, 2018. They have made 184 edits since then. Their first edits to project space are to this dicussion and the AfD, and their comments are ludicrous and will have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think they're assuming good faith of an editor who, so far, has spent 80% of their time in articlespace and so has not proved themselves a net negative. Having said that, I'll bet my shirt—per BEANS—that should anyone dig out that-which-is-not-pixie dust, any issues—apparent or otherwise— would find themselves instantly resolved. Meh. ——SerialNumber54129 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• aside on irony If his writings "violence" motiff is an offshoot of the views of violence in RAH's Starship Troopers, in Johnny's Moral Philosophy class, When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”, then I hope he appreciates the irony of the situation. I'm sure Mr. Heinlein would. Now there is a writer that is notable.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Pile on Support User is clearly WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia and is a net negative to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• Net negative to the project. Support ban. (it's been 24 hours, I think this is pretty close to closure time). -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

NAC?

This got closed by a non-admin. I'm not opposed to the closure and think the call is right, but I'm reasonably certain non-admins aren't allowed to conclude someone is banned, though I can't find an explicit statement of policy to that effect. And the fact that this guy is already blocked means an admin doesn't need to do dirty work. Even so, I think an admin should "confirm" the close real quick. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh hold up, Rockstone35, you !voted and then closed. Even if you were an admin that wouldn't be permissible. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-admins are allowed to close community discussions, including bans. I've seen it done before, and I'm fairly certain that I have done it at least once in the past. However, like I said in the summary, if this is too soon or if we want to wait for an admin, I have no problem with it being reversed. !voting and then closing is permissible though, see here. An uninvolved user is someone who has no bias or conflict of interest, not someone who has no opinion about the situation. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: Per WP:CBAN (my emphasis): If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly and enacts any blocks called for. You are both involved (by supporting the ban) and not an administrator, so you have no business closing this discussion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

+1 - You cannot vote and then close the dicussion, I would suggest Rockstone35 you repoen this and allow an admin to close it - Whilst consensus is blindly obvious IMHO closures like these should be left to admins. –Davey2010^Talk 20:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tavix: while I don't disagree with the "uninvolved" part, the rule does not prohibit uninvolved administrators from closing ban discussions, at least how I read it, it only requires them to notify the subject. I think we should update the policies to make it clearer. I promise I'm not wikilawyering, I just thought that closing this was okay. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that sentence. It's obvious (to me) that all of those things need to happen at the same time by the same person, but I can see how someone might have read it differently before. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tavix: You're welcome! Thank you for removing the now-extraneous sentence. The other reason I was confused is because the non-admin closures page only prohibits closures which require an action by an administrator for technical reasons, which in this case, since the user is already indefinitely blocked, it doesn't. I think the page needs to be completely reworked because it really only talks about deletion discussions. But that's another topic. I edited the page on non-admin closures to clarify, feel free to review and revert if not necessary. Edit: was in wrong section, will reevaluate. All the best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• I reopened the discussion. Users who voted can not be the closers. This is the original close (with the original timestamp):--Ymblanter (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  (non-admin closure) It's been 24 hours (the time required for consensus to form), and the community's consensus is overwhelming to support the community ban. Thus, Mzmadmike is banned indefinitely by the community for harassment and incivility. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

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

An issue has arisen Linked to this [[14]]is claiming that a specific user is linked to a Facebook account. Now I am not up enough on the inns and outs of the SPI to know if this user is in fact the same as the one on the facebook account. But if not it may well be a case of outing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the Freehold Facebook site.[15] Doug Weller talk 16:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, if a user does not say they are userxxx on facebook we cannot say they are, even of the face book account userxxx say they are the wiki user. They have to admit to it here, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Does this [16] count? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a link to a Facebook page there, although the links are sufficient to show that the Wikipedia account belongs to the writer -- but did anyone really doubt that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I withheld judgement, after all any one can claim to be H G Wells. But the links confirm it is himSlatersteven (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI Report Denniss: Abusive Behavior

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

• Denniss has been harassing me lately by threatening to get me blocked over tags that was reviewed by me. Intentionally removed tag that was not placed by me. He intentionally undone a non disruptive edits made by me in the Ryzen article. He blindly undone the article. 12
• He also abused the Twinkle feature on me deliberately after not reviewing edits i made on article. 3
• With obvious doubts, He more likely directed a group or individually used each accounts to try get me blocked for WP:Sock -- It led someone else to start case for sock against me. (maybe directed also) 1
• 2a01:cb08:8aed:e00:dc:2709:6068:db9c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a01:cb08:8aed:e00:c0d:5307:1ddd:eda3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:C0D:5307:1DDD:EDA3/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There maybe more. Keep saying i am those ip in a false manner - 1 2

Excessive use of undo`s in many articles. 1

I do not care if Denniss been here for 14+ years. He does not have upper say of anything. This no longer a content dispute. This is a attempt by Denniss to get rid of a individual who actively in good faith to do a general fix on a article with major issues since 2017. Enough is enough from this user. Regice2020 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Driveby tagging is a bad idea. There ought to be an accompanying talk page note explaining the reasoning behind the tag/s. El_C 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The talk page is highly inactive unless something happens to the page like move request or deletion were feedback are collected apparently. Regice2020 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Or the page gets tagged as an advert? Maybe that, too. We don't know because that discussion was not attempted. El_C 03:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup they do not want someone fixing then someone need to tag it based on feedback collection. I mean the product Ryzen 3000 series just released early this month. Many AMD buyers (the AMD fanboys) are just to excited on comments are being directed from a outside source to here. Denniss behavior against me is very unacceptable something need to be reviewed. Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup? I'm confused. What are you agreeing with? You added a tag without an accompanying talk page note, which I'm saying was a mistake. El_C 03:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Does removing wrong warnings [supposedly placed by them?] from one's own user talk page really count as "excessive use of undos in many articles"? Edible Melon (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• In June 2019, you added three tags to the article, Regice2020, backdating two of them to May 2017. There was only one tag actually placed on the article in May 2017, and it was not any of those. This is clearly one of the points at issue, given the edit summaries and two talk page sections discussing this, Talk:Ryzen#Too technical? and Talk:Ryzen#Multiple issues, in which you have taken no part. Why did you back-date these tags when you added them to the article, Regice2020? Why have 24 out of the last 28 edits to the article in the past week been you and an IP address edit warring against others over the tags with zero use of the talk page? Given this on this very noticeboard from a month ago, where are your efforts to talk to people? Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This issue revolves around Fancruft. Oh boy Let me get something cleared up. During my United States Timezone July 8, 2019 and announcements in May 2019~June 2019 - New products recently released. (Ryzen 5 3600 (6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 5 3600X(6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 7 3700X(8Cores/16Threads), Ryzen 7 3800X(8Cores/16Threads), and Ryzen 9 3900X(12 Cores/24 Threads). The AMD fans were excited and decided to spread their overwhelmed comments after looking at outstanding benchmarks (performance results of a product) on news articles, social (reddit/facebook) and even directed to Wikipedia Ryzen article to put their fan comments here and got away. As part of the general fixes, i placed few tag in good will to guide other editors to fix after AFD Discussion since a specific group does not want others fixing their page. Ryzen talk page is inactive as i said unless something happens to that page. These are the same general fixes i do on MMA/UFC articles. I mean if you have someone posting a infected website, what will the good faith editors do? They do a general fix by removing it without use of article talk page. Its simple. Got Denniss saying i hide behind the ip its not acceptable. Regice2020 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What general fixes are you talking about? As far as I see, these include PROD, two requests for protection, AfD, a move request, drive-by tagging and [seemingly pointlessly] removing half of the page. Edible Melon (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, it very unusual for Denniss not the one to start the Sock puppetry investigation instead it was started by another user. This is very suspicious. Regice2020 (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I can reassure you I'm not a sockpuppet. I noticed the page being mentioned in the edit filter log for two days in a row and decided to look at it. Edible Melon (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Request Sockpuppet investigation to be expedited (Support or Oppose)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Regice2020 Request Sockpuppet investigation to be expedited to ending result because i feel like i need start a ANI against myself for allowing myself to be involved in this AMD Fanboys changing the Ryzen article. Community ban. Regice2020 (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have closed the SPI and semiprotected the article. @Regice2020: we have a no personal attacks rule. The next time you call someone a "fanboy" you will be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I am sorry @Ivanvector:. "AMD Fanboys" is not a attack. It refers to name of a group of excited AMD users coming into these new articles comments, social media and even directed to AMD Ryzen article to post their fan point of views over benchmarks. .Example of Behavior Regice2020 (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Regice2020:, you write I am sorry Ivanvector. "AMD Fanboys" is not a attack then IMMEDIATELY follow with an explanation where you explicitly use it as an attack. Really, really not your best move. -- Calton | Talk 10:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Huh? Calton Its like this. There are a specific group wanted to prevent a article from making fixes and improvement. So they throw a rock at me to make it look i am the bad guy.This ANI Report mostly on why group of individuals or a individual trying get me blocked for SOCK and you get Denniss saying i am those ip in a false manner repeatedly while i am focusing on general improvements on UFC/MMA pages due to a upcoming event. Regice2020 (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

asia countries page

AuH2ORepublican and several editors are in dispute over whether palestine should or should not be grouped with generally recognized states or non un, non recognized states. Lo meiin (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin You must notify any other users you report to this page. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

331 dot I already did that Lo meiin (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Boomerang. It seem fishy that, Lo meiin, you did not edited those page nor their talk pages, and then as a new user, knew the way to ANI. Your first edit (that on not deleted page), was sending ANI-notice to AuH2ORepublican. Matthew hk (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to get a check-user sweep of Lo meiin against [nil Arabistan's was probably slightly more battleground based. Lo meiin - could you provide some diffs for AuH20's unilateral recategorisations on other pages. Depending on circumstances it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so, per bold, revert, discuss. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)] (the other primary party in the dispute), given that Lo meiin's handful of edits all focuses (from the start) on AuH20. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that Arabistan has been suspended or anything (I certainly haven't reported to third parties his abusive behavior against me or his POV edits), so I assume that he created this sock account in order to make it appear that there is a larger group of editors protesting against the compromise reached by consensus around a year ago on how Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara are categorized in Wikipedia articles listing sovereign states. I further suspect that the use of this IP starting on July 15 is another sock account of his: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.42.250.60 AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I left a similar comment in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arabistan already. Matthew hk (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Arabistan has made similar edits, but unlike him, I have not engaged in inflammatory jibes against any user. And also unlike him, I am committed to working with Au20 and all other editors to reach a compromise on this perennial dispute. And yes, I have made similar edits because it was just a way to bring attention to this dire issue. I regret all the inflammatory rhetoric and actions of all sockpuppets directed toward Au20 and all other editors (and also the despicable remarks Arabistan made towards pro-Israel Pacific Island nations) affected and I vow not to engage or associate with any of their activities (and tbh my name Lo meiin is indicative that I do not have a personal bias for either the Arab/Islamic states or Israel in this conflict, thank you.) My position stands as that both the states of Israel and Palestine should not receive differential treatment from all other generally recognized states on wikipedia, a major source of reference for many worldwide, and that is the consensus of wikipedia in general ( see list of sovereign states). I would also like to mention that Au20 has changed several articles to categorize palestine as not generally recognized unilaterally where it was already mentioned as generally recognized, such as countries by capitals in their native language and countries by land area, so he's in no position of accusing me of being an NPOV. Thank you Lo meiin (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Lo meiin (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• So the SPI case has closed as unrelated - I apologise to @Lo meiin:. Nosebagbear (talk)
• Returning to the original issue, I feel that both AuH20 and Arabistan were acting uncourteously in the primary dispute. Arabistan's was probably slightly more battleground based. Lo meiin - could you provide some diffs for AuH20's unilateral recategorisations on other pages mentioned. Depending on circumstances it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so, per bold, revert, discuss. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear, I dispute your characterization of my communications with Arabistan as "uncourteous"; I certainly did my best to hold my temper while dealing with insults from the latest inexperienced editor who jumped right into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from Day One. (As an aside, I guess that the restrictions on new editors being involved in edits that concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict no longer are enforced.) I would posit that it is not uncourteous to point out that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state, and I have written nothing negative of the Palestinian people; the same cannot be said for most single-issue editors who exclusively edit articles to group Palestine among generally recognized sovereign states, as their vitriol towards Israelis (and, often, Anericans) shows up within a week or two of signing up as editors. I trust that @User:Lo meiin will live up to his word and doesn't follow in the footsteps of so many prior editors whose sole apparent interest (and writing style) were similar to his.

Regarding the merits of my dispute with Arabistan to which Lo meiin has devoted every single one of his edits and actions, it simply is not the case that the State of Palestine "must be grouped" with generally recognized sovereign states just because it is a UN observer state. The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City. Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo, is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.

The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then it should be grouped with states with general international recognition.

In the meantime, I share the sentiment held by proponents of the State of Palestine here in Wikipedia that it is wrong to group Palestine with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as Abkhazia or Northern Cyprus. For this reason, I support the compromise reached by consensus several years ago of grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara--each a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition--together in a separate category. While these four de facto sovereign states do not come close to the level of international recognition enjoyed by, say, Slovenia or Bhutan, neither are they completely or overwhelmingly unrecognized states like Somaliland or Transnitria. I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states.

I welcome comments from all interested editors and trust that we can reach a consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• @AuH2ORepublican: As a critical note, the correctness of the argument is a content dispute, which this isn't the venue for (you can be right or wrong, and still be uncivil). As a fairly important point, someone (presumably accidentally, it doesn't look willful) has managed to merge my two comments up above, so they now read...oddly. To clarify I felt that Arabistan was being more discourteous and WP:BATTLEGROUND than yourself. Re-reading, I'm unsure about the sarcasm of several points, so that should probably be re-clarified as significantly more discourteous. Nosebagbear (talk)
• Importantly, though, neither editor has become egregiously, "think of the children", rude. The conversation is not currently active. I feel this would be better settled as "Deploy dispute resolution, such as Third Opinion, and everyone remember to walk softly when discussing dynamite". Nosebagbear (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Au20 from my observations, you have made uncourteous remarks towards Arabistan by labelling him a PLO propagandists and have depicted Palestinians are a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people, and I have seen no attacks against Americans by pro Palestine advocates. Furthermore, coming from a country with issues of its own with the US - China - I kind of see where some Palestinian advocates are coming from and they certainly don’t hate Americans, but the American government. I also know how it feels how, similarly to Palestine, the western world for some time left the PRC in the cold, despite the majority of the other countries recognizing us. Furthermore, Au20 has made many arbitrary edits without consulting other editors concerning categorization of states and is blind towards the fact that most countries that are against Palestine are western world countries that take Israel’s side. The consensus is actually that UN members and observers are considered distinct from the 9 states with partial/no recognition and Cook Islands and Niue. Despite this, and despite nose bag bear confirming this established position, and that the rest of the country pages on Wikipedia stipulating so, Au20 decides to stubbornly revert the corrections made. Btw, the un does call Palestine the state of Palestine, and the rest of the states have 102 and less recognition, while Palestine has ~140/193

Lo meiin (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

POV-pushing at Serbs

Obsuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is edit-warring at a fast pace adding unsourced POV about Serbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) not being a nation and unsourced OR about the the terms "Serb" and "Serbian". Characteristically, their last edit-summary is "truth". I think this heavy-handed POV needs to stop and this user needs a block. Dr. K. 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you and Mm.srb or how is he called are pushing POV and not letting others add true content to the page because you don't like it personally. Please learn what is a POV. Content on Wikipedia does not need to be sourced; add {{fact}} if you think it's arguable or controversial but do not edit war and revert with no reason, removing all my additions. You need a block, and everyone who makes edit war with no reason. --Obsuser (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Obsuser has broken 3RR multiple times on Serbs. We need a block asap. I will also open a report at 3RRN. Dr. K. 12:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Dr.K. also broken 3RR on Serbs. We need a block asap. I will also open a report at 3RRN. --Obsuser (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• No, I have not and retaliatory reports will not help your eight (yes, 8) reverts at Serbs. Dr. K. 12:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Mm.srb also broken 3RR on Serbs. We need a block asap. I will also open a report at 3RRN. --Obsuser (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
• We are trying to keep the article stable and not let the sort of hate speech go by freely. Denying the existence of a nation and putting up local tabloids and POV nationalistic authors as sources is not the way to go. Mm.srb (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have just blocked for several reasons. 1) clear edit warring 2) Obsuser clearly acknowledged that they would be blocked the next time they added unsourced information to Wikipedia with I know and immediately proceeded to re-add unsourced information 3) removal of information without providing sources to support 4) refusing to engage with the community and talk but instead continuing to edit war. This being said the other editors in this situation didn't help, but inflammed it. Remember continual reversion of edits is only acceptable in cases of clear vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Upon clearer review of the edits, Mm.srb has also been blocked for extremely clear edit warring also. Dr K has not been blocked on purely technical grounds, despite the fact that they clearly know about the edit warring rules. Every editor involved in this was at fault here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My only mistake was that I reverted 3 times trying to stop the POV-push. I should have reverted once or twice. But I stopped my revetrs and did not continue them. I opened an ANI report and a 3RRN report after I stopped my reverts. The article is still at the blocked edit-warrior's version and I did not revert because I have stopped the reverting on my part. But you know what? You can have the article at any state. If that is what I get for trying to stop the POV-pushing, I will not edit this article again. It is simply not worth getting involved in such crap and being threatened with blocks. Dr. K. 12:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

That was a clear content dispute that should never have gotten to where it did. 2 people have been blocked over it now. This should have gone to the talk page instead of continual reversions and is clearly a content issue, not obvious vandalism. And as an Admin I will not roll back the article to another state as that would be taking sides in a content dispute and presuming one editor is correct over another. That being said you're more than welcome to continue editing the article, just not to keep reverting other users in an edit war. Just take the disputes to the talk page or ask other neutral parties to intervene instead of continual reversions of other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 12:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it was not a clear content dispute. It was POV-pushing of unsourced content by a WP:TRUTH-quoting user. And I did I take it to the talkpage, but the other editor did not respond. As I said above, my only mistake was that I pushed my reverts to three instead of one or two. And no, I am taking Serbs off my watchlist. It doesn't pay to try to stop POV-pushing zealots if I am going to be threatened with blocks and be given warnings after stopping the reversions. Simply not worth it. Dr. K. 12:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No, it was not a clear content dispute. It was POV-pushing of unsourced content by a WP:TRUTH-quoting user. That's called a content dispute. And the user that you had the dispute with was present on the talk page. Did they just not respond fast enough for you? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't get excited. You are defending the insertion of unsourced OR. The material speaks for itself. I assume you understand obnoxious OR POV when you see it. Here it is:

Adjective for the English term Serbs (i.e. Serb in its singular form) is "Serb" and not "Serbian", which is adjective for noun Serbians (i.e. Serbian in its singular form) or for noun Serbia. Note that Serbian language uses inconsistent form of the adjective for denoting national Serbs (Serbians) affiliation, српски / srpski (instead of србијански / srbijanski, per noun for the country Србија / Srbija; adjectives србијански / srbijanski are used with proper meaning in Bosnian language, that of country/national affiliation); thus српски / srpski denotes both national (Serbian) and ethnic (Serb) affiliations, due to Serbian ethnic nationalism.

In addition the edit erased that "Sebs are a nation". Now, if you think this homemade crap classifies as content, let's just agree to disagree. And no, they did not respond to me when I told them on the talkpage to supply sources for their unsourced WP:TRUTH. They rapid-fire edit-warred instead quoting TRUTH, and other nonsense. Dr. K. 02:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I am baffled that a POV pushing on something as absurd and incorrect as nation denial was treated the same way as reverting those edits. The refs given were and are propagandistic garbage. It was not a content dispute but a clear case of POV zealot, who has quite a ban history on Serbian Wikipedia. I'm not pointing fingers here, just stating the facts. This was a nice example of misuse of freedom of speech... Dr. K. neatly explained the rest. Mm.srb (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Somaliland PoV pushing

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golis_Mountains&action=history&offset=2019072515&limit=9

I smell off-wiki coordination. The last user already had blocks for similar PoV edits, hence bring it directly here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what seems to be the issue. I edited the article to indicate the Golis mountain range was in Somaliland, similar to how the Alishan Range article indicates that the mountain range is in Taiwan and not China. As with Taiwan, Somaliland is a de facto independent country. Koodbuur (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. And whether or not you were recruited, your edit was clearly disruptive. Would you care to answer whether you were coordinating off-wiki? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No. I had the Golis Mountains article in my watchlist, and made my edit without taking into consideration prior edit warring between other editors. I apologize if my edit was disruptive as I did not intend to engage in an edit war. Koodbuur (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian date vandal

User 189.47.93.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be exclusively vandalizing dates in numerous articles. They also seem to have done this from 189.47.88.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) where they received a block for persistent unsourced edits in January, and probably from other IPs that I haven't found yet. The changes are mainly to terms of office of politicians, and often to dates that are unsourced in the article. All their edits are at the least unsourced, but so far I've verfied that that they're actually false in the articles Zalmay Khalilzad, Robert Finn (diplomat), Phil Gordon (politician), Joe E. Kernan, Paul H. O'Neill, and Berlusconi II Cabinet. I've reverted those to the correct dates that had already been in the articles, and added reliable sources for them. The change to Estelle Getty was already reverted as unsourced; it also contradicts multiple sources, though I haven't yet found one reliable enough to add to the article. Since the date-changing seems to be all they do, and all the ones I've verified have been wrong, I'm convinced that this is a pattern of deliberate vandalism. Some of the dates in the other articles are a bit obscure and hard to find sources for, but I think the changes should be reverted anyway, as it seems very likely that they're all fake. --IamNotU (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like this is probably the same person as the IP that was previously blocked, but I gave a warning. I guess ping me if they continue to change dates (or report to WP:AIV). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll report back if they keep doing it, and probably revert their other edits as unsourced [looks like MarnetteD beat me to it - thanks]. I also looked further back in 189.47.* and found 189.47.95.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who received warnings and a block for the same kind of numerous improbable date changes. That's all I could find. I thought maybe someone would recognize them - since those three IPs each did many date changes a day, but only for a couple of days each, I'm guessing there must be a bunch more IPs, but I don't know where to look. Not that I have time for another project right now, but I thought I should point it out... --IamNotU (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish personal attacks

In this edit, User:MarcusBritish doubles down on his personal attacks on me that he started in an RM discussion here. I understand that he has some things to argue about, but this is not the way. His personal attacks should be stricken. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you quote the part that's a personal attack? I'm not really interested in reading someone's manifesto. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: At a guess, it's within these last sentences. The proposer is out of his depths here, trying to revise a topic in which there are editors far better suited to the job. Proposer's claim "most sources don't cap it" is a lie. His dating is selective, misleading and abuses the notions of editing in good faith. Finally, proposer is on a never-ending crusade to rename all "Campaign" articles, without waiting for discussions between other members to reach consensus. This is disruptive editing loaded with mishandled evidence and contempt for English standards. This is deviant attempt to Americanise historical articles. How does an RBMK reactor explode? Lies. I've applied bold to what I'm guessing may be the personal attack. Amaury • 05:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he accuses me of lies and bad faith, but the entire paragraphs are personal attacks. Instead of focusing on the issue, he is talking mostly about me, as he perceives me. He talks about my past, my country and state of origin, my career, etc., all as part of saying why I'm not fit to argue my point with him, a military historian. I agree it's a huge wall of text; it should all be stricken, rev-del'd, and then he can be invited to try again if he can do so without the attack. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

To quote the start from my second link (and there's more that came in earlier threads, easy enough to find since he has very few edits this year doing anything other than arguing to capitalize "Campaign"): N-grams produce spurious results that don't tell the whole truth. Neither does the proposer. He doesn't use genuine references, only cons the community with cherry-picked samples. Has no genuine interest in history, and probably doesn't own a single historical text. Editors should stick to what they know and not meddle in areas they have no clue about. This is too personal and accusatory of bad faith. He can make points about N-grams without attacking me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like MarcusBritish was subject to an indefinite block from 2014 to 2017 for unspecified reasons, but it apparently involved "continued personal attacks" and a "harassing email". So, maybe MarcusBritish should tone down his rhetoric. If someone wants to strike a perceived personal attack, they can; however, policy forbids using revdel on personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The personal attack has been stricken from the RM discussion. Thanks. I care less about the bits on his talk page and the continuing untruths and attack below. Dicklyon (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hardly untruths when there are links to your own contradictory posts and made-up policies, a fine history of terminological inexactitudes. I will be making sure all your military history based RMs are notified on the MILHIST notice board, which to date you have avoided doing, be sure of that. No more lurking in the shadows with only ignorant "yes" men and no expert editors being advised who might challenge your controversial moves, and rightly so. You should be advising MILHIST yourself, instead of trying to go behind the backs of editors who worked on those articles and put in far more effort than you on sourcing material. And I'm still not 100% convinced that you're not operating on behalf of Google but are unwilling to disclose your conflict of interest. — Marcus^(talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand now why Dicklyon has tried to subvert my complaints about his moving Campaign articles. In 2015 he was blocked for several months and returned under a standard offer that requires him to not engage in controversial actions such as mass page moves. That is precisely what he is doing now. I would like for an admin to please review the comment and links I left below, as well as Dicklyon's latest history of moves, which are en masse and have caused concerns at MILHIST, concerns that he has chose to ignore and work against. Ergo, he is in direct breach of his unblock terms, which are very specific and state no date when past blockable behaviour can re-commence. Untruths, he says. Unburied truths, I say. He has committed to circumventing those terms to achieve his goal. Again, I repeat my claims that this editor is tendentious and bad faith is the case; this is not an attck it is a foregone conclusion based on observation and evidenced patterns of behaviour. Doing exactly what the unblock offer told him not to cannot be construed into anything other than disrespect for the community process which sought to reintegrate him in the first place; an offer was made and has since been ignored. Since admins are meant to remain impartial, my concerns should be given due consideration. — Marcus^(talk) 20:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• 12 July Marcus criticises use of N-grams with links to third-party sources identifying shortcomings
• Dicklyon ignores comment; states that "no-one has shown that moves are controversial"
• 13 July Marcus indicates criticism comment and emphasises point that N-grams data is not verifiable
• Dicklyon admits "n-grams tell only a tiny fraction of the story" then claims "nobody is relying on n-grams as a 'reliable source' nor as the only way to look at usage in sources"
• Dicklyon states "I generally do look beyond n-grams, especially if the result is not overwhelming"

Since this discussion, in which N-grams were addressed, Dicklyon has proceeded to ignore opposition from MilHist members to use of N-grams to move articles to lowercase titles. According to his edit history he has continued to move a lot of military Campaign articles, many without even using Requested Moves, but in the case of RMs only ever used N-grams as "evidence", despite admiting that they only tell a tiny fraction of the story that he doesn't rely on, and demanding other editors use books to challenge him, contrary to WP:BURDEN. All N-grams results show differences between usage of trivial sums, like 0.0000001% differences. Shortcomings of N-grams include: Google scans a limited number of sources, OCR is not reliable for scanning upper/lowercase accurately, N-grams does not identify sentences, indexes, titles, captions, etc. And most vitally, N-grams does not link to its sources, which violates WP:V - N-grams can be seen both as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH given the nature of how the results are gathered and interpreted. In the case of Waterloo Campaign, Dicklyon made a conscious choice to only search titles from 1970 - those exorcising a potentially vast number of titles from 1815. I consider this his most obvious bad faith act. He uses these results as "evidence" to to trick RMs into a false consensus. He ignored the concerns abour N-grams, by palming me off with I am well aware of the limitations of such stats, but you seem to be confused by the numbers. No further reasoning, just prenentious a put-down so he could move on and wilfully ignore the concerns. The entire discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign runs in the same format - someone makes a comment, Dicklyon puts it down with his own POV and no-one but me maintains their argument. This includes the fact that Dicklyon interprets policy in his own fashion, is selective when it comes to policy, and even invents policy that doesn't even exist, such as today, when I challenged him on only sourcing from 1970 - something he has never done before - he claimed We usually focus on recent decades when discussing usage in sources and has yet to respond to me request for the policy that states anything of the sort is to be practiced. Why? Because he made it up, after biasing his data to broaden the N-gram in his favour. Bad faith not only assumed, but evidenced.

To summarise, please go see the Milhist discussion, the Waterloo Campaign discussion, as well as the "evidence" he presents at past RMs related to military campaigns (only N-grams, before and still despite concerns from multiple editors); consider the claims he makes that contradict one another and the policy he raises but does not link because it does not exist. Then you'll understand the frustration. Dicklyon is engaged in long-term disruptions which he handles via WP:CIVPUSH when challenged, as well as WP:PLAYPOLICY. This is not typical good faith behaviour, and so I stand by my right to challenge it, since it is so widespread. I don't care about my attitude, this is a matter of tendentious editing, with spurious evidence, ignores the concerns of MilHist, continues to move "dozens" (exact count unknown) of articles with no verifiable evidence, only this controversially unverifiable N-gram nonsense. Moves made using a source which cannot be verified. Dicklyon can shout all day about NCCAP, AGF and whatever other policy cares to invent, the fact stands, WP:V is a core policy, a pillar, a major requirement of any wikipedia article. He knows his data fails that test, yet persists, manipulates N-grams further, undermines policy and now he's here, trying to silence his greatest detractor. Because he can't prove his Google-sourced data is strong enough, he has to force his POV in, and that can only be achieved by manipulating searches, ignoring other editors, citing fake policy, not letting a consensus be determined. All bad faith behaviours. If anyone is not convinced that this stream of behaviour is questionable, they either need to open their eyes, or explain to me where I'm wrong. And I don't mean for Dicklyon to do that himself, given his conflict of interest, though he can attepmt to defend himself, as necessary. Maybe another "Poppycock" is all a common peasant like me needs, to stand corrected? Even though my opinions were "noted", no attempt was made to correct behaviour or seek alternative sources for future moves. N-grams is clearly wiser than all of us at Milhist, put together, since our concerns have not been heeded. That's one man's pretentious ego for you and yes, it disgusts me.

You can argue between youselves about my uncivil nature all you like, I don't really care what anyone thinks of me... but this is a WP:BOOMERANG case if you actually review the widespread amount of evidence regarding Dicklyon's current behaviour and crusade, which I have seen unfolding for several weeks, challenged at MilHist, but remains unchecked. I have never reverted his edits, nor !voted in RMs until now, my concerns have been made in only two places and have been supported, to some degree. So his comment above about "He can make points about N-grams without attacking me." Yeah, we tried that, many times. He swept our concerns under a mat and trod all over it, to continue revising article titles to the way he wants, and everyone at MilHist be buggered. Screw us military historians, with all our books and knowledge, if all we need is Google and their limited inaccurate data, let's burn down all libraries and make Dicklyon master of digitised world history. Because all this behaviour amounts to is authorative, anti-consensual and loaded with POV pushing behaviour because of its use of manufactured evidence that is not really evidence because none of us can see it. — Marcus^(talk) 06:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It sure looks to me as if Dicklyon is engaging in a mass pagemove attempt, and thus it's time to revoke the unblock. That indefinite block came after it was shown that he was happy to ignore basic policy, so why should we be surprised that he's happy to ignore those unblock conditions? Moreover, WP:CIR; I don't have to be a specialist in military history to know that the solid military history sources use "Campaign" in such contexts. If you're not competent in an area, stay out (that's why I don't do significant editing in medicine or speculative philosophy) and definitely don't violate your unblock conditions in a fashion that's already disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What? If Dicklyon behaves disruptively, then he should be straightly blocked. Who cares about conflicts from 2015 now? Don’t—please—make this site into a sort of ru.Wikipedia where ancient blocks are broadly used as a pretext for discrimination. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The moves in question started with a discussion on the MihHist project page, and have been discussed there at length. I still have not been able to elicit a single allegation that any of the undiscussed moves was improper – just generalized whining like Marcus's. About a dozen proposed at RMTR were challenged and went to RM discussions, where the consensus to follow our usual policies and guidelines was reaffirmed. My move log shows about 75 "Campaign->campaign" moves in 40 days, a rate of less than 2 per day; not exactly "mass moves". Most "XXX campaign" articles were already at the correct lowercase title, as the original discussion pointed out. Nobody has pointed out any MilHist move that I got wrong; nobody has reverted one or opened a discussion about why it was wrong or even controversial. Marcus and a few have made generalized complaints, but can't point to a case where my move was not with consensus, or had some reason to be considered controversial; I have asked. The project talk page has been involved; a small move to rewrite the style rules for MilHist didn't get much traction there. In addition, I've moved over 6000 other articles since my 2015 unblock, and have stayed away from trouble by only moving where the consensus is clear. When people have objected to their favorite area being downcased, I have engaged in good-faith discussions, and in almost all cases the consensus re-affirmed the reason for the moves, following policy and guidelines. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign for details. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A whole debate took place at MilHist. Dicklyon characteristically boils it down to "whining", which is an attack on multiple editors at MilHist. Proving he has chosen to ignore editors with issues and step over them, set his own standards, invent policy, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. He sets his own terms for what he considers a "valid complaint", despite a number of editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign having concerns regarding his moves. It is not up to him to set the terms of discussion or consensus. When someone raises issues with your edits, you stop to discuss. He has chosen to ignore and proceed. In violation of his standard offer, since these are mass moves which have been deemed controversial; 75 moves are a mass number, the timeline is moot here. There is no good faith here, rather a load of disrespectful scheming per WP:PLAYPOLICY. I believe @Keith-264 raised the initial concern regarding all these Campaign movea, and will ping him, incase he'd like to comment further. — Marcus^(talk) 16:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No Incnis Mrsi, it's not "ancient" or "ru" to uphold the terms of standard offers for unblocks indefinitely. I accepted an interaction ban in 2017, are you seriously suggesting that "when enough time passes" (subjective in itself) I can just throw that away and self-determine my own terms or ignore them altogether, go get up that other editor's nose and claim immunity based on "who cares anymore?" notions? If an unblock offer was set by the community via consensus, you respect the community, no matter how much time passes, you don't give them the two fingers when you feel you've had enough... I kind of find your claim that this would be "discrimination" hyperbolical/dog whistling/virtue signalling terminology. On what level is that even the case? It's more discriminatory to turn a blind eye to wilfully breaking standard offer terms, when we know for a fact that other editors are blocked for far less, mor often. An admin's duty is to maintain the integrity of the community, not overturn it! The whole point of offers by ANI/Arbcom is not to restrict editors, but to be lenient while also preventing further disruptions by giving unblocked editors a way of self-moderating the behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. This is effectively a breach of contract. The ru.wiki and en.wiki are two different cultures, no point comparing apples and oranges, that too could be seen as discrimination. All that said, I'm not saying I want to see Dicklyon indef, I'm just saying that I have gripes with his behaviour and having learned it got him blocked in the past, we can factually establish that he already knows it is considered disruptive, therefore he wilfully put himself back in this position. So it wouldn't be discrimination, it would be upholding the standard offer, which he has chosen to violate. So, to answer your "who cares?" - anyone who cares about the wiki community and genuinely respects consensus cares. — Marcus^(talk) 16:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m unable to find such person as Dicklyon anywhere in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. His unblock log doesn’t mention any specific restriction either, only a decision to unblock despite some IP socking. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI: User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here. Prodego talk 04:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC and Accept reason: Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. Prodego talk 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) - there's the community decision and admin performing unblock terms stated. No duration/end date for those terms was specifically set. Tell me, if you accept a standard offer are you at liberty to determine when you are able to no longer work in accordance with those terms? Wouldn't that make the purpose of consensus obsolete? As far as I'm concerned, it's a bit like being on parole – maintain good behaviour per the terms of your unblock. He accepted. Why should he be at leisure to ignore those terms just because "some time" has passed? Is a standard offer only a binding agreement until you get bored of it or because it hampers your editing agenda? If you think so, that kind of undermines the whole point of standard offers, designed to help once-disruptive editors stay on track. The socking issue was another discussion, I gather, but the terms of his unblock stand now, because he is editing now contrary to those terms. I wonder if the unblocking admin Prodego would agree with you the "who cares?" philosophy. — Marcus^(talk) 20:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: The Ping: I was surprised by a number of page moves all from X Campaign to X campaign. It was replied that mooted changes had been notified on the talk pages and that there was an N-gram giving campaign majority usage, which seemed to me to be insufficient. I thought that this N-gram was a blunt instrument that lacked qualitative validity. I think that Marcus is more right than wrong in this and that the proposer of Campaign campaign moves should bear the onus of showing why, not burdening others with the work of refuting his claims. Regards 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs)

Personnal attacks

• Possibly related : report above Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Denniss try to accuse me to be a sockpûppet. After Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Regice2020, he continue [17] [18] to accuse me to be a sockpuppet. It's not acceptable. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you edit-warring with them on their talk page using different IPs?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Denniss modify my messages many times. He give me warning whithout reason. I ask him to stop accusation of sockpuppet, but he clears my message and continue. I ask him to don't modify my messages, but he clears my message and continue. I don't want to be registred and i can't do anything for my moving IP. I don't try to hide. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The SPI was created by me, and I am, as far as I know, not Denniss. You (and other IPs in the same range) seem to be demanding respect. However, respect doesn't imply we have to agree with everything you're saying and doing. I don't think removing excessive indentation from a message is not acceptable, as it certainly doesn't alter the meaning (see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments, it mentions "fixing format errors"). The page Ryzen is definitely not under control of AMD right now (otherwise, you should be able to link to a few edits by AMD employees adding advertising-like content or something). It doesn't appear to be advertisement either to me. Edible Melon (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I have never says Denniss created the SPI. But he knows the result, and continue to accuse me. It's not the place for talking about Ryzen. 2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Why Denniss modify indentation? I talk to Sakkura, i don't speak to Carewolf. I ask to Denniss to don't modify my message. He clears my message from his talk page[19] and modify my message again [20]. It's not acceptable. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

If so, place your message where it should be. Edible Melon (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

How should 'Associated acts' disruption be dealt with?

Sorry, but I'm at a loss for where to ask this. Looking at pending changes, I came across 12.206.84.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has popped up today making changes to the 'associated acts' section of various rappers' infoboxes. Then I found 70.158.101.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) doing the same thing, on some of the same pages. Is this LTA, or just a common form of disruption? Should I go to AIV, SPI, or just assume good faith and revert per BLP? Would I be out of line to rollback all of these changes, or should I let someone more familiar with the topics take a look? In the past I've left these kinds of changes for others to review, but I'd like to get a sense of how I should approach this going forward. Thoughts? —Rutebega (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Same kind of edits also coming from 65.46.221.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), though that one does have about 50 edits dating back to 2016, and didn't take an interest in rappers until today. —Rutebega (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

These are both very likely long term abuse. Mass changing of Assosiated acts is a common thing you will see. StaticVapor message me! 22:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

STATicVapor, thanks, I had a feeling. I know I've seen it before a number of times, but never gave it much thought. Reasonable then just to mass-revert, and report at AIV if they're persistent? —Rutebega (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rutebega: many pending changes are inexplicable edits to infoboxes. Most infoboxes have instructions, and the associated manual of style may also help. For example: {{infobox person}} and MOS:DOCTOR both say that you shouldn't include "Dr." as an honorific in a BLP because it's too common. So, what you want to do is look at {{Infobox musical artist}} and see what it says about associated artists. As it happens, it has a list of uses that should be avoided. You can revert edits like that if you want. There isn't really an ideal place to report petty disruption that isn't vandalism, but ANI is fine. By the way, you can check an IP editor's geolocation by clicking on the "geolocate" link near the bottom of Special:Contributions. For some ISPs, this is pure guesswork, and for others it's pretty accurate. Schools are usually described as a business customer or are allocated to a local government. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks NinjaRobotPirate, that's very helpful. It didn't occur to me to check the template documentation for usage guidelines, but I figured it had to have been discussed at some point. Between Static and myself, most of the edits have been reverted, and these IPs have stopped at least for now, so I don't think blocking would gain anything at this point. Appreciate your input. —Rutebega (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

TracyMcClark July 2019

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

---

TracyMcClark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See previous discussion at AN/I concerning TracyMcClark and see final warning.

After final warning TracyMcClark stated Aha!? Any facts? No? Aha! As a result of that comment, TracyMcClark was topic banned for 6 months.

After being topic banned for 6 months from the e-cigarettes topic area, TracyMcClark stated "Your lack of fact-checking and your aggression (and else) towards me as a result is noted." TracyMcClark is not acknowledging the rude behavior. QuackGuru (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

TracyMcClark just wrote One more thing: You involved your personal feelings and punished me b/c I didn't agree with your personal assessment as a new administrator. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Srsly? Ignore it. Everyone gets grumpy after a block or ban. We allow somewhat more latitude on users' own talk pages. Unwatch it and go about your business, is my recommendation. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

After being given advice from JzG, TracyMcClark stated in the edit summary: "Don't play me for an idiot". QuackGuru (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, just a grumpy user after being blocked. It isn't a personal attack, so just Let It Be. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

TracyMcClark was not blocked. TracyMcClark was banned from e-cigarettes for 6 months. The last time I can remember TracyMcClark directly edited an e-cigarette related article was on 1 March 2017. That edit was reverted. TracyMcClark does not edit this topic area frequently. QuackGuru (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Odie Galvan

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

---

Hello when this editor Odie Galvan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to change/remove genres from various pages without explanation despite being warned to stop. I initially warned them a few minutes ago before noticing an (apparent) pattern in similar edits. The edits didn't appear to meet the description for vandalism so AIV didn't appear to be the proper venue to bring this up. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 04:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 24 hrs for disruptive editing. So many of their edits appear disruptive that I am tempted to treat this as a NOTHERE situation. If it resumes after the block expires, I would endorse an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Endorse block and warning.04:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)  Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Pasb Entertainment

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

---

Pasb Entertainment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) The user is already blocked as a vandalism-only account with a username violation (I don't see a username violation, but I assume somebody else does), but they don't seem to be using their talk page access productively (filter log: 1,2,3). Should talk page access be revoked? Edible Melon (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

As they are already blocked indef. and have made edits since I blocked them, I'm not sure what is needed.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That's actually funny as the edit filter stopped it. Let em vent, I say.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, well Y'all. It's been good knowing you. Revoking TPA  Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

Salasasa

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

---

Has been edit warring over at Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us‎ with edits like this one [[21]], but its not just edit warring we have this [[22]] The user has been warned (and ignored them) and its clear this is some kind of a game and they are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

And he is still at it [[23]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

They have now been blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

2409:4052:2115:152F::

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

---

• 2409:4052:2115:152F:0:0:1548:C8A4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An IP forges postings, making a pretense these requests and comments originate from registered users. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

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

OpenStreetMap advertising?

Noticed today we have maps being added all over that seem to push the use of OpenStreetMap. Not sure the value of these Wiki style maps that still have some copyright attribution attached to them. Do we have some sort of arrangement with this Wiki style map company to link and lead our readets to their external website in the lead of many articles? --Moxy 🍁 16:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It's mw:Extension:Kartographer. I personally think these OpenStreetMap-based maps are so poor-quality they're worse than useless and anyone adding them to Wikipedia should be obliged to give a specific rationale in each instance why these shitty in-house maps are more use to the reader than the alternatives, but since it's an official WMF initiative complaining about it would be pissing into the wind. ‑ Iridescent 16:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Crap is right.....are they working on making theses better? As of now they have very little value leading our readers away from Wikipedia in the lead. I believe they should be removed from the leads of articles untill they have some value (thinking of reverting spam that is taken seconds to add maps all over). These seems more like a Wikivoyage incentive. Was there a talk or just WMF crap....do we really need a road map of Canada on its main page I think not?--Moxy 🍁 16:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

They could also be politely described as "politically dubious"; pick the disputed border of your choice and have a look at how OSM treats it—e.g. the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are a part of Israel without even a dotted "disputed" line, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland and North Cyprus are independent countries… There's a reason "maps that anyone can edit" isn't a good idea. ‑ Iridescent 16:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Possibly one of the contributing factors here is the "WikiMiniAtlas" present in the top-right corner being somewhat sub-optimal in function. This is in comparison to eg. German Wikpiedia that uses a well-integrated OpenStreetMap link at the top, and has done for most of a decade. This reduces many of the situations where there might be a temptation to add extra map widgets. —Sladen (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd would support the removal of every one of these, How does showing a map of an insterstate or borders help our readers ? .... It doesn't imho, If I wanted to look at a border or a country I'd just use Google Maps. –Davey2010^Talk 16:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, but these maps are crowd-sourced. I've seen a map at West Los Angeles that has a fulsome error on it, which I had to counter by pointing out in the caption where the blamed thing came from. Let's move ahead on getting rid of these things. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I added "crowd-sourced" to the lead of OpenStreetMap, and I'll bet it will be taken down within just a few minutes. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Going to remove all over while pointing here for comments.--Moxy 🍁 17:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's literally an article about a road. Of course a map is going to be more helpful than not. Same for geographical localities, but yeah, sometimes the borders on OSM aren't accurate. epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

About notification

As nobody else seems to have bothered, I have notified @Kozuch: about this thread. DuncanHill (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Thank you but they have been pinged multiple times with a link here.--Moxy 🍁 17:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC) "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." - you have seen that every time you have edited here, and ignored it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Thank you for the leasson but as mentioned to you before the editors thus far has had 30+ notices all linking here.--Moxy 🍁 18:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC) So you think it's OK to notify people by pings when you've been explicitly told several times that it's not acceptable? DuncanHill (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Saw this from user talk:Kozuch. Not sure what part of these edits might ever be compared to "advertising": it's just standard content for articles. Hundreds of thousands of locator maps are in use on the English Wikipedia. Dynamic maps generated with Kartographer are used in millions of Wikipedia articles across languages because they are simply a more efficient way for editors to do the same. Nemo 18:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes they are used on articles about roads..but not sure how a user generated OR map with an external link in the lead about a state or countries roads that in many cases is not even mentioned in the article is all that relevant or sutibles in its OR form.--Moxy 🍁 18:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's your point. Wikipedia articles incorporate charts made by users all the time. Nemo 18:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct we do make them here backed by sources and that can be edited by the community...this is an external link with user generated content NOT Wikipedia's control. See also WP:OI--Moxy 🍁 18:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

These maps are edited by the same community and made in the very same way, see template:maplink for the details. The data is just stored differently, for instance instead of having a SVG file on Commons you may upload a file with some data points. The advantage is that instead of having hundreds of thousands of files, which are hard to maintain for Wikipedia users and easily attacked, you can store the data in a more manageable format. Nemo 18:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"Our contributors are thousands of individuals"----Moxy 🍁 23:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So? Are you trying to say it's exactly like the English Wikipedia? Nemo 23:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• My goodness, i would have to say i would support any proposal to remove all of these additions; was there any RfC or indeed a simple conversation about this addition? The quality seems so...amateurish, not to say poor, that i cannot see any benefit in adding them, especially where these is already a map in position, such as this, which i have already reverted. If there has not been a discussion, can we start one, please? Before we go any further adding these maps? Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support mass elimination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I am so sad to see my edits reverted. To keep the discussion polite and factual, I can only tell following:

1. Wikimedia Maps is an official project so this is no advertising at all. The link to OSM is a required attribution because of OSM license. These maps are so widely used on Wikimedia projects that I wonder you use so harsh words when the penetration of these maps on Wikimedia Commons or Wikidata is already so huge.
2. So sorry to see the users here attacking OSM by questioning its quality. OSM is the best free map data that exists. This is a fact that needs no further discussion. There simply is nothing that has better quality or is more complete under a free license. You are also attacking the OSM community which is very rude. So sorry to have to read this in 2019...
3. I really can not believe my eyes when I read you suggest to use "alternatives" of OSM, probably because of better quality. I understand this as direct proposal to use proprietary maps like Google Maps etc. because there simply is no other free project beside OSM of greater map quality. Wikipedia is a free knowledge project and you propose to use proprietary product... we should promote other free projects (like OSM is) to help these projects grow... Instead, you seem to propose the promotion of commercial products... This does not make sense at all.
4. As per my point #1 I think there is no real incident to talk about, because again the maps are meant to be used on WMF projects, are hosted and endorsed by WMF etc... --Kozuch (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is a complaint over something very minor, IMHO. These don't do any harm, and in cases like road articles, there is an obvious need for them. Can someone tell me how these are supposed to be bad? This sounds like a bunch of nonsense over nothing. Are we going to have to use Google, Bing, or some other copyrighted mapping service, or just let our readers be confused when there is an actual need for a map and it's not on an article? I guess if you're not regularly improving road articles or other articles about geographical locations, you wouldn't see the need for a map. epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The argument for not adding theses all over is pretty clear above....they are not editable by our community members to allow fixing..... they are user created content by a third party.... the quality is simply not encyclopedic..is an external link in the lead of our articles....is being added all over including articles that do not talk about roads in an manner. I could see this on Wiki-travel but here there is a much high criteria for mass inclusion.--Moxy 🍁 23:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think people want to take an extra step to click the external link in the coordinates template. That's why this map is more convenient. I'm not convinced by the argument that they're "not editable to allow fixing", since you can easily create an account there. I agree with not using the shapes from OSM, but not to remove the maps themselves. It seems like excessive harm almost to the point of vandalism, when the alternative is a static map, a copyrighted map (e.g. going to Google Maps after two clicks) or no map at all. epicgenius (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So as you mentioned not editable nor can we deliberate any problems here within our community WP:USERGENERATED at its best. Simply not reliable enough for Wikipedia....lets quote the warning they have posted...."we cannot represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of the information in maps".--Moxy 🍁 23:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Still not convinced by that. Almost all online mapping platforms are publicly editable due to the high number of changes that occur every day. I don't know if you're proposing to use outdated maps, or that WMF withdraw the mapping extension, or something else. All of these are unproductive and the WMF will do something like that when pigs fly. What we should be looking for is which one is more heavily moderated, and if these borders are inaccurate, there's even a guide to make your own borders and upload them to Wikimedia Commons. epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support mass removal – per others, particularly: we shouldn't use user-generated maps (or other content) from third party sites; they're road/transportation maps, being used on articles that don't need road maps (like US state articles); the quality isn't there. But mostly that they fail the policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and as pointed out above, at times WP:NPOV... so the core policy trifecta... if they're user-generated content from a third-party site. – Levivich 23:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Need help with the obvious meaning of CITEVAR

Regarding this refactoring of the citation style, removing list-defined references from KTM 390 series, followed by three reverts [24][25][26], it appears that FF9600 doesn't understand what WP:CITEVAR is saying, nor what the ArbCom decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan#Preferred styles means. List-defined references are a valid option, and once a consistent style is present in an article, it shouldn't be changed on personal preference, any more than English spelling should be changed, without consensus.

At User talk:FF9600, I tried to explain this, and suggest that if FF9600's changes are valid, it should be easy to get consensus from other editors.[27][28]. It looks like there's some history of unilaterally refactoring backend style variations, and sometimes stonewalling and edit warring, such as at Alfa Romeo 145 and 146 or Audi 80.

All I'm asking for is a clear warning to respect the WP:CITEVAR and similar guidelines to avoid creating disruption by picking unnecessary fights over personal preferences. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

As already stated, WP:CITEVAR talks about change CITATION STYLE (e.g. APA style, Chicago style, etc.), not whether the ref's code is actually inline or tag & filled out in another section of the article. In addition the other linked "disputes", my edits were rectifying WP:COLOR & MOS:FONTSIZE, yet User:Typ932 wanted to OWN the Alfa Romeo articles, at which time I reported it and nothing ever happened.  #FF9600  talk 23:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)