Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iwog (talk | contribs) at 23:22, 27 September 2018 (→BATTLEGROUND and SPA by Iwog). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    User:Wumbolo

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

    Sigh. First, it was I who snow-closed Xterm. But, let's take a closer look at the other one. Looking over the references in XFree86, it's really a pretty poor collection of sources. Lots of references, but blogs, interviews, mailing list posts, source code repositories, etc. I can't find a single WP:RS in the lot. The fact that this is heading to another snow keep just says that people aren't paying attention to our sourcing requirements. Or, maybe they're all just doing the WP:IAR thing. In either case, I really can't blame anybody for bringing this to AfD. And, yes, I've used both Xterm and Xfree86. And I know how important they are. But, we're looking for sources, and I'm not seeing them. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't really use Linux anymore, I've kinda migrated to apple macs and Windows 7, X, long ago, but there were a number of books published for Xfree86, Emil Georgescu published a few, there are published notes which can be classed as a cite in notes on the article. But these are old topics, I hate to say it, but this is kind of an archive of old stuff on wikipedia and to just get rid of these articles without correct due diligence doesn't seem right. Govvy (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion of cURL is similar; those of semi-DABs of equipment and journal are not similar but may outrage inclusionists. There are also a good number of AfDs that look like they will be non-controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair Wumbulo has only made about one AfD since asked to stop. Importantly however we have a problem not just related to AfD's but also to PRODs (and perhaps a redirect and a speedy) dating from about 12 September 2018 10:25 (and some You tube articles before that), starting with this redirect, though may have been issues before that. The PRODs and redirects are perhaps more serious as they may slip scrutiny if not properly on Wikiproject. Following the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Proposed deletion of Xterm notification and deprod I've done a lot of deprods from Wumbulo's activity with a low threshold, not ideal practice but somewhat swamped, mainly because a number are at least possible merge candidates. Very concerned about Wumbolo's views at User_talk:Wumbolo#AfDs with regard to AfDs etc. This is disruptive because its all focused on destruction and defence rather than trying to improve, not good for genuine volunteers.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly encourage Wumbolo to enable the PROD log feature of Twinkle. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Power~enwiki: if you want to see my PROD log, or more specifically my PRODs that didn't go through, use User:Ritchie333/badspeedies.py (perhaps change it a bit). I don't want to have a Twinkle PROD log so that people can look at blue links that are article re-creations in the future, after new sources will have been published. wumbolo ^^^ 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you expect a lot of your PRODs to stay blue (or turn blue again), you may want to reconsider your current PRODding. The log is not just a tool for transparancy, it's also useful to keep track of and evaluate your own actions. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't blame him, to be honest. PROD is a waste of time, you can PROD the most obvious piece of crap article in the history of crap articles, and someone will tootle along and remove it again. PROD is pointless. Just AFD them. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have said PROD is actually usually working quite well when combined when monitored at project level such as at Wikiproject Computing where they can be lightweight triaged into let pass, deprod and fix and deprod with a tendency to deprod if in doubt. Wumbolo's use of PROD on articles was technically well correct apart seemingly in my opinion from failure to look for best practice alternatives and use in potentially controversial prods, and especially a mid importance article likely will always be controversial. The question here is perhaps has Wumbulo in a sophisticated manner performed a course of actions and take a stance that was not in good faith and deliberately to make a WP:POINT. There may be questions of failure to follow WP:BEFORE, failure to consider WP:BUNDLE and perhaps failure to contact the project first to see if they had any solutions prior to bulk AfD's. There may be questions of WP:TWINKLEABUSE. I would notice Wumbulo is a WP:NPP and seems to have been targeted just before this period.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasting who's time? You edit wikipedia because you have time on your hands! Also, Guitar Pro is point indication that in my opinion Wumbolo is nominating articles for deletion without analysing what the page is. If he knew the industry and how used some of this software programs are, then he might not bother nominating these articles. This is more about this abundant delete culture simple because you don't know and all you are going by is GNG rules? This is poor process procedure, wikipedia is about the collective team effort and no one person should go about nominating a string of articles without a bit of input from one of the projects. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy: Now, you're wasting my time. It is not incumbent upon Wumbolo or anyone else to know the industry. Either the subject passes notability criteria or it goes. Inveterate fans like you expect the subjects you like to be written about without presenting any sources to make a claim of notability. That WikiProject members show up en masse at a given AfD to !vote keep doesn't make Wumbolo wrong. What's going on here is that cabals of editors expect special treatment and they become irate when they don't get it. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the commenters to the AfDs have included possible sources, so I disagree with your assertion "without presenting any sources" as that is not what is happening. Yes several of the articles definitely could have better sourcing and a few of the articles probably should get deleted or merged wmii for example but the commenters for the most point have pointed that out. I know on several of the AfDs I've spent time checking and evaluating sources. AfD is not for article cleanup, there is a reason that WP:BEFORE suggests "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". PaleAqua (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Chris. I've noticed now that there's a group of editors that stalk Wumbolo's AFD noms and vote keep together based on the fact that Wumbolo is making bad AFD noms because they're all getting a bunch of keep votes, which is circular logic. This is unacceptable. It's WP:Wikihounding and it's creating an imbalanced perspective of Wumbolo's nominations. In fact, a bunch of these are receiving non-admin closures as well, despite the fact that it's the same cabal of editors voting keep. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 07:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to peruse a lot of PRODs and AfDs Wikiproject computing. I'm specifically tracking Wumbulo's forty or so since the X386 redirect, but I've been involved in 8/10 others as well. I certainly raised my eyebrows particularly at one or two of the non-admin closures ... though did nothing as quite frankly the end result would not have changed. An option might be to comment on remaining (unlisted) AfDs not heading for delete AfD may be controversial and to request an admin closure .. I won't commit to doing this but I may do this. I think some people who have come to AfD's or who have been trying to save articles have not really had much experience at that, some have learned good and bad practice from me, sometimes without the nuances. I'd like to think I'm just reasonably good at finding references and citing, not necessarily so good at policies. I don't think Wumbolo's really helped himself in all of this, I am minded his approach has not been constructive and may likely be viewed as disruptive. It's also the case the 'savers' are doing a lot more work throwing up 'references' and not really understanding why these might not count and a careful analysis of why these may not count towards notability. There may be some lessons learned in this, for example if an article was not Wikiproject tagged such as Cyber Centurion, and perhaps some other tweaks to advice. I have no doubt experienced admins are viewing these discussions. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources have been found, noms have been questioned, by different editors. No evidence for a "cabal", circular logic or hounding has been presented. If several editors independently think there's disruption and bring it here, forcing editors to find sources which should have been done at BEFORE, that reflects on the bad noms. Some of the AfDs have been relisted once or twice, so more participation should be encouraged not delegitimised. Widefox; talk 15:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All I'm saying is that your claims of "mass AFDs that are almost always voted keep on the basis of BEFORE" is not a claim you can really make, since it's a self fulfilling prophecy. If Wumbolo's noms are so bad and malicious, there should be plenty of neutral editors perusing AFD to catch them right? Why do you feel the need to track every single one of Wumbolo's AFD noms? Tracking someone's contributions so intently can create the feeling that a user is unwanted. Maybe it's best to just let it go and realize that Wikipedia's systems are more than robust enough to handle a single so-called "mass AFD nominator". – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Bringing this issue of a claim of lack of BEFORE is from several editors, one of which started this ANI, some AfDs have been SNOW, or closed as such. It doesn't assist Wumbolo to block him learning why there's issues if the issues are denied. Attacking one of the many messengers continues the being in-denial. Widefox; talk 19:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree with the logic, just not the targets. Something that is a core operating system component on the majority of Unix-like systems today is obviously notable. However, there is a problem with too much UGC being used as sources on articles related to open source software, and I do agree that while something like X.org is clearly notable, Obscure Window Manager #291 isn't. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is mass nomination (including some major articles like xterm, X.Org Server, some obscure, but the scale is shown by a large percentage of Template:Desktop environments and window managers for X11 and Wayland including one of the categories X window manager referred to as "spam" [1]) combined with a lack of WP:BEFORE. Both are at best pointy, at worst just disruption, and picking up much comments from editors at the AfDs all saying the same. I don't see any sign this is acknowledged, so it's reasonable to bring here. Almost all of the AfDs I've seen are unanimous (or near) Keeps. Widefox; talk 17:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      This is absolutely an exaggeration. A lot of Wumbolo's AFDs attract shitty keep votes from editors who use this software and therefore think it's inherently notable. It's a reflection of Wikipedia's WP:Systemic bias. In one of the more blatant examples of systemic bias, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xmonad_(3rd_nomination)#Xmonad has a keep vote from an editor who literally just has a "gut feeling" that the software is notable. Meanwhile, the other keep votes don't cite policy or show any sources. Just because a bunch of keep votes land on an AFD doesn't mean the AFD is bad or made in bad faith. It could also mean that Wumbolo nominates AFDs that certain groups of editors are unhappy with because they have a bias for these articles. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That reply doesn't address the validity of failing to do basic BEFORE as required, or the mass nomination, which is the big problem. A scattergun hits the target sometimes, huh? That one is borderline out the 40-50 is an exception that proves the rule. (AGF ignored) . To extrapolate from one AfD to 50 is, an exaggeration, yes. Widefox; talk 18:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No Wumbolo, I wasn't canvassed to come here. Your talk page has been on my watchlist since your shenanigans at White genocide conspiracy theory. Bradv 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bradv: I find that rather unbelievable. You were pinged about an hour before you commented here at ANI. But the ANI thread itself was a couple of days old. wumbolo ^^^ 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't pinged to come here. I was already watching this page, along with your talk page. Even if I were, does that mean that my comment here is invalid? This is the kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that needs to be brought to an end. Bradv 15:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's WP:BATTLEGROUND of me to just point out that you were canvassed (which you were by Widefox as a matter of fact, regardless of whether you came here because of it or not), and it's not battleground behavior to canvass someone?! And why do you think that canvassing to ANI is not a problem? Are not enough neutral people watching ANI? wumbolo ^^^ 15:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (no notification has been made to me of such an accusations at ANI, so I'll ignore) Widefox; talk 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: People seem to disagree about the merits of Wumbolo's AfDs, but there does seem to be general concern about the increasing number of them to the exclusion of doing WP:BEFORE. He went from 10 AfDs in July to 11 AfDs in August to 15 in one day alone (September 12) and 16 the following day (September 13) [2]. I propose that either (1) Wumbolo be warned to restrict his AfD noms to 2 per week; (2) Wumbolo be officially restricted to 2 AfDs per week; or (3) an alternative proposal that will solve/reduce his ever-increasing number of AfD noms. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Both quality and quantity are a problem. Quality it's more than BEFORE, it's misrepresentation [3] [4], wikilaywering [5] [6] [7] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetRight (4th nomination), WP:POINTY, and WP:BLUDGEON (on most/all of them), and a relist less than a year after the last Keep AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetRight (4th nomination) . Not bold, but reckless. Does anyone in their right mind think xterm, X window manager (a category of articles), and X.Org Server should be deleted? The AfDs are like a newbie with a pointy stick bludgeoning all that turn up in disbelief.
    Considering it's behaviour in the AfDs as well, any restriction should address that too. 1) plus some limit on comments seems a start. Widefox; talk 02:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you come up with a restriction or sanction (or warning/suggestion) that would cover and prevent all of that? Or just brainstorm some possibilities? Maybe just a topic ban on computer/tech-related AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's not just computer, it's disruption in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thinsulate [8], and it's ongoing #1 #2. Suggest general deletion restriction (PROD/AfD). Widefox; talk 13:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Topic bans from deletion per se are a hard sell (and require lots and lots of diffs). It's easier to start with provable problems, provable disruption. I think it's clear that Wumbolo does not do WP:BEFORE, that he is targeting tech and computer articles, that he is fairly clueless about notability even beyond his lack of WP:BEFORE, and that he is over-AfDing. Therefore, a good start would be a topic ban from computer/tech-related AfDs. I would also like his PROD log to be easily visible (he shouldn't be deliberately hiding it as he admits to doing), so we could also propose that he enable the PROD log feature of Twinkle, as power~enwiki recommended. Softlavender (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to just be tech deletion, and PROD log. Widefox; talk 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There does seem to be some of the AFDs here that are in the right ballpark (in terms of the articles not really showing how the GNG is met, or issues with the sourcing), these are not flat out bad nominations or nominations made in bad faith, and some of the logic to keep these is questionable too (feeling more like pile-on !voting to keep them). Wumbolo's AFD noms are asking proper questions as to why we are keeping these articles (particularly on these small commercial or free-software packages, which do fall into the realm of WP:NCORP's stronger sourcing aspects). The only issue that really can be begged is the frequency/rate of nomination, which belies a proper BEFORE step, suggesting that they be warned to only nominate one or two a week and see if there's potential other merge targets for information first. --Masem (t) 14:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    " ... suggesting that they be warned to only nominate one or two a week and see if there's potential other merge targets for information first." That was my initial proposal; I would support that. Softlavender (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note quite - WP:BEFORE is clear that sources don't have to be in the article not a proper basis for a nomination, so they aren't proper noms. Yes to the rest. Widefox; talk 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This complaint is utterly ridiculous. Wumbolo's AFD nominations are clearly in good faith. Wumobolo's always pulled up articles that are extremely problematic or lacking in references. Problem is, other editors who are Linux people or whatever immediately get offended that their favorite little piece of free software or whatever is getting nominated for deletion, and then vote Speedy Keep with a shitty rationale. This discussion is a reflection of WP:Systemic bias that is all too common on WP:AFD, which is why we see tons of crappy software articles get kept with the justification "oh I use it so...there must be sources...?". This is a REALLY terrible mindset, and shame on the person who brought this to ANI. Just because we're not all worshippers of free software doesn't mean you need to bring people to ANI. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 15:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My favorite piece of free software is GIMP, not anything ever nommed by Wumbolo, and I don't see this complaint as anything near meritless. WP:BEFORE states that an editor should "...take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." which is the problem, as I see it. Wumbolo is not searching to see if reliable sources exist, he's simply glancing at the reflist to see if any are used. Nomming these for deletion isn't improving the project (when the obvious "quick" solution would be to hatnote the article), it's simply creating a disruptive atmosphere. No-one has, to my knowledge, suggested that Wumbolo is not nomming these in good faith. They're simply suggesting that Wumbolo is making the same mistake over and over and not correcting themself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence is there that Wumbolo hasn't been doing a search or two? People are just assuming that Wumbolo hasn't done their homework, because they're biased in favor of these free software articles. "Xmonad? Oh yeah, I use that, that's totally notable, Wumbolo clearly hasn't made reasonable attempts to look for sources" -- the line of thinking for this accusation of not following WP:BEFORE. This is a very serious accusation based on shoddy evidence. As someone who uses free software a bunch too, I'm also a little surprised whenever I see some of these nominations. But I don't take personal offense at free software being nominated for deletion, and realize someone who may not be a free software user might not immediately realize that certain software is widely known among free software users. And in fact, editors who aren't involved with free software may end up being the best judges for whether free software articles are truly notable. I try to objectively evaluate free software articles instead of rely on gut feelings or my personal biases in favor of them. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Proof of a negative isn't a reasonable burden per se. But..the evidence of many AfDs together (rather than just Xmonad which you've selected out of ~40) how do you explain trying to delete xterm (and those other major articles) if BEFORE was done? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X window manager nom is just Spam version of Comparison of X window managers. Not notable that's fairly random and incorrect, then there's trying to delete the opposite - the list rather than the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of X Window System desktop environments "...seems like an advertisement of one company's products which is in no way notable" which is about open source software, it appears they haven't even read the article let alone searched for sources! On balance, sources were found for all, some very quickly so its either not done or it's competence. Either way, it shouldn't happen on mass, should it? Widefox; talk 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence is there that Wumbolo hasn't been doing a search or two? How about the fact that a google search for "X.Org Server" returns 222 million results including multiple RSes on the first page? Now please try to explain to me how any reasonable person who did that search (which would constitute the bare minimum an editor could do to look for sources) could think that X.Org Server was not notable.
    Look, Wumbolo's not a major computer geek. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, hence there's nothing wrong with him not being aware of some of these things. There's also no rule saying that an editor must add sources if they find them. Finally, there's no-one suggesting Wumbolo is doing any of this maliciously. I'm certainly not. But these noms are obviously not flying, and so Wumbolo needs to either get serious about WP:BEFORE or stop nomming stuff, because it's a waste of time for multiple people. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see multiple RSes on the first page. TechRepublic has some routine coverage. The rest are garbage (primary, forums, help desks, obviously not about x.org, etc.) on the first page for me. TheRegister has some more routine coverage. So, no, I would reject the WP:GOOGLE numbers argument as well as your failure to cite specific sources which indicate notability under the general notability guideline. But perhaps this is an argument for AFD? :) --Izno (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when you run a completely different search, you should expect completely different results. I linked my search, and there I see Techrepublic, Ars Technica and PC Magazine, all on the first page. And on the second page? More Ars Technica, Tech Radar, The Register (escaping the walled garden of tech sites, even!) and more Techrepublic. Although, to be fair, I actually work in IT and read more X.Org news than X.org specs, and google's probably figured that out by now. But that doesn't change the fact that a google search is the bare minimum one can do to find sources. And question: How many sites do "routine coverage" of non-notable software?
    But if that's our standard (delete anything obscure, whether it's notable or not), then we should probably delete pages like Yukawa interaction because I doubt many non-physicists have heard of that, either. Or maybe, we should rely on coverage in RSes ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So, permit me to comment some more on those sources:
    1. TechRepublic 1 is somewhere in the realm between routine and maybe enough detail to stub an article. It's basically a HOWTO. (I would be concerned about basically copying the entire article.)
    2. PCMag is a passing mention and is a bit NOTVERSIONHISTORY. "Ubuntu's default (GNOME and X) somewhat supports touchscreens, though Wayland is supposedly the preferred windowing system going forward for such implementations."
    3. Ars 1. "Ubuntu made Wayland the default display manager for 17.10, but it has reverted to X.org for the LTS release. It's a sensible change upon reflection given Wayland's long list of incomplete features like, for example, the lack of support for screen sharing in chat/VoIP apps and spotty support for VNC tools." This also is passing. It gives an immediate reason for the above item but is really about Ubuntu.
    4. Ars 2. "Ubuntu had settled on the Wayland display server for 17.10 as a default because Canonical wanted to boost 3D graphics capabilities, but it has switched back to X.org graphics server as the default for 18.04, mostly because Wayland's support for screen sharing in applications such as Google Hangouts and Skype isn't quite there." Basically reports the exact same thing as Ars 1.
    5. TechRadar "X.Org, for example, is a bit long in the tooth now. It was never really designed with secure computing in mind. So it’s fairly easy— well, not necessarily X.Org actually, but the whole OS; if something is running as a root, or it’s running as your user, then it has the permissions of that user that’s running it." doesn't tell me anything that #1 didn't already.
    6. The Register. #1 repeat.
    So, maybe it's notable, maybe it's not. But coverage like that I would definitely put in the, "a reasonable BEFORE search could have caused someone to come to the conclusion that X.org isn't notable, even if we were looking at the same Google search" (which clearly has tuned to your interests). It's not about being obscure without evidence of being obscure. It's about what the GNG asks us for: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis original). Computing and software articles are problematic in this regard, because while they document the software great in many cases via WP:PRIMARY sources, they often do a garbage job at telling us what independent sources have said about them. I won't get into physics articles, but I agree some of those more-obscure topics can tend toward "is this really a reasonable article or should it be summarized elsewhere"? However, that's offtopic to this case (WP:OSE) and I wouldn't want to judge those without access to those sources anyway.
    I might suggest that users here might want to take a look at AFD stats and AFD stats noms-only. I'll be taking a look at these later I suppose. --Izno (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you're arguing in favor of deletion, which is accomplishing very little except convincing me that you don't work in IT. If that's your goal here, congrats. If your goal is to prove you're capable of wikilawyering, then congrats because you've done that, too. But if your goal is to show that Wumbolo actually did follow WP:BEFORE then I'm afraid you've failed quite thoroughly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're arguing in favor of deletion and you're capable of wikilawyerin. No. I'm assessing the sources you provided, which is exactly the job we do when we have to decide whether an article is worth keeping or deleting (or one of the other conclusions). I have no strong opinion on the article topic and clearly have no intention to go !vote--I'm leaving my comment here instead so that we don't all decide that Wumbolo has done some grievous thing without actually backing up and saying "is he right?". you don't work in IT I work in the aerospace and defense industry; one of my company's products makes use of X11. Thanks for playing. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I'm assessing the sources you provided, which is exactly the job we do when we have to decide whether an article is worth keeping or deleting Ummm.... Have you considered the fact that you literally just contradicted yourself? In one sentence? Probably not. Nothing in the rest of your comment is worth responding to (it's worth a laugh, though) so have a nice life. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (←) I have not argued for deletion. I have not argued for keeping. I have not argued for any other x, y, or z outcome that would be typical of an AFD. So when you claim that I am "arguing in favor of deletion", you are wrong. It is your extrapolation that what I have said favors deletion, that I am arguing for such. (Please, do try to find where I said "the article should be kept/deleted/x/y/zd".) But I chose deliberately not to argue over whether the article should be deleted because the point of this section is "did Wumbolo get it right?". (Else, you might have found me at WP:Articles for deletion/X.org instead, where perhaps you should provide those sources to aid the closing admin in determining whether the article should be deleted.) To which I gave an opinion, separate to those AFDs, that in this case, he made a reasonable nomination of the article topic, where I questioned some of the sourcing that were "found" to support the belief he did not perform a WP:BEFORE search. The reason I included the AFD stats link a few replies above is that people who comment here in this section should also come to their own conclusions on whether he has acted reasonably, by doing some of the research for those AFDs he has either nominated (or commented in). I plan to do so, separate to this little engagement with you, because that's what's fair. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should go to some of the AfDs and see what is being said. Comments like this that immediately present 5 impeccable sources along with pointing out the lack of WP:BEFORE only to be responded to by Wumbolo with the eye-poppingly false claim that the Fedora/Red Hat bible and the CentOS bible are "identical" paint a very different picture of what's going on than you do. So instead of arguing in favor of deletion here (which you absolutely are doing, whether that fact suits you or not) while ignoring the fact that a rather large number of editors are saying the same exact thing about these noms, maybe you should be off browsing the AfDs and learning that they don't, in any way, need me to come drop off a couple of good google hits to end in a WP:SNOW close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is breaking down under the weight of spurious nominations done without a decent attempt at WP:BEFORE, and Wumbulo is part of the problem. We need to require competency at AfD, and if someone serially nominates articles as unsourced without a serious effort at determining that sources do not in fact exist, they are failing in this area and should be warned, and if they continue, blocked. They should also, upon warning, make a good faith effort to review their nominations and withdraw nominations that don't measure up. If they don't stop making bad noms, and won't withdraw the bad ones they've started, it should be considered they are not here to improve the encyclopedia. We need to put a stop to this disruption, now.Jacona (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Systemic bias correction

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

    What is the point of this? I was addressing the fact that someone had accused another editor of bad faith without considering that maybe that editor had just made a mistake due to lack of knowledge on the topic. Are you saying I'm User:Wumbolo or? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On second reading, it does seem like you're accusing me of being the same editor. You should bring this to WP:SPI. This isn't the right place for this. And no, there's no conspiracy to delete articles. There were literally no sources for youtube-dl; I looked. I don't know why you think we're on some weird crusade to delete articles. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me address the stalking claim as well. You went into Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airy_(software) and voted to keep, way after the AFD was created. I thought this was really weird because this was right after we were getting into discussion here and other articles. And apparently you think Wumbolo and I are in on some conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles and free software articles. I personally do believe that youtube downloader articles must have a very high standard of inclusion to belong on Wikipedia, being WP:MILL stuff, and after Wumbolo nominated youtube-dl someone else suggested that the other youtube downloader articles were "just as notable", so I looked through the other youtube downloader articles and nominated the one I thought had the worst sourcing. Being new to AFD, I didn't want to nominate all of the youtube downloader articles at once, so I wanted to take it one at a time. Anyways, I hope this satisfies your theory about the conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is: you and Wumbolo should immediately stop new AfDs, stop BLUDGEONING AfD participants and stop creating disruption just because other editors are !voting to keep stuff that goes against your mission. Your example is good Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airy (software) is your nom, 1 !voter (Keep), (relisted), Wumbolo (Delete), and I (Keep). The other AfDs are generally you and Wumbolo delete, everyone else keep. That seems dangerous when there's only one other !voter as per Youtube-dl. You're evidence for stalking is that I !voted at AfD? or you don't like my !vote? Looks like more participation is needed to me. Isn't a lack of scrutiny combined with mass and sometimes reckless PROD and AfD from Wumbolo (combined with your deletions) something that we need to scrutinise? Widefox; talk 00:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't deny that I'm new to AFD, and that I'm still learning. What I don't appreciate is this intense hostility from you throughout AFD, and that random vote today really meshes with your story of how you're trying to fight the FenixFeather-Wumbolo conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles. I'm not bludgeoning anyone; the comments you link to above are an attempt to get you and Bradv to recognize that it's not a good idea to immediately accuse someone in bad faith for having stated something wrong in the AFD justification. As I stated on that thread, I wasn't arguing about the !vote itself, but about the unnecessary and unfounded accusation of bad faith. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also you really want me to stop making AFD noms? I've only made two recently, because like I said, I'm still learning so I'm proceeding cautiously. Go ahead and take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_the_Left-wing_insurgency_in_Greece and see how it fits into your conspiracy theory. You really want to make me stop nominating AFDs just because I'm concerned about systemic bias? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "As far as I know, I'm the only one who's been actively pointing out systemic bias in tech articles." It's about stopping the disruption or others here may have to intervene. Widefox; talk 01:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't understand your point. You were asking me whether Wumbolo also was discussing systemic bias. I said no, I don't believe Wumbolo has. What are you trying to prove here? That Wumbolo and I are the same editor? If so, take it to WP:SPI. If you're trying to prove that I'm against systemic bias, then yes, I am. Systemic bias is a widely recognized problem on Wikipedia because most editors are Western, male, and in some sort of STEM field. Can you clarify what I'm supposed to defend myself against here? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 02:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:POVFIGHTER / WP:ADVOCACY#I only want to help Wikipedia! If a significant number of editors protest that an editor is biased, the editor should listen to feedback and either change their editing style, or refrain from editing topics where they cannot be sufficiently neutral There's a significant number editors at the AfDs who are complaining about Wumbolo's AfDs, backed by you, battleground disruption, and not convincing others per WP:REHASH, I'm asking you to refrain to prevent ongoing disruption on mass AfDs. Can you? Widefox; talk 12:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. You're really stretching that definition. I've pointed out systemic bias on... two AFD articles I think? Once where someone voted on "gut feeling" and another time where someone accused the nominator of bad faith upon getting something technically wrong, both of which I thought were legitimate instances of perpetuating systemic bias. That makes me an advocate that a significant number of editors find annoying? This is actually absurd. I have no idea why you want administrative action against me because I guess I kinda pissed you off in an AFD? Can you let your feelings go for a moment and realize how unnecessarily stressful you're making this experience? I literally had a nightmare about this because you dragged me to ANI and are trying your hardest to drive me away by taking things I say out of context. People like you is why I quit Wikipedia the first time I tried editing. It's a hostile environment that immediately tries to shut down any identification of systemic issues. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The civility "dick move" and AfD disruption (mass nom, and BLUDGEONING in the AfDs from both of you) - diffs are above. Have you seen how many editors are complaining about these AfDs? Widefox; talk 19:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only nominated 2 AFDs recently, and 3 AFDs in my entire Wikipedia career, two of which have been uncontroversial deletes. That's massive disruption? Look at what you're doing. You're taking a novice editor, with only about 3k edits, to ANI simply for having voted for a few AFDs that you dislike and for suggesting that systemic bias might be the cause of perspective issues. What kind of atmosphere are you creating here? And what about that WP:SPI accusation? Are you going to report me as a sockpuppet or was that just a character attack designed to further alienate me from the project? If your intent is to protect the project, instead of simply retaliating against me for I don't know how I hurt you, then you should be taking actions to report me as a sockpuppet instead of just sitting here and engaging in mudslinging. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you two just going to continue this back-and-forth thing indefinitely? If so, maybe you should do it on someone's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I feel obligated to defend myself here since I think an admin will be evaluating this at some point? I apologize if I'm not supposed to do that here. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm just going to leave a closing argument to summarize here, since further back and forth may not be productive. I've only recently begun browsing AFDs a few days ago. Because a few of my votes happened to match with Wumbolo's, I've been dragged into here and accused of sockpuppeting and violating AGF, despite the fact that I was only trying to point out that sometimes, perspective issues can cloud our judgement. I've not accused anyone of acting in bad faith. Using the phrase "dick move" has been labeled as "uncivil" here but my intent was not to personally attack anyone, but instead describe how accusing someone of acting in bad faith for having gotten something wrong can be mean and unwelcoming. In response, Widefox has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, as shown by their going through all my AFD votes relating to software and voting on them. Widefox even dredged up youtube-dl which goes back several weeks. For evidence of this Wikihounding, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DownThemAll!_(2nd_nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airy_(software) and note the timestamps on those comments. Widefox also attempted to canvas Bradv to this ANI on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments after seeing that most editors on this ANI discussion agree that Wumbolo, while mistaken sometimes, was most likely acting in good faith and not being disruptive. As demonstrated by this ANI thread, Widefox believes that Wumbolo and I are on some sort of crusade to "mass delete" software articles, and this belief has driven their labeling of me as disruptive and their Wikihounding in an attempt to protect Wikipedia from this deletion campaign. While this may be in good faith, it's unfounded and has caused me considerable stress and made me feel unwelcome, and is a form of harassment I would like to stop. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    FenixFeather should be more careful of policy guideline WP:NEXIST in future,"Delete...Not a single source is cited..." along with Wumbolo BEFORE. (as no evidence for anything wrong has been given, there's no case for me to answer. To set the record straight "dick move" was directed at another editor not me I believe). Widefox; talk 20:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanctions

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

    • Strong oppose Editors here are pushing for a WP:COMPETENCE ban on the basis of Wumbolo nominating articles that have been "overwhelmingly kept" (I think we all agree that Wumbolo is acting in good faith) – however, this is entirely misleading because the same group of editors (Djm, Bradv, Widefox) are following Wumbolo around and voting keep on Wumbolo's software AFDs, often with the justification that Wumbolo is "mass nominating overwhelmingly keep" AFDs, a self fulfilling prophecy. A simple glance through Wumbolo's AFDs will show that these editors have followed Wumbolo around far more than I ever have, which is surprising because Widefox accused me of being a Wumbolo sock. Unfortunately, as far as I've seen, Wumbolo is actually nominating borderline articles. A lot of these software have debatably reliable/significant sources. I'm strongly against silencing Wumbolo simply because they would like to judge software based on policy rather than based on "well, it's used widely in industry. Me and all of my friends use it. Don't you know the industry? Don't you work in IT fields?". This sort of silencing is exclusionary and explicitly advances WP:Systemic bias, where those who have different perspectives from us are shut down. Silencing different perspectives is not the solution here; the solution here is to set aside our own expectations about what is notable or not, and consider each AFD objectively. And trust that other editors and admins will do their due diligence and catch the articles that should be kept. Instead, what's happening is an emotional overreaction because of the fear that certain beloved articles like X.org were nominated for deletion. A lot of these "obviously notable" software in the Linux/software world is not notable in the broader world, and that's okay. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That polemic nicely illustrates why you've been included in this ANI thread. Disruption furthering systemic bias correction against consensus. It is just WP:BABY delete content that is actually properly sourced, and citations which are valid, by misunderstanding our sourcing-related policies and guidelines. - the exact opposite of policy, and there's overwhelming consensus against it. The link does not include an accusation of sock. Can you either provide a diff or strike it, as it's a straw man. I said the opposite ". Clearly they aren't the same editor.". Do you have evidence for the rest of this diversion from Wumbolo's editing? Wumbolo's AfD success rate is 27% [9] - that's before the bulk of these articles are closed, so before those named editors (presumably), so how do the facts support a conspiracy and circular logic? e.g. [10] and [11] I'm the first to !vote Merge, an exceptional one has merit "Delete per nom". Those three named editors don't have the same voting record. Other editors (not of those three) have said "Seems like Wumbulo is spreading AfD over the Wikipedi. ... See also the list of AfD's" -Bassklampfe "This is a private and completely wrong opinion by user "wumbolo"... destruction of knowledge?" -L.Willms, Xterm - SNOW keep (I did not !vote), "I'm uneasy about this mass AfD/Prod" -Michael Bednarek, "I think Wumbolo's interpretation of when sources count as "independent" is excessively strict." -SJK "not a valid cause for deletion" -JavierCantero "I think Wumbolo's interpretation ... overly strict." -SJK "With this reason you may want to tag all Download managers...a clear Keep" -Denniss, "Disruptive nomination" -2a01:4c8:b:7127:f201:a496:c036:897c (SNOW keep), "With a simple WP:BEFORE ... per policy, should be WP:PRESERVE..." -Mark viking, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X window manager closed Wikipedia:SKCRIT#3 The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question. -by Power~enwiki "", KWin closed The result was keep. Overwhelming Keep consensus and a failure to check WP:BEFORE -AmericanAir88 "Keep and BAN User:Wumbolo from any further Wikipedia editing or deletion requests. Eradicate those in the anti-information army!" -206.169.91.66 . Misrepresenting consensus as anything else is AGF without evidence, and the three named editors shouldn't have to defend themselves with no diffs or specific case. The quotes used are not from any AfD I've seen. No such argument has been made, have they? (no diffs provided) Widefox; talk 17:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Regarding WP:Articles for deletion/FireTune, I think it's also disingenuous to claim that the discussion is "concerning". I'm assuming Djm is referring to the fact that Wumbolo lashed out a little bit over the course of the discussion. Yet I think it's excusable that Wumbolo is a little frustrated, because I can't imagine having a group of the same editors constantly breathing down my neck in AFDs. That's gotta be incredibly frustrating. It shows both an unconcern for other editors' well being and a strong distrust of the AFD process. The same can be said of draggin me to ANI simply because I voted delete on a few of Wumbolo AFDs, far fewer AFDs than this group of editors has hounded Wumbolo for. This kind of adverserial editing where WP:ANI is used to shut down unwanted opinions and voices is really saddening to me, especially coming from editors who have so much more experience than me and that I would have looked up to in the past. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my comment on previous section. This is only about unconvincing BEFORE, COMPETENCE, BLUDGEON, AGF/civility (See FenixFeather above) and LISTEN/IDHT over an unknown number of articles, over at least 3 months, combined with an attempt at systemic bias correction without adequate scrutiny (e.g. no PROD/AfD logs, deleted articles can't be seen by non-admins). There's no evidence to be portrayed as inclusionist(s)/deletionist(s) or cabals/sock/meat. It's not clear how many articles have been deleted by PROD, but deletion is still ongoing and AfD nom success is 27% [12] (that will drop when these are closed): a July PROD [13] has been REFUNDed [14] then AfD [15], there's been incorrect PROD [16] after PROD [17] now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FoxyTunes. National school programming competitions have been targeted, which seems aligned with our core values. Wouldn't readers wanting National Olympiad in Informatics, China, Syrian Olympiad in Informatics be better served by being redirected to International Olympiad in Informatics rather than being PRODed? This lack of BEFORE / attempt at countering systemic bias has unintended consequences of deleting undersourced content (against WP:NEXIST), in this case deleting underrepresented geo regions increasing systemic bias. Widefox; talk 00:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Wumbolo has not ever mentioned systemic bias. All the discussions on systemic bias was originated by me, and not used to justify the deletion of anything, and was only used to criticize certain keep rationales. Widefox keeps muddling up this discussion because they seem to be extremely uncomfortable with the existence of systemic bias. In any case, systemic bias is 100% irrelevant to the question of whether Wumbolo should be sanctioned. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to reason it, as FenixFeather has misrepresented the only thing quoted, and provided no evidence for the rest. Widefox; talk 17:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In a word: no. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose No severe issues with AfD nominations of Wumbolo. He has nominated a few articles that could easily result in delete but consensus was against that. Maybe wumbolo will learn what community currently prefers to keep or delete but that can be done without sanctions. GenuineArt (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. He very obviously didn't conduct before on a spate of nominations but I don't think this behaviour is long standing enough to warrant an afd ban. I may support a mandatory prod log if it was separately discussed. Szzuk (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC) I'm redacting my own vote, I'm just too undecided and too uncertain of the process so i will leave it to others. Szzuk (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Wumbolo does good work on AFD, and if an article does meet the relevant policy, it will be kept. Also per FenixFeather. » Shadowowl | talk 18:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Indeed the nearest to a firm proposal was a cooling no-fault IBAN may be currently useful which given the AfD debate on the young people's article WP:Articles for deletion/Cyber Centurion which despite a request to stop seemed to continue to WP:Articles for deletion/FireTune may not have been appropriate if it continued. It may be the that would have eased naturally or it may be thoughts of a IBAN may have focused the minds. But I would be minded the need for such an IBAN has currently subsided. The problems caused by the intensity of raised AfDs and PRODs, which are at the timing of the nominator, and the amount of effort the to respond to such nominations is an issue, is a problem. PRODs not allocated to a WikiProject monitoring alerts are more vulnerable. And a lack of some form of sanction might be a bad precedent ... in fact probably would be a great opportunity for some disruptive IPs. Perhaps it is good at this point if I:
    • Suspend any proposal for no fault WP:IBANs providing biting remains eased on the AfDs.
    • See if more general guidelines can be proposed if a large number of PRODs/AfDs to avoid swamping ... could be raised in lieu of and TBAN limitation.
    Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Systemic bias continued

    • This is Split out from Sanctions section as appears to have incrementally drifted out of context for that section and has gathered undue weight. Please remember Widefox's first statement here is split from it's original context. Thankyou. 08:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    See also For anyone still interested, the tactic of deleting overrepresented areas due to systemic bias is discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd nomination), and DGG has kindly given his view on notability. Widefox; talk 20:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Widefox is once again misrepresenting why I brought up systemic bias. First of all, there is no "tactic of deleting overrepresented areas". I'm not sure why Widefox is assuming that Wumbolo's motivation in nominating these articles was to reduce systemic bias considering I was the only one who mentioned that topic in the first place. Second, as I explained on the linked thread, systemic bias is not a justification for deletion. It's something I'm bringing up in order to exhort editors not to give topics they're familiar with special treatment. I'm using it as an argument in favor of making decisions based on policy rather than on emotion or gut feeling. So please, Widefox, stop misrepresenting what I'm saying about systemic bias, because you are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by twisting my genuine concern with systemic bias to be a deletion tactic, and also attributing it to Wumbolo for no apparent reason. The most frustrating thing about this ANI situation has been your unfounded accusations that my bringing up systemic bias is some sort of tactic in my war to delete whatever group of articles you think I hate so much. Please try to give other editors the benefit of the doubt and realize that maybe someone bringing up systemic bias is just worried about systemic bias, and isn't using it as a "tactic" in some nefarious overarching master plan. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Please always provide diffs for accusations, else they will be ignored) Widefox; talk 23:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I was trying to make an accusation? In any case, the relevant diff I'm discussing in my previous comment is this one: [18]. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That diff does not support your statements. Please provide evidence. Also, be more careful at ANI to not make claims like "I'm not sure why x is assuming that y's motivation". Don't assume about other editors, and provide evidence. This is just time wasting here. Widefox; talk 15:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay this has gotten ridiculous, I got back from holiday and I opened this up a while back because I felt Wumbolo needed a stern warning for over doing on the AfD front. But now I feel he is being bullied by a few users. In my view Widefox and Djm-leighpark seem to have been WP:Wikihounding across multiple AfDs and in my view that's just wrong. Wumbolo makes good points about some AfDs but others, I feel he needs to have a bit more faith, post to talk pages, projects first give people a chance to have a go, if no response then ye, AfD the article. Well, that's my two-cents. Govvy (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihounding from one software AfD to another software AfD is one thing. Wikihounding me from a software AfD to a comic book publisher AfD, like you did, is a whole new level. The next time (and every time after that) I am followed by someone to an AfD absolutely unrelated to software, I am considering opening a sub-section against them. I will not tolerate people accusing me of not following BEFORE on software AfDs and biographical articles and random unclassifiable topics and songs etc. wumbolo ^^^ 17:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanctions for User:FenixFeather

    Okay, at this point, I'm extremely stressed out and frustrated from Widefox accusing me of being disruptive, uncivil, and violating Wikipedia policies all over the place, no matter what I do. This is in response to the accusations you posted on my talk page. @Widefox: Let's make this crystal clear: What are the chronic, intractable behaviorial problems that I have? And what kind of administrative action do you want against me? Let's hash it out here instead of continuously accusing me across multiple AFDs and my talk page. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The disruption has slowed (less AfDs etc), it's just playing out at one AfD mainly now [19], so I don't see how admin action is needed at this time. This likely contentious talk refactor shouldn't have happened per WP:REFACTOR, was contended/reverted by Bradv talk refactor repeated explicitly against REFACTOR, continded/reverted by me, contentous talk refactoring where you've been reverted by two editors doesn't need admin intervention unless repeated as you've been given an appropriate 3RR warning and links to read why not to do it once, so all looks below the radar to me. I've even asked to continue this on your talk and ask if you can decese spreading the discussion over more pages here, as was suggested above to continue back/forth on a talk. Widefox; talk 00:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You just posted to my talk page [20] "This is why I brought you to ANI". So I'm really confused why you did that. Are you just trying to make Wikipedia as unpleasant an experience for me as possible so I quit? I hope not. The edit warring warning you put on my talk page was really questionable too, considering that I had already responded to a comment on the project page without reverting your revert. I'm sorry if I can't convince you that I'm not trying to disrupt the project. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to answer that question, by the way. I just want you to know that there is another human behind this username and that as important as Wikipedia is, I really really hope you stop to consider that before you label other editors as disruptive and take them into ANI. It's not a fun experience for anyone, and I honestly believe we can interact on Wikipedia without needing to be adverserial. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly this drama section was quickly followed by the next drama section (below). So I may change my mind on sanctions not being necessary per WP:BOOMERANG for clear attempts to bait/provoke (please take me to ANI - this section) and escallate. FenixFeather provoking and mass nomming and blanking (Haskell) articles (per below) at the same time as trying to sanction the editor who's adding the most sources and keeping AfDs to policy. If others want to find sources, I'd happily do something else as it makes me uncomfortable being singled out like this just because I'm standing up to bad, mass noms. Widefox; talk 04:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanctions for User:Widefox

    Okay, that's it. I've tried being patient. I've tried explaining my point of view. I've tried to convince Widefox that I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I'm tearing my hair out and I absolutely cannot deal with this anymore. Widefox continues to WP:WIKIHOUND me across Wikipedia. I'm on the verge of quitting Wikipedia again. I deleted a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of Haskell code examples on Haskell features and they immediately reverted it, while at the same time, once again accusing me of being disruptive and hating Haskell without evidence. Diff here: [21]. Why can't you just revert without snide remarks about me? What is so hard about interacting with other editors in a normal, non-hostile basis? Just say "Hey, I disagree that this looks like a manual. Let's discuss this on the talk page" and I'll go discuss it with you! There's no need to accuse me of hating Haskell. I'll agree that Haskell isn't my main language by any means, but the time I did use it I enjoyed it. What reason do I have to decrease the quality of Haskell articles?

    More diffs where Widefox accuses me of disruption or other rule violations when I'm only attempting to explain my opinion on things, as well as cases where Widefox abuses Wikipedia policies to force other editors to conform with their view on issues:

    • [22]
    • [23]
    • [24] Calls Wumbolo's good faith AFD a disruption while canvassing another editor to this ANI thread
    • [25]: Widefox calls me "comic relief", an direct personal attack that I ignored until now.
    • [26]: Accused me of disruption for arguing xmonad is a product, claiming that there's a consensus that non-commercial software isn't a product (there is no such consensus that I'm aware of). Another diff where I'm being "disruptive" for having the audacity to cite WP:PRODUCT for a FOSS software [27]
    • [28]: Accused me of adminshopping (??) despite the fact that Widefox brought me into ANI in the first place
    • This ANI thread, where Widefox initially brought me here for just mentioning systemic bias, and finally admitted that they didn't have good cause to bring me here.
    • [29] Calls Wumbolo disruptive here
    • [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Constantly abusing "Consensus" to shut opposing viewpoints down. Consensus is about discussing and coming to a conclusion together, not about how two editors think one thing and only one editor thinks another, and therefore the two editors are right. Widefox repeatedly uses this flawed definition of consensus to accuse others of being disruptive by going against "consensus".
    • [35]: Another type of abusing "consensus": apparently, an unclosed AFD already has a "consensus" that I'm against.
    • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yesod_(web_framework) Another AFD where Widefox hounded me, and then cites speedy keep criterion "The nominator did not even read the article". Not only is that form of "Speedy Keep" vote extremely rude, it's obvious that Widefox has a grudge against me, Calling me incompetent for "missing" a book that I mentioned in the initial AFD! It's kind of weird to cite that speedy keep criterion when you didn't even read the nom [36]. The anger in this response shows that Widefox is unwilling to believe that editors who do things they disagree with can act in good faith, and have a strong distrust of the AFD process, feeling the need to shame the nominator as incompetent in order to get their point across. This also shows that Widefox genuinely believes I'm engaged in some sort of anti-Haskell campaign; apparently, any time I touch anything related to Haskell, I'm being "disruptive".
    • This diff shows how possessive Widefox is with these articles[37]. Apparently, me trying to change a section heading to a more fitting title ("Background", since the section described the history and background of the software) is me trying to make the software less notable? Since when is notability determined by section headings? Widefox just cannot stand anything I do, and I'm really confused as to why even such non-contentious edits are made into a big deal by them.
    • Accusation of edit warring [38] in an AFD, despite the fact that I haven't reverted any of Widefox's edits. Changes Speedy Keep criterion to accuse me of being disruptive.
    • [39] Widefox still thinks I'm Wumbolo, apparently. None of my AFDs have been closed for lack of WP:BEFORE, so I have no idea why Widefox is lying about me in unrelated AFDs.
    • [40] evidence that Widefox believes the xmonad AFD is a WP:BATTLEGROUND where I'm determined to win, despite the fact that I had stated I wanted to change my vote just a few hours ago [41], and apparently I'm nominating another Haskell related article "in revenge". Really?
    • [42] Widefox continues to be extremely condescending, putting back a speedy keep for "not reading the article", despite the fact that I said that I hadn't read the external links section, and had in fact listed the book as a source. This is unnecessarily hostile. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 07:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repeated exaggeration of issues in an attempt to assassinate my character, claiming that I've made "bad mass noms" in reference to two closely related AFD noms today. Two AFDs and removing two sections of frivolous code examples is a systematic attempt to undermine Haskell articles on Wikipedia, according to Widefox. This kind of apocalyptic rhetoric at every turn is exhausting.
    • Conspiratorial thinking: believing they're the sole guardian of software articles against the "deletion cult" [43], any action taken against them is "baiting", "provocation", or a sly attempt to undermine them. No, I'm not trying to undermine you or get you banned from Wikipedia. I'm literally just trying to get you to stop tearing my head off for doing simple things like changing a section heading.
    • I will add more as time allows, but Widefox's toxic attitude can be seen above in this ANI thread, where they aggressively push for a ban against Wumbolo for having the audacity to disagree with them on AFDs.

    This user is incorrigibly mean and hostile, to both me and User:Wumbolo. I'm requesting an indefinite, one way IBAN so that Widefox can no longer interact with me and intimidate me out of the encyclopedia. I've sat here and taken every bit of their invective and snide remarks without saying anything, but I'm done doing that. I don't want any other users to suffer the way I have. I am tired, alone, and defeated. I don't know why Widefox can't deal with this in a civil manner like everyone else in this thread has, without constant hounding of other editors and slander over the course of normal editing. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 03:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick look at those diffs make me say - is it entirely consistent here in a thread at ANI about disruption by FenixFeather (and other editors like Wumbolo who are disruptively trying to raise the bar and nomming WP:NPRODUCT i.e. WP:NORG for FOSS software - i.e. no company, no product being sold), that diffs showing allegations of disruption of FenixFeather are shown.) FenixFeather should read WP:HA#NOT ...merely editing the same page as another user. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith, and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. There are already diffs proving all of those points above, including me just saying to continue to resolve on FenixFeather's talk, which is de-escalation. This is only brought here as FenixFeather is getting frustrated and WP:ADMINSHOP (and multiple talk, per above), and that seems to be mainly due to failing to convince anyone at several AfDs, getting reverted by two editors (already above). This is just an attempted WP:Boomerang - simply FenixFeather is being reverted and challenged by more than three editors. This is the reason I brought FenixFeather here due to BATTLEGROUND and uncivil trying to force delete at AfD disruption.
    That FenixFeather doesn't look at the car crash of these AfDs and stop, I don't know. I've added 50-100 sources to articles to rescue them with this mass deletion attempt, when they should all have been found at BEFORE by the noms. FenixFeather seems to be now getting WP:POINTy, by systematically AfDing [44] [45] and blanking [46] [47] Haskell articles today after disruptive wikilaywering at clash of this deletion cult at a sensitive but nurtured now xmonad crashsite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd nomination). I've already FenixFeather them what they have against Haskell. Singling out me, just because I agree with consensus and have done the most to find sources and rescue and point out bogus, inconsistent and AGF alegations, when several editors are all saying the same thing at the AfDs. Are they all to be brought here too, as there's complete consensus at the AfDs. Widefox; talk 04:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am singling you out because you're the only one who has flown off the hook as a result of this. Other editors I've had a very pleasant time interacting with, and haven't constantly called me disruptive or attacked me, or tried to use false consensuses against me and others. Take a good long look at yourself. You're the only one who has been doing this. Nobody else has felt the need to call me disruptive at every turn. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 04:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    sigh, you're attempting to single me out as I've found the most sources, been the most active in the clear consensus which you're going against at mass AfDs, and brought you here when you started calling another editor "dick move" etc. Why do you hate Haskell? (mass nomming and blanking Haskell articles - diffs above + comments + accusing everyone of being Haskell fans - diffs on request) and what's with using WP:NCOMPANY at all these AfDs when there's no company?! Repeating these AfDs without BEFORE, AfD after AfD after being challenged by several editors will eventually lead to fatigue (there's still more editors coming here complaining about AfD overload, but it still hasn't stopped - 2, 3 today?) and questions of bad faith by the community. This "take me to ANI" provocation (section above) and this section is clearly a pattern of disruption. "flown off the hook" - as I've said repeatedly - provide diffs for any accusation else it will be ignored! See WP:ANI "diff". I can provide diffs for what other editors have said about you. It seems to be a WP:LISTEN issue. Widefox; talk 04:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I included the first diff because you accuse me of being disruptive in the edit summary for no reason. I'll admit that I included unnecessary amounts of sass in my commentary, but that's nothing compared to the constant, toxic assault on my character. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @FenixFeather : You said I am tired, alone, and defeated .. I hate to say it but that is a sign of WP:WIKISTRESS. If one steps back it is probably not the best time to do content blanking and AfD raising ... those can nearly always wait if necessary. Now because my neutrality here can be quite reasonably be questioned I'm not the best person to suggest. But I feel a way needs to be found to de-escalate and chill. If it has to go to sanctions a no-fault two-way WP:IBAN(s) would appear to be the right way to go (I'm not actually proposing that at this moment) and it doesn't particularly censor anybody though they have to be most considered and careful with contributions. Incidentally one bit tip I got from an admin when I first ended up at a DRV discussion was don't reply to every post someone makes ... I guess that means ideally try to aim to do one or perhaps two succinct concise reply in each 168 hour discussion. Closing admins should be able to sift the consensus readily in most cases and account for any last minute replies at the end of the 168 hour stint (obviously non-admin closures can be a little more variable but there's always the option to question them or at worst DRV). Though I seem not to agree with you quite a lot I have at times noted very good work from you and have learned things from you. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC) (NB: posted this without noticing Reyk's reply above ... its best if I best no further at the moment) Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Djm-leighpark: Thanks and I appreciate the advice. The last time I was here I quit Wikipedia for a whole year because of how stressful it was, and yes, you're right, there's no urgent need to do AFDs right now, especially since it seems like Widefox is studiously guarding any remotely software related AFDs. After multiple attempts to reach out and de-escalate, I thought things had cooled down enough for me to proceed as normal. I was wrong. As such, I don't believe this is a "both sides are to blame" situation. Widefox has continually hounded and harassed both me and Wumbolo to the breaking point. Nevertheless, I do want to thank you for remaining levelheaded and pleasant to interact with, even during potentially contentious AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FoxyTunes. I really appreciate your way of editing and your withdrawal of your request for sanctions against Wumbolo. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 08:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The driver is "proceed as normal (for me and Wumbolo)" actually means resume deleting against an overwhelming consensus. Shooting a messenger won't change that. (I cannot comment on Djm-leighpark's wise words, as I do not wish to give you the impression I'm suggesting you stop editing, just start WP:LISTENing) Widefox; talk 14:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NSOFTWARE

    WP:NSOFTWARE essay. We have no subject-specific notability guideline. I flag this up as a weakness that may be a good faith reason underneath these mass deletions - why editors may be erroneously nomming Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) "WP:NPRODUCT" for software that would not be termed a "product" (no company or organisation, no product to sell, no service to sell even). (It's a conflation of software as a creative work vs software product). Apart from outdated as marked, it's also out of line with our content e.g. software is not defined as a product (only commercial software section uses the term). The essay has now turned up at an AfD. I note that the "product" aspect was recently fixed (de-conflated) in the essay [50] but reverted [51]. I can't fix it given the above, so note it here. Widefox; talk 16:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ANI is not for content disputes. The appropriate forum is the talk page of that notability guideline. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you also want a special notability guideline for puppies? They aren't products, but can be sold. How about a special notability guideline for sharp objects? Because sharp rocks aren't products, but knives are sold commercially. wumbolo ^^^ 17:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, good faith gets ridiculed. I won't be editing any of these until this is closed here, or pursue any further as WP:DEADHORSE so it can be closed from my side. Widefox; talk 17:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Again an assumption of a lack of AGF. Now you don't want to "pursue any further" even though you started this section, so you're the one doing the WP:DEADHORSE thing. wumbolo ^^^ 17:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    He is not here to build an encyclopedia

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

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

    A) Here, he keeps on removing contents. while they are supported by the sources. Again, he removes same content from another article, while the content is clearly seen in the source.
    B) Again, the materials he removes here are fully supported by the cited source and I fixed his false removal.
    C) In this edit he removes contents regarding bombing of US buildings by MEK, this is while the content is really supported by the source.

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

    A) Here, he removes some sourced content from the lead writing in the lead that Aaron Schwartz's source, here labeled as 'PSJLIA', is not reliable. This is while the most of the materials he removes has nothing to do with the Schwartz's source and are supported by the book by Jonathan R. White.
    B) In this edit he removes a well sourced sentence, alleging in the edit summary that one of the sources (infoplease.com) is not reliable. Stefka refers to the discussion I started at RSN, where there is no consensus over using 'infoplease.com' and the springer book which uses 'infoplease.com' to cite the 16,000 figure. However there was not any objections against using other sources cited for 10,000 figure. In that discussion, Stefka Bulgaria himself says "...hence this figure [i.e. 16,000] cannot considered reliable". Stefka is clearly GAMING us by removing the 10,000 figure which is supported by other sources.
    C) In this edit he removes two sentences each supported by two different sources. In the edit summary Stefka writes ‘Strategic Culture’ is a Fringe source but removes the second sentence cited to another reliable source.
    D) Here and here, he pretends to be inserting quotes from a source, but is in fact removing the sourced materials.

    3- Miscellaneous:

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

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

    Stefka, whether he is doing right edits or not (I don't have a opinion on that), is made in good faith. Saying he is "not here to build an encyclopedia" is really exaggerating. This shouldn't have gone to ANI, you should have waited for his response at the very least. He does a lot of constructive stuff on this site. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But those diffs speak for themselves. --Mhhossein talk 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This repeated filing of complaints towards editors attempting to balance the MEK related articles (which are heavily skewed to the Iranian gvmt POV) - is not reasonable. In regards to the supplied, diffs - 1A - It would seem Stefka removed un-referenced information (as well as info sourced to the Christian Science Monitor) in a BLP article. 1B - is a rather CHERRYPICKED account of the thenation article (including removal this was "one website"). 1C - the first half of the paragraph is sourced to what appears to be a position paper which seems a somewhat dubious source for unattributed use. 2A - this is a student-edited journal that was removed - quite a sketchy source. 2B - [52] seems like a sketchy source, however it says "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - which does not support - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - or rather is a blatant misrepresentation (as a large portion of the fatalities in the conflict were killed by the Iranian government). 2C - The econd sentence is sourced to a state department report - which is sketchy. 2D - seems like an expansion of content based on the source. 3A - perhaps one shouldn't add off-topic content to a section to begin with? Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      And all that being said - that a bit of information passes WP:V ("supported by the source") - does guarantee inclusion - e.g. per WP:NPOV. Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note to viewers: Icewhiz appears up (needless to say it's sort of hounding) almost when ever I file things against users. @IW: Sketchy sketchy sketchy sketchy...Be realistic. Don't defend others at any price, editors will certainly judge your words and won't be mislead by your comments. You had the same behavior at AE and the other guy you always used to defend, got blocked for the third time. This is not good for you. --Mhhossein talk 05:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not intended to comment on this thread until I saw Mhhossein's above comment. I do not believe a user who defended a neo-nazi sock puppet (Expectant of Light) has much room to comment on who or what other users should defend, and I'd further recommend that MH keep WP:NPA in mind. While I do not feel Mhhossein has done much that is actionable, I have found them notably obtuse and overzealous at ANI. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Icarosaurvus: Be careful about what you say. You can take it as warning against making personal attacks. --Mhhossein talk 12:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you didn't actualy defend Expectant of Light the above statement is nowhere near a personal attack. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a point we can rest on...Cheers! --Mhhossein talk 18:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the user did indeed defend Expectant of Light, I'd say it's most certainly not a personal attack. While I do not believe the two are connected in any meaningful way, other than sharing an interest in Iran, one has to be careful about defending another user simply because they share one's POV; something which Mhhossein has been less than stellar about in the past. Thus, I do not believe the user in question is particularly well qualified to comment on what one should or should not defend. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Icarosaurvus, with your 43 edits to mainspace in 4 years, I really think you should tone it down some lest someone think you're not here. Now, it is true that those who file reports an ANI should expect to come under scrutiny, but what you're doing here is not scrutinizing--it's simply casting aspersions. And whether someone defended a neo-Nazi or not has, as it happens, very little to do with this particular case, unless you can make a connection that somehow involves Stefka Bulgaria's edits. If you can't, stay away. Yes, please consider this a warning for a violation of [{WP:NPA]]. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I primarily edit portals; specifically, Portal:Current events. The idea that only mainspace edits should or do count is ludicrous; mainspace is only part of what keeps our encyclopedia functional. A large part, granted, but if we neglected the other components of this great work, it would not be the respectable site which it is today. While I disagree with your assessment of the above as a personal attack, I will leave this thread alone, unless pinged. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As requested, here's my review of Mhhossein's comments above:

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

    Comments in response to the above allegations. (@Drimes: can you please see my explanation on his misinterpretations?):
    1.
    A) Besides the point that 'WikiProject Iran’s Talk page' is not the right venue for making global decisions regarding sources, I can say that there's absolutely no consensus over IRI sources being "not suitable for fact-checking of political opposition." Even you can't find any mentions of 'fact checking' in this semi private discussion he refers to. However, the dispute is not over the reliability of the Iranian sources. Above, he alleged that he had removed ([53], [54] and [55]) the first source since it had "not mention[ed] the MEK". This is while, in P:27 it reads"...subsequent investigations revealed that Kashmiri was an agent of the leftist People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), supported by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and blamed for 17,000 Iranian deaths during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988," and in P:28 it repeats the same thing: " Although the Bahonar-Rajai assassination was solved with identification of bomber Massoud Kashmiri as an MEK agent he remained unpunished."
    B) This source clearly supports "MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as “revolutionary forces.”" Although the source is commenting on MEK's reaction to ISIL's activities in Iraq, not Syria, it's not a suitable reason to remove such a sourced content.
    C) He removed materials regarding MEK's armed acts against U.S. personnel and civil bodies only since the section title. i.e. Anti-American campaign, was not suitable. I've already changed the title, but Stefka gradually removed the whole section based on his self-made allegations. I've now simply restored the section with a new title.
    2.
    A) Stefka already revealed that his edit summary was not in accordance with his edit.
    'B) I think Stefka is digging himself deeper regarding the '10,000 deaths' issue, since we're not even talking about whether or not figure 16,000 is reliable. He has removed the well-sourced figure of 10,000. @Stefka: So, don't say infoplease is reliable or not, since that has nothing to do with our dispute. Stefka is GAMING us by removing the well-sourced 10,000 on an irrelevant basis. Yes, there were no consensus over 16,000 being supported by a reliable source, but we're not talking about that.
    C) Again Stefka admits having used a misleading edit summary. In this edit stefka removed, among others, materials cited to a U.S. state report and now he revealed that the removal was only because he though the US report was heavily influenced by Iran!!! So we need to know Stefka's definition of reliable sources. In that edit, the edit summary tell us he's only removed the the materials cited to 'Strategic Culture', which is not correct.
    D) Stefka's edit summary ([56] and [57]) reads "Quote from the source[s]". Are the edits only inserting quotes from a source into the article?
    3.
    I don't say there's "any evidence in the provided sources that the MEK was involved in the Syria conflict", rather I say Stefka "could simply edit the title and keep the well-sourced material" instead of removing them.
    The case is really getting time wasting but I think it's worth trying to let the others know what I mean by Stefka's "dishonest" edits.--Mhhossein talk 13:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A majority vote at WikiProjet Iran contended that IRI-controlled sources should be used for IRI positions. The majority vote argued that IRI-controlled sources are subject to censorship, particularly concerning political topics (where covering certain political topics can lead to imprisonment or execution).
    Based on the fact that the IRI executes MEK sympathizers, I’ve tried to bring some neutrality to the article by making a distinction between IRI and non-IRI sources; as well as replacing weak sources / fringe statements with quotes from more established scholarly works. Many of these have been objected/reverted by Mhhossein, who comes across as having POV issue here. Mhhossein’s POV-pushing edits include:
    • Trying to establish the MEK is referred to with the derogatory term “Hypocrites” in Iran 1, 2, 3
    • Removing well-sourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • POV summaries from sources:
    Source: The U.S. government has accused the group of helping Saddam brutally put down a Kurdish rebellion in the early 1990s, and of launching numerous attacks inside Iran.
    Mhhossein: MEK assisted Saddam Hussein in "brutally" suppressing the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.[1]
    Source: In the wake of the revolution, Khomeini grew suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant and widespread popularity.
    Mhhossein: After the fall of the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, when Khomeini got "suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant.”
    About Mhhossein’s points above, here’s my reply:
    1A. “Keshmiri” is spelled “Kashmiri” in the source, which may be the reason why my word search initially gave no returns when I searched for it. Nevertheless, it was the IRI who identified Keshmiri as a MEK agent. Considering that the IRI was pinning whatever it could on the MEK at the time, these need to be presented as allegations rather than facts.
    B. @Mhhossein, how is the statement "MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as ‘revolutionary forces’” a valid attribute to the “MeK’s alleged involved in Syria”?
    C. @Mhhossein, again, the section was titled “Anti-American campaign” (a title that you you included). Here, I already made a point concerning Mhhossein’s misrepresantation of sources.
    2A. As pointed out, there is a POV issue there.
    B. First, the source says “Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict, which is not the same as “As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979”. Second, Ploughshares report is not RS, particularly on account of its links to the IRI.
    3. Finding titles to random remarks is not my objective at the MEK page.
    Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Too much boring...hey look, be careful about how you use the sources and edit the articles. You edit as if others are keeping their eyes closed. Already wasted my time on this. --Mhhossein talk 16:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained my edits. The issue here is your POV pushing and constant reporting of editors that disagree with your edits, which you have yet to explain. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang

    A WP:BOOMERANG is in order, due to repeated unactionable complaints filed here and in particular due to this diff Mhhossein brought himself - [58] that was blanket reverted by Mhhossein - beyond the sketchy source this is a blatant misrepresention of the source and a serious POV problem - transforming "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - in the cited source into - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - turning a two sided casulty count (MEK-regime, regime-MEK) into a one sided one (MEK-regime) with highly POV language.Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous complaint here by blocked sock - [59] supported by Mhhossein. Another one by the blocked sock - [60] supported by Mhhossein (the sock got blocked for the nature of their comments prior to being discovered as a sock). Filing baseless ANI complaints every month or so against Stefka Bulgaria over a content dispite (in this case - without even engaging in the talk page of the article) - is not reasonable. @CaroleHenson: has been attempting to mediate in the content dispite(s) and might have input.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional recent complaint against another user at ANI over content - [61].Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The very providing of this diff clealry demonstrates your bad faith approach towards me. In that ANI, the reported user was to be sanctioned but survived after he changed his behavior. Read ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) and Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC). --Mhhossein talk 12:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Article issues could have been dwelt on the article's Talk page. Mhhossein has resorted to making unactionable complaints against editors that disagree with him much too often. His POV pushing and inability to work constructively with others that do not share his perspective is disruptive. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose pending some evidence. @Icewhiz: Do you have any diffs or archive links of these "repeated unactionable complaints"? The two links above are to threads started by a different editor, and smearing the present OP by attempting to associate them with "a blocked sock" is clearly inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, it's not the first time folks have attempted to link Mhh with the David Duke fan in question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but that thread was opened neither by Mhhossein nor about Stefka Bulgaria, and from what I can establish (by looking at who edit-warred with whom, which is as far as I'm willing to delve into this content dispute) Pahlevun's "side" is ... not Stefka Bulgaria's, whatever either one is, so the existence of that thread doesn't back up Icewhiz's claim. And I should point out that while I was on Icewhiz's "side" during the EoL mess, that was purely because EoL was a DavidDuke-citing, antisemiticcanard-spouting Holocaust-denier; from what I can see, nothing about this mess that isn't ... that ... is black-and-white. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just one note to show the guy is wrong. On the killings issue, this scholarly source clearly supports the quote in question. It reads: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of morethan 10,000Iranians” since its exile. Or you can read here: "...and its leader even boasted about killing thousands of Iranians while this cult served ex-Iraqi dictator's expansionist ambition," here: "...the group returned the favor and killed by its own claim more than two thousand regime leaders," here: "..."Since 1981 the [MEK] have claimed responsibility for murdering thousands of Iranians they describe as agents of the regime," the report said." Also, this source suggests that this archive Washington Times article supports the figure in question. Where are those "repeated unactionable complaints" or those "baseless ANI complaints every month or so [filed] against Stefka Bulgaria" by me? --Mhhossein talk 12:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Mhhossein restored this (which seems somewhat sketchy) as a source, and it does ineed read ""Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict." Nearly all sources, unless quoting the Iranian regime, refer to bi-sided conflict deaths - MEK's militia sustained quite a bit of casulties.Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Responding to Mhhossein's points above:

    1. According to Piazza's article, the alleged "death of more than 10,000 Iranians" figure derived from an alleged U.S. Senate statement published on The Iran Times (Islamic Republic of Iran-controlled media has been proposed inadequate for fact-checking for political opposition groups on account of current censorship issues in Iran, including a misinformation campaign by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the MEK).[2][3][4][5]

    References

    1. ^ Graff, James (December 14, 2006). "Iran's Armed Opposition Wins a Battle — In Court". Time. Archived from the original on April 28, 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    2. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=2AVR16hSwAwC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=mojahedin+misinformation&source=bl&ots=Xpt25UT1sH&sig=lmIkUo2zwo83_0O9aINdD1i2MhQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjt-PdsNHcAhUo0FkKHeB8Ckk4FBDoATAEegQIBhAB#v=onepage&q=mojahedin%20misinformation&f=false
    3. ^ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tehrans-futile-attempts-at-discrediting-the-cause-for-regime-change-in-iran/
    4. ^ https://books.google.ca/books?id=_ac30INKAu4C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=mek+mois&source=bl&ots=dihePewqzH&sig=PHcZHRt_n7J0SPz4vBcMFAuDUUk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOlK-Doc_cAhWkyoMKHa9dC2EQ6AEwDXoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=mek%20mois&f=false
    5. ^ https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is-iran-expanding-its-spying-and-lobbying-efforts

    2. Mhhossein's second source is an Opinion Piece on USA today written by Hamid Babaei, who appears to have links the Islamic Republic of Iran (the article is reminiscent of the misinformation campaign noted above).
    3. Mhhossein's third source is far from being RS.
    4. Mhhossein's fourth source quotes a State Department report that does not mention a particular figure of how many died. Also considering that there have been thousands of deaths on both sides, resuming in the article that As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 is clearly POV pushing.
    5. Here's a list of Mhhossein's unactionable complaints against different editors: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, here are a couple of previous reports against user Mhhossein for POV-pushing: [72], [73] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh...sorry. Both are some years old cases. The first was opened by a sock and the second was nearly ending into a Boomerang for the user commencing the report. Claearly shows you're doing your best to find something against me.--Mhhossein talk 19:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are to show that Drmies had already warned you that your POV pushing was disruptive. Some of your unactionable complaints against different editors, however, are more recent. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Stefka Bulgaria, said Drmies has a pretty good track record when it comes to POV warnings, but one wonders how that is relevant here. Now, in the section above you said you'd reply to the charges on the article talk page. I suggest you answer them here. You really don't want me and a bunch of other admins to turn off the Alabama game, make a pot of coffee, and wake up to investigate these charges and draw our conclusions without your input. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Stefka Bulgaria is not sad with the marginal discussions distracting the admin's eyes from the the diffs I provided. Thanks to the Icewhiz's defenses, Stefka's failure at replying to them is losing its importance. Anyway, I'd like to add one point in response to Stefka; His in vain 'censorship' accusations aside, Piazza's article makes use of an Iran Times article dealing with a U.S. Senate statement. The simple point is that The Iran Times, in contrast to what Stefka alleged, was ‬"founded‭ ‬in Washington‭ ‬D‭.‬C‭. ‬in‭ ‬1970‭, ‬in‭ ‬accordance‭ ‬with‭ ‬U‭.‬S‭. ‬federal‭ ‬and‭ ‬local regulations‭,‬" hence has nothing to do with the Iranian government. Had Stefka bothered to check the sources and contents of the articles before making edits, there would not be such a discussion. --Mhhossein talk 13:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Iran Times is a fringe publication with a sole editor, does not qualiy as RS. I have responded to Dmries request above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At first it was unreliable since it had some relations with Iran and now that otherwise is proved, it's a fringe source! Maybe John Wiley & Sons and editors of 'Digest of Middle East Studies' need to get aware of it. Btw, your link does not say the mentioned guy is the sole editor of the source. --Mhhossein talk 14:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Javad Khakbaz, the sole owner and editor of the Iran Times". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He might be the sole owner but not certainly the sole editor. Anyway, it's a time wasting discussion. The John Wiley & Sons source refers to a Senate report. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP.--Mhhossein talk 11:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Iran Times is not RS, and no link/reference is provided to the alleged US report (all of which simply reflects on the author). Your John Wiley & Sons source has a number of other fascinating statements such as:
    • "This resistance is depicted as the vanguard of a popular struggle against a traitorous clique that has betrayed both ideals of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the memories of those martyred in it." (page 10)
    • "The Mojahedin present themselves as a liberating Islamist alternative." (page 10)
    • "The Mojahedin are, and continue to be, an ideological party committed to a radical, progressive interpretation of Islam tempered with familiar themes of liberation found in Shi’I doctrine."(page 11)
    • "Specifically, the MEK look toward the creation, by armed popular struggle, of a society in which ethic, gender, or class discrimination would be obliterated."(page 11)
    And many more.... Can you guess why I haven't included these in the article, despite it coming from a John Wiley & Sons publication? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't edit based on YOUR standards, including your own definition of Reliable Sources. --Mhhossein talk 12:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying then that these statements mentioned above would be ok to be included in the article just because the source is a John Wiley & Sons publication? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IP spreading questionable information about dormant professional basketball players

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

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

    This is a noob, the IP address is a static IP from the Philippines. I wouldn't call leaving him a third and final warning as a great way to start up communication with him. Just a suggestion try writing him a friendly note offering to help him figure out the problem is? If there is edit warring, take him to ANEW. Outside of that, this is a content dispute. Did you notice that his contributions consist of just simple phrases? It's quite possible that there is a language barrier. Basically, the only actionable thing in your report is BITE, and that doesn't point to the IP. John from Idegon (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @John from Idegon: Fair point. Thank you for your input. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than assuming bad faith here, I think it may be a good-faith difference in terminology. Many players never officially hold a press conference or have a press release and declare themselves retired; they just sort of can't find teams to hire them and quit playing. There's no magic threshold where a player goes from "could still play and is maybe still looking for a team" and "too old and probably not actively trying to play sports anymore". To take the reductio ad absurdum argument: What if those players aren't on a team for 5 years? 10 years? 40 years? If they never announce anything, when do we call them retired? I see nothing really disruptive with what they are doing. If there is a disagreement over what is already a very fuzzy definition. If we have a Wikipedia-specific consensus as to what that threshold is, link to it. If not, then you can't tell him he's wrong. Instead, start a discussion somewhere to establish a consensus on how to proceed before telling someone they are wrong, when you have no evidence they are. --Jayron32 18:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. Come to think of it, some of the folks have not been on a team since 2015 or 2016 (or only played four games in the last four years). I'll keep your input in mind for the future. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t know about the NBA, but in Major League Baseball “retired” is a legal status with a very specific meaning. A player’s contract is rendered null and void and his pay stopped upon official retirement; if he’s still owed money on that contract he likely won’t officially retire, and especially not if he stopped playing due to a work-related injury (e.g. Prince Fielder). He may not be playing, but his legal status is absolutely not “retired”. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The general (unwritten) practice at WP:NBA seems to be a "few" years of inactivity to call them "former players", and a verifiable source to list them as "retired". I'd personally say at least 2 years (if not 3) before calling them "former", but agree that a WikiProject would be the best venue to discuss. As the warnings I see on their talk page were for "retired" edits, I'd say the unsourced warnings are reasonable.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

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

    "SA-11" was in the article since July 2014: a damage pattern indicative of a SA-11. Further:
    1. Change in the consensus version: [74] - the revert to consensus: [75]
    2. Start of the edit war, re-introduction of non-consensus changes: [76] and the righteous revert: [77]
    3. Third addition of non-consensus changes: [78] and the righteous revert: [79]
    4. Further, new participants join the war of edits. Andrewgprout have made the fourth entering of non-consensus changes: [80].
    5. FlightTime have made the same: [81].

    I tried to discuss this with John on his talk page, but he advised to "shut up" and close discussion: [82]. On the article talk page they just scoff: [83]. I'm completely at a loss and do not know what to do now.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not edit warring, I reverted the article to a stable version before this all started and posted a request for page protection and that's all I've done. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell me please. You see the history of revisions. Why do you think, that only the version of 22:19, 18 September 2018‎ is a stable version? Why not the version of 18:36, 18 September 2018‎, which were stable from 2014?--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nicoljaus: It's the first version before the edit warring started. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. This is a new version, which was pushed by the edit warring. All diffs are here.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Not sure what you're seeing, but I'm not going to argue with you. This is the version I reverted to. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's strange for me, why the opposite side failed to see the start of the BRD cycle. Not one user, but two, three, four...--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Stable in 2014 is not stable in 2018. --Tarage (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The changes were made 22:19, 18 September 2018 and first time reverted 22:54, 18 September 2018. When the new version became "stable"?--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We told you above. It was the version before the edit warring started. --Tarage (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, personally you talk me about "stable version". When it became stable?--Nicoljaus (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    When the edit war started. --Tarage (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How interesting. You mean, the article has no stable version until the edit war?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Obviously, this request was made to divert attention from his own behavior (edit warring). In spite of being given many opportunities John ignored the question "why so many experienced users failed to find the start of BRD cycle".--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicoljaus, is hardly helping himself by making aspersions. BUT he is quite correct, the stable version (stable since at least 2016) is the one that he reverted to (as did I), not the one that John and some others favour. Discussion continues on talk and no clear consensus has yet been established for the new version, or some modification. Nicoljaus and I were I believe quite correct to revert to the stable version until that discussion is resolved. The edit warring is being done by those who favour the new version and either don't know, or don't care what the stable version was. Perhaps their changes are correct, but they have to win the argument on talk first. Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not weighing in on the edit war, but Nicoljaus' question regarding BRD is, frankly, nonsensical. I don't know if that's difficulty with English, or just trying to needle John. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little tired of people who talk about my abilities in English and at the same time are not able to understand who started BRR instead of BRD.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you kindly tell us who was/were the meatpuppet/s you accused John of recruiting? Or else withdraw that accusation? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not want to accuse anyone. I want the disagreements to be resolved by a calm discussion, not by edit warring.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are "a little tired", don't waste your energy making completely unfounded half-baked troll-like accusations about fellow editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't stop doing things I haven't done before.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So what did you mean by “And then there was the help of a friend” here? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant the situation when experienced users critically failed to find the start of BRD cycle. Their actions do not look like the actions of experienced users, but as actions of meatpuppets. But they, of course, can not be meatpuppets, and you know this perfectly, they are not freshly registered users. But the problem with such strange behavior remains.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahahahahahaha. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued reverts over the span of several months

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

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

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

    Firstly, most of those reverts happened around the time Alex made the edits, I told Alex; Those edits had to be reverted, I have a job to do just like every other Wikipedian, and part of that job is reverting disruptive edits. That revert was a fluke, I don't how it turned out like that. By the time Alex had messaged me, I was reverting his disruptive edits. Every recent revert I made was because I stumbled across Alex's edits of a particular season, I would then revert all the edits made to the rest of the seasons. Why should I waste time scrolling through sections of articles when I can just revert his edits? If he's going to get worked up about it then why doesn't he self-revert his own edits. It's been nearly three months, they're up there long enough and all should be removed. I'm going to stop reverting them from now on due to the backlash. The Optimistic One (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As can be seen from the screenshots, most of them are actually recent, so they're not around the time the edits were made. That revert wasn't a "fluke", it was you not checking what you were reverting and just doing it blindly. To paraphrase you: Why should you waste time scrolling through histories of articles when you can just edit a single section? As for the reverting, they didn't have to be reverted, see my initial paragraph - After this thread, the general consensus was that editors should determine the usage of "U.S." or "US" on each article separately, and implement it thus. It was up to the editors of each of the separate articles to determine it, it wasn't a "had to" revert, nor was it a case where I had to self-revert - I actually opened up a second thread and I was strongly recommended against doing that.
    If you're going to stop reverting them, then this thread could be closed, but I'm still curious, just as a single editor, as to whether it's acceptable. -- AlexTW 05:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverting your edits was the quickest way of getting the job done. I would have scrolled through sections and histories if I couldn't revert your edits. I told you, if your going to get worked up about it then why don't you self-revert your own edits. Those edits were disruptive. The Optimistic One (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you not read? I already said nor was it a case where I had to self-revert - I actually opened up a second thread and I was strongly recommended against doing that. -- AlexTW 06:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. Can you send me a link to the thread? The Optimistic One (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Optimistic One: In the followup thread, I urged Alex to do a second AWB run to mass revert his mass changes. Two others also urged him to self-revert his changes in some capacity, and one more mused about "how best to correct a disruptive automated mass edit", which I guess we can throw in that camp too (though it's questionable whether they understood the situation based on the comparison they made). However, four editors also took the position that the changes were essentially no big deal and that they can be manually changed back, as-needed, on an individual basis. So, that's an even split, and there was no formal reading of consensus anyways. I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that "Those edits had to be reverted" or "Those edits were disruptive", but that sentiment never manifested as a consensus. The only issue was that it was an an improper AWB run. The WP:AWBRULES violation was borderline, and much of the backlash he received stemmed from his attitude, not from the changes themselves. I don't think it's any better to mass revert these minor changes without a consensus than it was to make them in the first place. You're not being any better than Alex in terms of making mass changes without a consensus. This could have been sorted out months ago via an RfC. Somebody could have just stuck an RfC template on the original Wikiproject discussion! Instead, you're being unilateral and belligerent, which was supposedly the problem to begin with! (Swarm ♠ talk) 19:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: I think that there should be another AWB. People will get confused when on one article it reads US and on the other it reads U.S. I didn't pay attention to that thread at the time, so I didn't hear about this "split". They also said they can be manually changed back, as-needed, on an individual basis. That pretty much says that if anyone stumbles across an edit, they can change it back. And I'm also not being "unilateral and belligerent". The Optimistic One (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it difficult to believe that any reader cares about the periods. I suggest you find something more useful to do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, what he said. This was an incident from July, it's high time you move on. (Swarm ♠ talk) 06:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock requested for grammar warrior

    Ponyo blocked the Los Angeles range Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1301:4462:0:0:0:0/64 for three days ending earlier today, but the person has started up again with grammar warring of the exact same nature, changing "crew was" to "crew were".[84] The IP Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1301:4462:C049:D05D:2B1D:A481 has come out of the rangeblock to resume this kind of grammar warring. Parsecboy was also dealing with this person before the earlier block.

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

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

    Additional context. GMGtalk 19:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just at this moment I don't see how the disruptive behaviour has resumed, they're just making grammar corrections, unless you're saying those corrections are wrong? Also, just noting that an IPv6 /64 is functionally equivalent to a single IPv4 address - all addresses within the /64 should be presumed to be the same user in the same way that discrete IPv4 addresses should be presumed to be the same user (at one time, they're dynamic, etc). I'm not even really sure why we *can* block individual IPv6 addresses - should just always block the /64. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The grammatical corrections are, in fact, correct. That is: unless any of the ships affected really did have a crew of just one person (plain impossible). Since crews are resolutely plural, then "the crew were rescued" is entirely correct and plural. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily. It is more of an English variation matter, since collective nouns are given a different grammatical number depending on the variation. For example, at least in British English, collective nouns (which "crew" can be) tend to be treated as plural ("...the crew were...") rather than singular, the latter being more common in other variations and especially in American English. Moreover, "crew" can refer to a single crew member, in which case singular forms are due irrespective of English variation; likewise with ships whose crew comprises one member, which may be the case in certain contexts however rare. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Nøkkenbuer, there is no universal correct way to refer to collective nouns of a singular form. There are two approaches: treat the collective as what it represents (called notional agreement), and treat the collective as a unit unto itself (called formal agreement). It also is NOT as simple as "British English does one, and American English does the other". There are situations within each dialect where one form is favored over the other, but there are some cases that BrEng treats notionally and AmEng treats formally, and vice-versa. The problem comes not from people, in good faith, changing one they think is wrong because they are only exposed to one variety of English, the problem comes when people are informed of the fact that multiple varieties of English exist, and refuse to believe it. --Jayron32 23:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    English varieties does not come into it. With the exception of one article affected, all the ships are British registered and therefore British English is the language variety that should be used. The sole exception (French frigate Vénus (1780)) is about a French registered ship. However the edit to that article was not a grammatical correction but a minor CE)). TheVicarsCat (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    From: Collins Dictionary of [British] English Usage. "A collective noun meaning 'a number of' can mean either 'some' or 'a large (or small) number', and is accordingly treated as plural." It does note an exception where the collective noun is qualified by what it is a number of. Thus 'the crew were rescued' is correct (because 'crew' means 'a [large] number of [sailors]'), but the cumbersome 'crew of sailors was rescued' would be similarly correct (because there is only one 'crew of sailors'). TheVicarsCat (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I already pre-agreed with you before you objected to my agreement with you. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. When I said " the problem comes when people are informed of the fact that multiple varieties of English exist, and refuse to believe it." what I really meant was " the problem comes when people are informed of the fact that multiple varieties of English exist, and refuse to believe it." --Jayron32 11:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done: I think it's fair to say here that this rangeblock isn't going to be actioned at the moment - it now appears to be a content dispute of some sort (a grammar dispute - the best sort). Would it be possible to continue this discussion on the talk page of the articles in question, or more appropriately in this matter, some sort of dispute resolution page? Much appreciated y'all - TNT 💖 09:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe DiRosa

    Article deleted, user blocked indef, nothing else to do here--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Apparently I was dumb enough to create an account with my own name. I created one page on a company called Onox, Inc. and went in and cleaned up the structure of 2 pages related to me. No information really added and no citations added. Now I have been consistently attacked , added to virtually every board they can think of and they are even chasing down pages which I havent published yet.. It is consistent harassment because I didnt hide real name with my screen name. They have participated in biased editing, picked apart every edit I've made and seem to think it woul dbe a game to target me. Many of these editors have created pages which are less recognizable then mine and they seem to continually kill citations and make comments without properly reading the articles. This and this isn't and its all just harassment. I've replied nicely, i've offered alternate citations in virtually all situations, and i havent tried to publish a page except the first one. They continue to harass even though I could have just published these pages myself if I wanted to.. no need to make a draft page since I have the required number of edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirosa (talk • contribs) 23:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    oh and those articles you seem to think that are so promotional have been there for nearly 10 years and had many editors come through and not put them up for deletion. Its strange that no other editors over the years seemed to deem them a problem and even made edits to them. Not till i created a editing account under my own name and created the page Onox, Inc. did this all become an issue. Joedirosa (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, this user has now been blocked for socking. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Genre warring 2

    IP blocked 72 hours for continued unsourced genre changes. For anyone who doesn't know, this is such a chronic problem that it has its own set of warnings—{{uw-genre1}}–{{uw-genre4}}. Ideally, these types of genre-warriors should receive the standard four escalating warnings in the same vein as any other problem user, and then an administrator should block. Philosophical/academic considerations as to the role of genres in articles should be discussed in an appropriate meta-forum, and not endlessly bantered over while reported users continue to disrupt articles with unsourced genre changes. (Swarm ♠ talk) 07:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Yes, both the IP and you were being mildly disruptive by edit-warring with each other. However, the issue was 12 hours ago and hopefully that's the end of it. If it starts up again, WP:AN3 is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I see nothing blockworthy here. I’ve left them a note explaining how sourcing works. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333, I've seen you repeatedly let vandals have their way by downplaying legitimate vandal reports such as this one. What's the deal? You're out of step with decisive admins such as Swarm, Materialscientist, Widr, etc. Your laissez-faire attitude is very frustrating for veteran users who are down in the trenches working to maintain the integrity of the wiki, the people who have the best view of the pattern of disruption. Your comment about the Peru IP "being mildly disruptive" takes the cake. IP 190.234.55.196 is a dangerous falsifier with edits such as this one changing album ratings upward to falsely give the album a better score. His genre-warring extends to Spanish-language Wikipedia. But, hey, let's give the guy a free pass. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's probably because none of those admins (AFAIK) have improved over 100 articles to GA status, so they don't know what it's like to do lots of work on an article to know what's important and what isn't. This is just a silly edit war over trivial stuff in the infobox which is not as important as the main prose and sourcing in the article. Don't you remember what I did to Hammond organ to get it up to GA status, for example? Anyway, it's not vandalism. And if Swarm, Widr and Materialscientist ever want me to do a GA review for them, I will. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been right many times but you're wrong about this not being vandalism. It's absolutely vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thank you Binksternet this is the exact reason I'm no longer going to report this type of disruption. Both Ritchie333 and TonyBallioni have been denying reports at AIV, so I started reporting them here, now they come here and deny them here also. I fell if they are not willing to handle disruption reports like these they should not act on these and let other admins who are more in touch with the SOP of genre warring. Maybe I can make reports at Swarm if they wouldn't mind. Maybe we can create Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against disruptive editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Tony has covered adequately why the original report didn't warrant a block. When I look at disruption that is not blatant vandalism, copyvios, BLPs, I look at both sides and treat the parties as equally and fairly as I can. If you're upset because we didn't punish a user in the way you wanted them to, too bad. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have made that block too: I was about to, and Swarm beat me too it. The difference there was that you had a long term SPA (3 weeks) who had been ignoring communication for just as long and editing against consensus. Here it looked like you had an IP that was swapping unsourced information for other unsourced information. An explanation beyond an essay that doesn’t have community consensus would have been helpful. Binksternet’s explanation was great: it’s stale, or I’d block. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I know some Wikipedians think it's a very serious issue whether Led Zeppelin (album) is considered "hard rock", "blues rock" and / or "heavy metal" in the infobox, but I am pretty confident that most people in the real world couldn't give a flying monkeys one way or the other. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is that patently adding false information like that to articles absolutely is vandalism, but genre warring isn’t (and I do not consider it a reason to block on its own without other clear disruption like edit warring or editing against consensus.) The issue here is for me and a few other admins I’ve talked to about the AIV backlog complaints (cc: K6ka as I know he has thoughts on this) established users reverting minor infobox changes of new users looks exactly like the type of content dispute that we aren’t supposed to get involved in. If someone is falsifying record sales performances and the like I care a lot. If someone is arguing that Album X is grunge metal and it’s called that in Rolling Stone but one of the page watchers thinks it’s heavy metal, yeah, I don’t think policy allows me to intervene there. We need diffs and policy based reasons to block and I typically prefer to see that new users have had citations explained to them rather than templated about changing genres. If someone continues to edit against consensus after this, then I’m fine blocking, but a random “this IP is genre warring.” with nothing else isn’t helpful. Now that it’s clear the user has been adding false information, I don’t object to a block if it starts up again, and I’ll watchlist their talk so I can deal with it quickly in the future (and anyone is free to report it on my talk.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of blatantly falsifying information, the stock Twinkle templates aren't really of much use. They're too generic, confrontational, and cannot explain the specific instance. I find it much better to revert, and if necessary leave a message like, "Why did you change 'x' rating from 2.5 to 3.5? The source [link] clearly says 2.5". Then you can follow it up, saying, "I'm sorry, but I got no answer, so I'm going to have to block you until I get an explanation". A better result all round, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you two (TonyBallioni and Ritchie333) don't consider genre warring to be a problem, can you step away from responding to AIV and ANI reports about genre warring? Many other editors and admins think this is a significant problem. Let us do our work, those of us who labor against the incessant waves of genre warriors. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, as with "pro" wrestling, we could just drop all coverage of genres as not worth the drama. EEng 22:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide diffs that justify blocks under the blocking policy, like you did above, and I will block. The issue here is that admins are not supposed to use their tools to pick winners in content disputes. A bunch of final warning templates to new users without ever explaining to them how to suggest a change to an article is not the way to go about this. In any other area of the encyclopedia, we wouldn’t be blocking here without even attempting to discuss with someone. Music pages shouldn’t be an exception. If there is actually community consensus to upgrade genre warring to an info page or guideline, then I think an RfC could be useful to clarify the community as a whole’s view, but right now, most genre warring reports I see are asking me to ignore the blocking policy because of a wikiproject essay, which I’m not willing to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TonyBallioni: Then please stop handling those request. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think there is community consensus that supports blocking new users for changing grunge metal to grunge rock without actually talking to them. As both Ritchie and I have said above, we’d both block if it was clear that the users actually knew what was going on so that they could engage on article talk pages, but the templated message for genre warring makes no sense and doesn’t make any attempt to explain to new users how to go about editing. I already have said that I agree with Swarm’s block above: that was a long-term pattern by an SPA. The reports I usually see though are of editors who are interested in music and have been templated and reverted with no actual discussion. That’s a content dispute with templates. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with EEng on this one; an RfC to expunge the concept of music genres from infoboxes for ever and ever would get my vote. (Or !vote). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also vote "yes" to remove genres from all musician, album and song infoboxes. Proposals along these lines have been raised in the past, but they never have enough backing to stick. In November 2007, the genre parameter was removed from Infobox musical artist but it was restored the next hour. In October 2008, the genre parameter was removed from two infoboxes, but two days later an extensive discussion was raised to restore it, and the genre was restored ten days later. In the meantime, we must deal with the presence of the genre parameter, which unfortunately acts like a honeypot for all the angry, fanatic, lazy or obsessive people who want to edit Wikipedia but don't want to mess with prose or sourcing. It's this assortment of less skillful editors that are the most frustrating because of their uncommunicative behavior or because of their incorrigible persistence. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, I would also support removing the genre parameter from all music related infoboxes, but we would still have genre warring but now it would be in prose. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Require a citation from a reliable source supporting the genre listed. The "genre" parameter is useful when I'm looking up a band or performer I don't personally know, but I recognize that genre warring has been a problem, so making a citation mandatory would help. No citation, not a reliable source, no genre listed. If anyone starts an RfC I'd appreciate knowing about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a great idea, really. To be honest, more generally in infoboxes I'd like to see stricter requirements for having sources, ideally an inline reference for every fact in the infobox: I'd rather read an infobox for a quick fact than read the paragraph of the article, but if there's no citation there, then I have to read the article (which a lot of the time doesn't support, or in some cases contradicts, the infobox). —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 12:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editor at Teahouse

    Both accounts blocked as socks. (Swarm ♠ talk) 07:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @David Biddulph: I think you mean Vincent Setiawan Gouta. He hasn't edited using Vincent Setiawan Gout for days. See also Vincent Setiawan G. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't twigged that the name had changed, and it was the Gout version which came to my attention and had obvious connections with the blocked IP, thanks for the correction. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the username overlap and continued vandalism at Kapas railway station I think we have to add User talk:Vincentonetrillion to the list. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:RBI applies to our friend here. I have blocked all of the remaining accounts and commented at the SPI. Alex Shih (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is User:Vincent9000. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, 331dot. I have linked to the SPI above. This is not so much socking as opposed to just quacking. Alex Shih (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Orugaberuteika/Jizugatudo : COI and CIR concerns

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

    There are two concerns: a refusal to comply with repeated requests to formally disclose their COI, and an inability to understand English, and to write in comprehensible English. They claim to "have a lot of information about Okawa"; when asked about their COI they appeared to acknowledge it; they refer to "our activities" (possibly just a language/CIR issue but I really doubt it); and they use the connected contributor request for their edit requests. All these things taken together, as well as their total focus on one article, signal COI. They have been asked repeatedly to disclose this COI, [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]. After the third request on their talk page (third diff in the previous sentence), I posted this on the article's talk page, which Orugaberuiteka answered with this. My reply was maybe a bit exasperated, but it was answered graciously - after which Orugaberuteika continued making edit requests and other edits without addressing their COI in any way (even to deny it), and they have kept doing so, despite several renewed disclosure requests. I am running out of ways to say "You have to reply to this concern before you make any other edits at all", and it still hasn't registered.

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

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

    • yep they are clearly here to promote this person and the religion. This comment, about understanding Japanese as somehow mandatory, is very wrong-headed. The language is daunting, layered on top of their not understanding what we do here, and the bludgeoning.
    About the COI thing, they do seem to have some notion that they shouldn't edit directly; they wrote here: Please reconsider. If you stop the discussion I have to make a direct fix. I also want to avoid it from the spirit of the wiki.. Do you see? And they are making edit requests. But they have not disclosed their connection. For all we know the person is a paid PR person.
    I recommend indeffing both accounts. One can be unblocked, after the person discloses and understands that they cannot use WP for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indeffed both accounts, in what I hope was an explanatory way, and blocked the IP 126.33.19.67 for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks, Bishonen. That's a good explanation, but unfortunately they didn't read it - instead they went ahead and created Opqi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --bonadea contributions talk 05:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, blocked, but I'm on the run now. Other admins, please step in if there's more of this. Bishonen | talk 06:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    And I'm back. Orugaberuteika has requested unblock, and I have given them a slew of very specific questions to answer first. Let's see if they understand the questions and if I understand the answers. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    Wanted: Japanese speaker

    As per above, we are having great difficulty in communicating with this user. I hope the questions I've just posted for them at User talk:Orugaberuteika will do the trick, but in case not, is there a Japanese-speaking admin or experienced user who might help? Bishonen | talk 12:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

    I have been living in Japan for the past 8 years (until recently), my dear friend. Alex Shih (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I hate to say but Nihonjoe's Japanese ability is about the same as The Blade of the Northern Lights I think. If we are talking about enwiki admins that actually speaks Japanese fluently, Dekimasu would be one of the names that comes to my mind. Alex Shih (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected. Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]
    I'm decent at translating information, but not so decent at discussions in Japanese. Also, I haven't done a lot in Japanese for over 17 years outside of translating a few pages here and there. So yeah, quite rusty. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Shii's disappeared off the face of the earth, as had Yunshui for a long time; the latter has since come back, and revealed that his Japanese was not as good as I thought it was. Also I'm not an admin. I'm pretty sure I'm forgetting about at least one Japan-focused and Japanese-proficient admin with whom I've interacted in the past. As for Japanese-speaking non-admins, I'm definitely not the only one, but I'm probably one of very few, if not the only one, who frequently pokes his nose into ANI drahma-fests in which he is not directly involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me think for you! Another Japan-focused and Japanese-proficient admin would be Mr. Stradivarius whom I often stalk as well (laugh). Alex Shih (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If Mr. Stradivarius is an admin, he's found a way to circumvent the script Curly Turkey (another Japanese-proficient non-admin) told me about that puts a coloured border around links to admins' user and user talk pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Mr. Stradivarius is definitely an admin). Hijiri88 has kindly translated my questions for Orugaberuteika, and O has answered that he has no COI, merely an interest, and has made other assurances. I have assumed good faith and unblocked, with hesitation, as the user's English skills remain a problem. If some of the Japanese speakers mentioned or posting above would watch the article Ryuho Okawa it would be very kind. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    Huh. Apparently the script doesn't work when the link uses Template:Noping. You learn something new every day.
    As for Okawa: yeah, I'm not going near that. I was TBANned from "Japanese culture" by ArbCom for the better half of two years, partly because a (now site-banned) editor, who almost never wrote what sources said (and himself apparently had a religious motivation), was able to repeatedly convince a sizable portion of the community, who weren't willing to read the English sources, that I was a religious POV-pusher trying to "censor" criticism of a certain Japanese NRM. and not in fact just making sure English Wikipedia said only what the reliable sources said. It got to the point where, the community having failed to deal with it repeatedly over the course of more than a year, ArbCom got involved, and since ArbCom accept evidence from users with unrelated "beef" with the involved parties and lump all the disputes together, two other users who were hounding me at the time also got to be named as parties even though they had nothing to do with it.
    I'm not touching NRMs unless I have advance assurance from the community that I will be exempt from sanctions for addition or removal of content based on my good-faith reading of the sources, and that's something I wouldn't expect to be offered.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Reading back over it, I now notice that Dekimasu's name also doesn't have the border, and I know Dekimasu is an admin, so that probably should have clued me in earlier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88 and Bishonen: Thanks for the ping (and the no-ping ;). It looks like everything is sorted out now that Orugaberuteika has been unblocked, but I would be happy to help with future Japanese communication problems should they arise. These days I'm writing emails in Japanese all day at work, so writing in Japanese on Wikipedia as well wouldn't be too much of a stretch. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri88: if you think it would involve risks for yourself, you should perhaps stay away. Thank you for the translation you did. Mr. Stradivarius, I'm not sure everything is sorted out, since two highly experienced editors, Bonadea and Jytdog, have the impression Orugaberuteika does in fact have a COI. And I'm still worried about their communication problems. I'd appreciate it if you'd watchlist the article and keep an eye out. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

    A new account, Perspex03, is adding a lot of dubious and potentially defamatory material. The user seems to be a SPA-account devoted to the White genocide conspiracy theory. As part of their campaign, they accuse a number of living, high-profiled individuals of being racist conspiracy theorists. Living people targeted include the leader of the main French centre-right party [91], the Hungarian PM [92], a French archbishop [93] etc. The sources used are sometimes dubious (blogs etc.), or reliable sources but not using the terms conspiracy theory. I reverted some of the more potentially defamatory material, but Perspex03 reinserted it [94]. In short, problems include:
    - Repeated WP:BLP-violations.
    - Edit warring by ignoring WP:BRD.
    - POV-pushing; 'conspiracy theory' is a strong word, and Perspex03 uses it much more than any of the sources.
    I admit I question whether Perspex03 is here for the right reasons. The user seems devoted to "exposing" people whom Perspex has decided are racist conspiracy theorists. Giving that that is a very serious accusation, and Perpex03 almost exclusive target living people, this is very problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure you understand how this works. The Great Replacement conspiracy theory is a... conspiracy theory. Reliable sources say "it's a conspiracy theory". An example of a conspiracy theory is [[The Great Replacement conspiracy theory]. Those notable people that reliable sources show are "evoking 'the Great Replacement'" (which is a conspiracy theory), are listed as promoting, supporting or evoking... a conspiracy theory. Please explain what The Great Replacement conspiracy theory is, if not a conspiracy theory? What is it? Perspex03 (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perspex03, it might be wise for a user who joined last month not to try to teach users who have been here almost ten years how WP works. Your argument is completely wrong. If you claim that something is a "conspiracy theory", it's your task to show it. Neither I nor anyone else needs to prove that something is not what you claim (see "Russell's teapot"). What you are doing, is to:
    • First claim that there is a "conspiracy theory"
    • Next accuse people of supporting it, based on articles you think support it. But unless those articles explicitly uses the words "conspiracy theory", it's just your defamatory claims, nothing else.
    Thank you, though, for demonstrating my point in your reply. You are not here to contribute to Wikipedia in a neutral manner, you are here to use it as a political soap box. Jeppiz (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, you may need to get over yourself Jeppiz. You've got this one wrong, and that's ok, (really!). I've also been responsible for fleshing out the 'Critics' sections of white genocide conspiracy theory, and have received several 'thanks' from established editors for doing so. What you seem to be missing is that The Great Replacement conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory; (Here, why don't you have a read of the French version: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_remplacement). It has already been well established that it is a conspiracy theory. So, literally, I need to prove nothing. I am not claiming it is a conspiracy theory; reliable sources already prove it is a conspiracy theory. Next, I am not accusing "people of supporting it", I'm simply portraying what several reliable sources convey regarding the "Great Replacement" (a term evidently interchangable with The Great Replacement conspiracy theory, as, again, what is the Great Replacement, if not a conspiracy theory?) As to insinuating I'm defaming people, or using a political soap box, kindly retract that statement, or provide some actual evidence. Thank you. Perspex03 (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of what you write is about content, that's not for ANI. What is of concern for ANI is that you're edit warring and making WP:BLP violations. Regardless of whether you believe you're right or wrong, you should not edit war. You've been warned several times already by different users. And no!; finding some source (of whatever quality) saying that a living person has expressed concern about immigration is not sufficient for writing on Wikipedia that living persons support something you call a conspiracy theory. The fact that you believe that to be the case is the very problem here. Hence my comments about your BLP-violation and hence this ANI report. Jeppiz (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Understand you Jeppiz, but, again, it's not me saying it's a conspiracy theory, is it? It is a conspiracy theory. Not acknowledging the fact that it is a proven conspiracy theory is problematic because it's leading you incorrectly to the conclusion that I'm making BLP violations, whereas I'm simply conveying the details provided in RS. I agree on edit warring, but obviously these warnings are weeks apart and hardly pertinent to this actual issue. Anyway, thanks. Perspex03 (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it in as simple terms as I can; in the case of each individual discussed, do you have a reliable source ('reliable source' by Wikipedia's definition, not yours, and virtually none of the purported 'sources' here qualify) that explicitly states that that person is a believer in a conspiracy theory? If you don't, it doesn't go in. This is a core Wikipedia principle, and not up for discussion or negotiation; if you're willing to abide by it, great, if you're not, you're not welcome to edit at Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 21:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if a reliable source says "John Smith claimed that the moon landings were faked, stating on his podcast "God, who believes in the moon landings anyway? I mean, really, who would believe that rubbish? It never happened! I call it a fake!" - Reliable source. John Smith is not eligible to be listed as an advocate/supporter/believer/promoter of moon landing conspiracy theories? Or as a notable person, with a Wikipedia page, be listed in Category:Moon landing conspiracy theorists, because the reliable source doesn't explicitly mention the words "conspiracy theory", even though it's explictly talking about a conspiracy theory? Think you may be off base here. Perspex03 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    False analogy. The moon landings either happened or didn't (they did), two mutually exclusive options with no grey zone. That immigration has changed the demographics of some countries and municipalities is a fact, so there is a considerable grey zone between whether just stating a demographic fact ("The proportion of white British has declined in every census for the the past 60 years"), expressing an opinion that people may like or dislike ("The continued decline of the proportion of White British worries me"), or believing there is a conspiracy behind it ("There is a secret program to reduce the White British population"). What you are doing is to conflate these, so that anyone who says anything that you interpret as coinciding with a conspiracy theory you then claim is a believer in the conspiracy theory. So yes, Iridescent is perfectly right to say that unless a good, reliable source (not any blog or similar) explicitly says that someone believes in a conspiracy theory, you are not allowed to claim it. If you don't grasp this, Wikipedia is not for you. Jeppiz (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Look I'm an outside editor, totally uninvolved in this content dispute just trying to figure out exactly what is happening. I'm starting with The Great Replacement conspiracy theory the whole idea that is being called a "conspiracy theory" and see if there are RS for that, and then we can focus on if any specific individuals are claimed to hold such views by RS. As far as I can see, there are three sources cited for the claim that this is a "conspiracy theory":

    1. La Croix does say it is a conspiracy theory (specifically a "théorie de type conspirationniste") [95]. Is La Croix a RS? Looks like it is a general interest Roman Catholic newspaper. I don't see any history of it having been known for falsely reporting things in the past. Is there a reason you do not believe this is a RS Jeppiz?
    2. Agora Vox also says it is a conspiracy theory, but it appears to me to be more like a blog than a newspaper with some 40,000 volunteer writers, it doesn't have a traditional editorial board, instead the editorial board is all those who have published at least four articles with them. I would not say this qualifies as a RS.
    3. The Sunday Times is also cited, however it seems if it does reference it, it is behind a paywall, so I haven't reviewed it. The Sunday Times does appear to be a RS to me (if it does say that). Have you been able to view the entire unpaywalled article Jeppiz?

    Jeppiz, can you please link to the specific revert edits that violate WP:3RR, if any exist? Or are you claiming that this is edit warring without violating 3RR? I do see some reverts by him, but that alone wouldn't qualify as edit warring. What makes you think this is edit warring? -Obsidi (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue isn't whether the Grand Replacement is a conspiracy theory; the issue is that Perspex is claiming that any public figure who has ever expressed any sentiment along the lines of "immigration is altering my country's culture and I don't approve" is subscribing to the specific theory that there is a coordinated effort to encourage immigration to [insert country name] to displace the indigenous population. ‑ Iridescent 22:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm seeing that now that I am looking at the edits concerning the specific people who are said to endorse this theory. Too much WP:SYNTH going on for those edits. -Obsidi (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an admin please deal with this? (probably with blocks?) power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White genocide conspiracy theory. This could get ugly very quickly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've pulled that AfD, and made massive removals to the article (invoking WP:BLP) after doing so. I still feel that substantially all of the revision history of that page should be revdel'd, but we'll have something at this title, so no need for the AfD bureaucracy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted a bunch of Perspex's additions to other pages where they add WP:UNDUE amounts of information about "white genocide" to articles. I'll wait for them to respond before calling for a WP:NOTHERE block, but they're very close. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Hopefully, this admin has already dealt with it. Either Perspex genuinely didn't understand WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH—which isn't unusual—and is now going to comply; or, Perspex is going to carry on inserting libellous statements to blogs, The Great Replacement conspiracy theory will remain sourced to such dubious sources as Jihad Watch, Zero Hedge and Christian Today, Perspex will be summarily blocked, and I'll rollback and revdel the relevant parts of their edit history. Because it's a legal issue, libel is an area in which WP:IAR doesn't apply. ‑ Iridescent 22:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: Are we still waiting for them to respond? Did you send them a harshly worded email or something? (I don't see anything on wiki). I'm just trying to understand what the result of the admin action for this was. -Obsidi (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin action is making Perspex aware of the issues around sourcing and that they need to comply with Wikipedia's rules. This isn't WP:Requests for retribution; not everything needs to be dealt with by means of blocks and bans. Have there been any further problematic edits since? ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is currently fully protected. (which was requested by me) I've been watching the editor since they begun their additions. It's extremely likely that they have not familiarized themself with the relevant policies and guidelines, but the edit warring by other users far exceeds the edit warring by this user. Also, when I place a maintenance tag in one of the sections edited by the user, they are quick to attempt to solve the problem(s). I don't see any problem with being a SPA in this situation, when the editor clearly does their best to improve the article. I might support something like a 1RR restriction on the article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 14:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent WP:STALKING by IP editor over various topics in this year

    An anonymous editor has been following and reverting my edits over a range of different topics for over a year. Initially, I mostly ignored these disruption and only used the 3RR noticeboard and requested page protection when I had to. However, this IP editor have started to revert almost every edit I made, and it is making it impossible for me to make any contribution here.

    The following list is a partial record of his stalking behavior:

    Mountaineering

    History and Culture of Tibet

    Geography of China

    Railway transport

    Finally, this one happened right after my last edit on Dragon Boat Festival: [126]

    This is by no means an exhaustive list, especially for earlier edits. But the number of such edits is sufficient to demonstrate the severity as I have only around 170 main namespace edits this year. In addition, I could only find those attacks that are directed at me, while the majority of said IP editor's disruption is POV edits on politically sensitive topics, for example [127], [128], [129], [130].

    I strongly suspect either User:O1lI0 (now permanently blocked) or User:tr56tr, or both of them, are related to this IP editor, for various reasons: First, both of them was previously engaged in edit wars or ethnic/racial attacks, and was banned after my report. They also had similar topics of interest with the IP stalker. Finally, both of them are Taiwanese, have Taiwanese origins, or have a special interest in Taiwan ([131]), while the IP addresses point to Taipei, Taiwan.

    I would like to request that the IP editor be blocked before the stalking evolves to something more serious. I'd like to know if the IP ranges used by this IP editor (mainly 101.8.0.0/13, 49.212.0.0/13) could be blocked, and if not, what measures could be taken. Thanks! Esiymbro (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Those ranges are much too large to block, but I'll see if I can figure something out. Whether or not they're targeting your edits specifically (and it does seem like they are) they're editing disruptively. Give me a bit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I wasn't able to do any better than those ranges. There are a number of reports of open proxies on 49.212.0.0/14 and some of these may also be, but it's not obvious to me. I've blocked a number of the individual IPs that have been engaged in this campaign since yesterday, but that's the best I can do at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Really appreciate it. I understand the difficulty but thanks anyway. Esiymbro (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a few range blocks. There wasn't much collateral damage. That should slow him down, but it won't stop him. For the record, it was: 49.215.224.0/20, 49.214.128.0/17, 117.19.0.0/17, 101.15.128.0/20, and 101.13.0.0/17. I'm going to have to write this down someplace because I'm sure this will become a recurring problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, there's a whole nest of them at {{Samuel P. Huntington}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    151.82.153.227 has some connection to 151.51.0.0/17 151.0.197.64/29

    I believe 151.82.153.227 has a relationship to 151.51.0.0/17 151.0.197.64/29. I think we should merge these two along with 151.82.153.227, and block them all together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B045:A446:4059:8DE:E3BF:7527 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It took me a minute to figure this out. But, yes, it looks like 151.82.153.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is evading a previous block. I've blocked this new IP address. If more show up, I can maybe do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Date vandal

    Blocked by Vanamonde. (Swarm ♠ talk) 07:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Anyone want to expedite the block of 47.136.32.60 (talk) over date vandalism across multiple articles? —Farix (t | c) 03:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruption in User Talk Page

    Anonymous IPs are persistently editing and editwarring on my User Talk page. Admin action against them is very much needed, as they have been reverted multiple times, yet their disruption persists. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 04:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    SilentResident, I have semi-protected your talk page for three days. I will extend the protection of the disruption continues. Just let me know. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the Telekom Srbija IPs spamming this page going back to 23 August are obviously the same person, and I think I know which LTA it is. Semiprotection should fix this for now, but I've also watchlisted the page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Issues with New Page Creation

    EspinosaLuisJr1791 (talk · contribs)

    EspinosaLuisJr1791 has been creating numerous college sports related articles. The topics themselves mostly likely to be notable. However there are large problems with everyone I have examined, mostly while doing new page patrol. Example pages: 2018–19 Southern Conference men's basketball season 2018–19 Summit League men's basketball season 2018–19 Savannah State Lady Tigers basketball team. These pages are more like templates needing further content and have 1 or no sources to back-up the limited information which is present. The response by editors has been to move to draft or place improvement tags as can be seen by the numerous such talk page messages. The user will also create duplicates of his own content ex: J.J. Taylor A B & 2018-19 MAAC A B.

    The user has also received personalized, non-templated, messages raising the issues 1 2 3. These were unsuccessful and this user has never engaged in a talk discussion anywhere on the project. The most recent problem, creating a second version of J.J. Taylor linked above, came after the third personalized message. I would suggest that this user's new page creation is not enhancing the encyclopedia and is causing work for others to try and fix, nor is his lack of responsiveness when issues are brought to his attention showing any sign that improvement is on the way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This needs some sort of administrative action to stop this, otherwise it seems some editors will need to dedicate a significant amount of time to cleaning up Espinosa’s messes. I’d support some sort of article creation sanctions due to their failure to communicate and abide by community policy. Vermont (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP at Talk:Eugenics

    82.132.233.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Posted a personal attack at Talk:Eugenics impugning another editor on the page. This comment was removed first by MPants at work and then by myself after the IP re-added it with an edit summary which was also another personal attack in my reversion I added the edit summary WP:NPA - subsequent to that the IP has been deleting pretty much any comment added to the page and when challenged replied, "because WP:NPA. I'm not sure what to do with this. It's not exactly vandalism, and it's not edit warring, yet, but it's definitely pure disruption. So I'm putting it here for now. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reported at WP:AIV so hopefully that will get a quick response. Note that more admins watching this talk page would be a wonderful thing, as there's some really obvious POV pushing going on by avowed white supremacists and by editors who seem to run afoul of WP:CIR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely concur that this page should be on Admin patrol routes. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Noncommunicative IP making disruptive edits

    IP-hopping via proxy/vpn, currently at 1.180.203.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), previous few days at 36.102.223.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 36.102.223.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Has reverted several articles to long out-of-date versions: Special:Diff/756761974/861127590, Special:Diff/750974657/860356081, Special:Diff/765288717/860358893. Completely noncommunicative, although I've left several messages on various talk pages and edit summaries, they have continued despite warnings. They're also making a large number of strange edits to layouts of tables etc. (eg. Prime Minister of Azerbaijan) as well as to various templates mostly to do with color values. It appears that they're interested in tweaking graphic design elements, and the reversions may be more about that than content disputes, but it's difficult to understand what they're trying to accomplish... seems to be a case of WP:CIR. --IamNotU (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting block of User:Joel David 99

    Hi. I would like to request the admins to block User:Joel David 99 for their WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Vandalism inspite of various warnings. I am citing some proofs for the same.

    • FC Goa, Mumbai City FC and related articles - According to guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs, the notable players section if present must have a criteria for inclusion. Although it is a guideline, there is no reason why it should be bypassed in this case. As of this revision, there was a maintainance tag attached to the notable players section in FC Goa article. Even though in this revision a criteria was given, the user has constantly reverting the edits without any explanation. In this revision, the user even wrote that Czechoslovakia and Catalonia are present countries. In this revision, the user added players who do not fit the criteria. Even though I tried to contact the user in their talk page twice (here and here), the user simply deleted the messages without any reply. The user has shown the same attitude in Mumbai City FC article. The user removed the criteria in this revision. In this revision, the player altered the criteria but did not remove the players who did not fulfill the criteria. In the Chennaiyin FC and FC Pune City articles, the user has done same edits (here, here, here). In the ATK article also, the user did something same (and even claimed that Galicia is a separate country).
    • In this revision, User:Nzd gave the user a final warning about the above mentioned matter. But still, the user did not communicate with other users for guidance and instead continued the same mess in here, here and here.
    • Previously also the user received warnings (here), but didnt introspect and instead deleted the messages.

    RRD (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks @Royroydeb for bringing this here. This user has some clear WP:IDHT and WP:COMMUNICATE issues. Despite my efforts,[132][133] they have continued to ignore talk page messages and warnings (since blanked). I would have brought this here myself as I don't think there's much more that can be done without admin intervention. Nzd (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note: Whether he is having issues with edit warring, communicating, or whatever, I see no evidence he is trying to harm Wikipedia. Because of that, when you claim that someone is vandalizing Wikipedia, but where they are editing in Good Faith (that is, they are trying to improve Wikipedia for whatever their own idea of improvement is) that goes bad. Please avoid calling things vandalism that are not. If he needs a block for another reason, explain that reason, but avoid clouding the discussion by accusing him of doing things he's not doing. WP:AGF applies even when someone is being disruptive. --Jayron32 18:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jayron32: Fair point, and that's probably my fault as I had used the uw-vandalism4 template for the final warning. I think this was a misclick as I had used uw-disruptive templates for previous warnings. I'd offer to strike but they've already blanked the page (@Royroydeb: perhaps you could strike the vandalism bit to prevent muddying the waters here?) Nzd (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As a follow-up, I see that more recent edits to some of the pages have changed the criteria rather than removing the text completely, so hopefully this might be the start of some kind of engagement. I'll try to reach out to the editor again as I'm not sure I agree with that wording, and hopefully that can be resolved through communication. From my own point of view, if any issues can be resolved without blocks, that'd be preferable. Nzd (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreeing to the point that the editor's edits cannot be considered vandalism. But the edits are highly disruptive as they "disrupts progress toward improving an article". Even after talk page messages and warnings and reverts (with explanation), the editor is continuing with the same type of edits (Here, here and here]). The editor continues to add players in notable players section who does not fit the criteria or removes the criteria without any explanation. Even in the this revision, the user wrongly writes that Dudu Omagbemi played 100 matches for his nation without any citation. I am of the opinion that the user's edits even after explanations in edit histories and talk pages indicate that they are intentional. RRD (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The CU vandals are back again

    Somebody please block Stundo5754 and Magnet925a indefinitely and delete their userpages as well. They keep closing SPIs inappropriately and claiming to be check users, as well as impersonating admins, and keep doing so from countless sock accounts; likely an LTA.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just take a look at the history of these pages. It may be worth protecting the pages as well, to prevent future socks.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    One blocked by me, another one by Zzuuzz--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, both of you. I'm sure they'll be back for more soon, though. Ymblanter, I noticed you protected Qmbv's SPI page for a few days, do you think it would be worth protecting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigwheel1221 as well? It seems like that's actually the one getting the most sockpuppetry/disruptive editing. Of course, I'm not sure how effective it would be, considering the socks could just move on to another SPI page...--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I protected other pages as well but you are right that the protection is unlikely to stop this activity.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I make a suggestion to take this elsewhere and reldev this section? This seems like an easy thing for vandals to do and we don't want more folks getting ideas. --Tarage (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. The ones that know, know already. I dropped a few more CU blocks, by the way. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A perhaps trivial issue

    That's enough monkey business --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If a Wikipedia editor such as User:RexxS accuses another Wikipedia editor of being less intelligent than a orangutan, as they did at Module talk:WikidataIB#Wikilinks for redirects, I suggest that an admonition might be in order. (I found this rather amusing, other editors might not.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    He did use the phrase "an orangutan" correctly though. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 21:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I quite said that. My comment was "I could train an orangutan to solve these sort of problems", which I believe is not a accusation about anybody's intelligence. Of course, I then went on to opine that "If an editor in the 100,000 Club can't do it easily, then I submit they need to take the cotton wool out of their ears and put it in their mouth.", which is a strong suggestion to listen, rather than talk. Nevertheless, orangutans are quite intelligent (even ones that are members of the 100,000 Club), and some may be upset at the comparison with certain editors. So, on the assumption that I have indeed offended some primate or another, I offer my unreserved apologies to them, and I'll do my level best to be more circumspect in future. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I believe RexxS has already got an army of orangutans adding stuff to WikiData. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I was so fluent I could use the word "circumspect" correctly in conversation. Hell, I can't even say "circuitous" without thinking about it. Damn you RexxS--I could train a monkey to type fast and maybe even correctly, but even if you're just an ordinarily languaged human, I'm merely a trilobite. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I had, John. They'd do a better job than the current bunch of automatons. --RexxS (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Constant personal attacks, despite multiple warnings

    User Cambridge Optic ("CO") continues to claim that I am a "racist" (a claim that I have actually no idea on where it comes from, because never have we touched a topic like this?) and, clearly, tries to "smear" my "editor image" with transphobic comments (that I once even redacted). They continnue to "assume" the wrong pronoun for myself, as well, though I am unsure whether that is relevant on Wikipedia (I hope it is). Czar has repeatedly called for CO to change their attitude, though, mostly in regards to the article, and so have I and Nøkkenbuer. This is my first request for arbitration, so please bear with me, if I forget to do something. Please let me know, if so, so I can change it afterwards! Also, all of this occurred on Talk:Tendency of the rate of profit to fall. A selection of what has been said about me personally in multiple responses:

    "That guy JulkaK (a racist, who now proudly styles himself as a communist hick transsexual from Austria)(...)" - 01:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

    "(...)The edits did not meet with JulkaK's approval, because they were contrary to his own political sympathies, his own biases, and his own favourite article flavours. Regarding himself as the best judge of all things, he thought he would project his own bias on me, and call me "biased" in my edits.(...)" - 01:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

    "(...)but all I get for my efforts in wikiland, is scorn; ridicule; and accusations from dabblers and Marxist thugs(...)" - 21:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

    "(...)I am not some stinky Marxist dork trying to impress the world with his bad breath and his collection of anal beads.(...)" (This is the comment that I have redacted, though it should be displayed here, I think) - 21:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

    Since, while I personally very much disagree with a lot of the edits of CO on Tendency of the rate of profit to fall, as evidenced by my responses on the corresponding talk page, I do actually value the amount of work they have put into it. Nonetheless, my request entails mostly to force CO to use a more respectful language, refrain from personal attacks and, though not subject of what I wrote above, but I ought to mention it as well, their, in my opinion, evasive, deflecting and talking-it-to-death technique when responding to criticism.

    Thanks in advance. JulkaK (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would concur that those comments are over-the-top violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and would urge @Cambridge Optic: to focus on content and not to further comment on any users if he cannot control himself to more civil levels of discourse. --Jayron32 02:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cambridge Optic: Re-ping for Jayron32. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked Cambridge Optic for 72 hours for these vile personal attacks. If this conduct resumes, the next block will be much longer, if I have anything to say about it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Cullen328. I'm wondering if that whole talk page section should just be revdeleted: these are BLP violations. But as you can guess, it's a bit late for me-- Drmies (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My hesitation there is that the offensive comments are mixed into a very lengthy conversation about improving the article among several editors. I readily admit that my revdel skills are weak. If any administrator wants to revdel any parts of that conversation, I will support that. Get some sleep, Drmies. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've redacted and rev-deleted the personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Boing! thank you--that's what I was too tired for last night. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot! — JulkaK (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I was pinged, I will briefly (for me) provide my thoughts. I had not checked the talk page since these recent developments and before their revisions were deleted (and I trust them to have been deleted on very good cause, given the above admins are among the best), so I am ignorant of those redacted portions. From what I did notice before, during, and after my brief involvement was already uncivil behavior from CO, however, and I honestly anticipated it would come to this one way or another. Hopefully, this block will lead to better behavior, especially since I remain convinced that CO can be a very powerful asset to the project. Sadly, hope is the greatest confidence I have for that to pass.
    As I also noted in the talk page discussion, I have been silently noticing CO's edits since they first joined Wikipedia due to them extensively editing articles in my watchlist. I have shared concerns about their edits similar to what JulkaK and others have expressed, including about their article contributions. Despite my (probably shambolic) attempts at de-escalating the situation and acknowledging CO's prolific work, CO seems to have remained uncooperative and the situation has continued to deteriorate.
    For the record, other relevant talk page discussions include here (permanent link) and here (permanent link). Thank you, JulkaK, for submitting this report. No one should be subjected to such abuse, especially not on Wikipedia. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC); edited to add "admins" at 01:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User: MRAU-vip

    Her/his edit summary reverting my edit:

    First you mentioned a wiki page that has nothing to do with bigbang's official page. 2: you deleted a STRONG Reliable From New York Press Source. 3: all BIGBANG sales are certified and we have the document ready, 4: if you deleted again you will be in serious problem, i hope to don't see this happen again

    Those exactly points mentioned were discussed on the Talk pages I cited on my edit summary. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You already deleted a reliable source from bigbang's page, and that Best Selling Music Artist is OR So we don't need your opinion to include a reliable evidence in bigbang's page i'm very tired talking about this subject its been more than a year and nobody want to listen, i will say it the last time you don't believe they sold that much ? then its your problem don't downgrade a somebody's achievement just because you think that can't do it, their last album alone sold 40 million records in 2016 and again you can go calculate their sales, you can find them in their discography instead of wasting my effort to make contributions in wikipedia go and do something good, and sorry when said you will be in serious problem i didn't mean something bad but anyway sorry again, but that doesn't mean that you should delete a reliable source from the page because it didn't match another OR page. #MRAU 06:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRAU-vip (talk • contribs)
    I'd support a topic ban from music related articles. MRAU seems to have a very combative attitude towards these. --Tarage (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I went ahead and reverted that revert. Threats are going to get you nowhere. --Tarage (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    MRAU-vip - You need to collaborate and discuss the issues with Cornerstonepicker peacefully and work things out. I understand your frustration, but your responses toward Cornerstonepicker are unnecessarily hostile and combative and it's not going to make anything easier or help either one of you out. Please make sure that your messages and responses toward other editors reflect a civil, respectful, and openly collaborative tone at all times. Shouting at someone, condescending and hostile words and remarks, and making threats toward other editors (such as what you've been doing both on the article as well as here) is not acceptable and won't resolve the situation. I will acknowledge your apology for the threat you made toward Cornerstonepicker; thank you for apologizing for that. Had you not had done so, you probably would have been blocked from editing. Making any kind of threats like these toward other editors is an extremely serious violation of policy and in no circumstances are they tolerated or have a place here. Please do not make any sort of threats like this again. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Abdu Hany

    Reported user has been indefinitely blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 19:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Abdu Hany is edit warring to add unsourced content in a BLP at Ahmed Mekky (actor) (1, 2, 3, 4). Can an uninvolved admin block him? He's already blocked on ar.wiki, and it looks like he's decided to be disruptive on en.wiki, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugh, I just noticed that the dates proposed for his birth date aren't even the same between edits. Some of them are 1978, and some are 1980. I think this might just be another date vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Article ownership at List of common misconceptions

    An editor, Fountains of Bryn Mawr is exhibiting ownership of the list article List of common misconceptions. A quick overview shows some startling features:

    • Bryn has reverted ~30 edits in two periods covering January-March and July-present.
    • Bryn has only ever added content to this article three times, 1, 2 and 3. Two were to restore content they previously deleted, while one was to refactor content based on their reverts of other editors. (There was also another refactoring edit that only added a single character, so I did not bother linking it.) There was one additional case (mentioned at the bottom below), but that same edit also removed far more than it added.
    • Bryn has reverted at least 9 different editors on that page since first editing in January.
    • Bryn has been involved in at least 3 different edit wars on that article. It's difficult to count because Bryn has so many reverts on that page, but the last edit war was against two different editors, with a third (and possibly a fourth... It's a big talk page) disagreeing with them at talk but not participating via revert. This resulted in the page being protected by SarekOfVulcan today.

    A little history with diffs; Back in January, Bryn made a revert referencing a non-existent criteria for inclusion. During that same month, Bryn began "enforcing" this criteria upon other new additions, including one case where they correctly noted that the source did not support the claim, but then straight up lied about what the sources in the linked article said. Hell, the second sentence of the article contains the claim Bryn claimed is not in the article. And this was true at the time, not just now, which Bryn should know, because Bryn had been editing that very article on that very topic that very day. The ownership of the article continued into the next month, with more reverts citing the non-existent criteria [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140] and on, and on and on. Except for a single long break a few months ago, it's continued, with the following reverts from July to the present: [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152]. Note that this is not an exhaustive list: There are a few more reverts that I didn't bother including.

    Finally, just recently when Bryn apparently noticed that the criteria they had been referring to didn't exist, they went ahead and added it to the article themself, a move that was immediately protested by another editor, but which Bryn, of course, defended. Bryn then subsequently pointed to the very text they added to justify further reverts (those at the end of the long string in the last paragraph).

    I think this is a textbook case of article ownership and that Bryn should be page-banned from that article to halt the disruption and allow normal editing to resume. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    How exactly is an inclusion criteria written in plain English and quoted directly from the 'Criteria for entries' template [153] displayed in the edit page 'non-existent'? 86.149.219.138 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, replace "ignored, deprecated and non-consensus based" with "nonexistent" and everything else remains the same. This was the state of the article talk page when the edit notice was created. You'll notice, despite the edit summary of the creation of that editnotice, there nowhere in it are these criteria agreed to by anything resembling a consensus. You can also randomly check good additions since that discussion (in 2011) to see that it has not been adhered to by the majority of editors. In fact, it's rarely even mentioned. Finally, you'll note that I gave evidence above of at least one case where Bryn was striahgt up lying about this not appearing in another article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so if there isn't a consensus for the template, start a discussion about removing or revising it. Because as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia doesn't topic ban people for doing what they are told, rather than what someone else thinks there is a hypothetical 'consensus' for. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at your diff it is clear you are wrong about the lying. Bryn did not write that the information did not exist in the article. What he wrote was that the information was not in the source used by the article. Since the source states “In the long term, social perceptions of sharks, changed from fear to conservation, influencing local, national and international government conservation and management policies.” he would seem to be correct that saying sharks are widely feared is unsupported by the sources in the target article as pertains to “Jaws”. Now I could call you a liar for misstating what he wrote but instead I will just assume good faith and assume you were just hasty and incorrect. 67.170.223.20 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He removed one of several sources, leaving at least one that explicitly states that which he said no source at the article states. And I did not accuse them of saying the article didn't say that, I said he lied ...about what the sources in the linked article said... (em. added). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seriously arguing that “Despite their relative rarity, many people fear shark attacks after occasional serial attacks” supports “are quite rare, but they're widely feared due to films”?. Do you not see how those are completely different statements? “Many” does not equal “widely” and “after serial attack” does not equal “due to films”. What was the source for a wide fear about shark attacks caused by films in the present tense? If you do not have one then I would say you calling Bryn a liar is an aspersion for which you should be sanctioned.67.170.223.20 (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh FFS, I'm not handholding you through the entire article. Go fucking read it yourself. This source is right there in the "Media impact" sections. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when has a BA thesis been WP:RS? 86.149.219.138 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I grabbed the one for the chart. Try this one for the statement. Nice to see you decided not to read the article like I suggested. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information, it was another IP that you told to "read the fucking article". Maybe you should try reading the fucking ANI noticeboard a bit more carefully. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information, Dynamic IPs are really common. If you expect me to whois every IP that responds to my comment like they are the same IP I was just talking to, you're out of your mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not expecting you to do anything beyond reading more carefully. You should try it sometime, it might make future threads you start at ANI more effective. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, perhaps you will point me to the part of your comment that identified you as a different party than the one with whom I was conversing when you jumped in behaving exactly as if you were that person? I do seem to have missed that, what with my poor reading skills and all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those sources support a wide ranging fear about shark attacks caused by films in the present tense. The one you are quoting now only lasting claim is that it caused an increase in shark hunting. You owe Bryn an apology for calling them a liar.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, no. Obvious sophistry from my socal buddy is obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mate, do you actually think your ability to run a geolocation is intimidating? Not every Spanish named city is in Southern California so please next time go with “south bay, buddy”.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL Keep trying. I'm sure if you just keep hounding the same guys, eventually Wikipedia will decide you are a valuable editor and unblock your original account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If he removed one which "explicitly stated" what was removed than you should have no problem quoting the source. If not you really need to strike out the claim that Bryn was lying.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion about the contents of the page in question, not user conduct
    • That page is Exhibit A for how grotesquely and meaninglessly overbroad so many lists are. Not to mention culturally narrow. Why, in Ruritania it's a common misconception that wugglenups can only flandle during a full moon -- why isn't that listed?
    Plus, the idea that some of these things are "common misconceptions" is just plain ludicrous. "Microwave ovens do not heat food by operating at a special resonance of water molecules in the food. The functional principle of a microwave oven is dielectric heating rather than resonance frequencies of water, and microwave ovens can therefore operate at many frequencies." Yes, I can't count the number of times I've run into people suffering under that delusion. "Did you know," my aged grand aunt said to me just the other day, "that microwave ovens heat food by operating at a special resonance of water molecules in the food?" "No, auntie," replied I, "The functional principle of a microwave oven is dielectric heating rather than resonance frequencies of water, and microwave ovens can therefore operate at many frequencies." "You always were such a clever boy!" she said, giving me a box on the ears. Right. Sure. Anyone who thinks this is a "common misconception" watches too much The Big Bang Theory. EEng 18:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That AFD was 7 years ago. Let's have another one. Anything on that article page could be moved to the appropriate article and nothing of value would be lost. As it stands now it is 100% trivia. Who comes to Wikipedia specifically looking for this who isn't already looking at an article related to the topic? --Tarage (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Insomniacs. EEng 19:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lazy researchers. (Has anyone ever believed that any part of The Sound of Music soundtrack was the Austrian national anthem?) ‑ Iridescent 19:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You should add "No one has ever believed that Edelweiss was Austria's national anthem" as a separate entry for the article. Sourced to this ANI thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm even more taken by Infants can and do feel pain. Does that mean that I have to go out and spend my hard-earned cash on a real pincushion rather than just using the baby like all the other people who subscribe to this misconception? (On the subject of Edelweiss, ironically this shit-sheet of an article manages to neglect the one national anthem misconception that is genuinely widespread, that the words Deutschland Uber Alles appear in the German national anthem.) ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't have to be an "ARShole" to see that the argument "unless..." is not a good argument for deletion because you are admitting that an encyclopedic version of this list can possibly exist, so everything else is just a question of editing. After all, WP:5P1 says Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" and these kinds of publications have always included such information and it's clearly a notable topic based on the countless RS that deal with them. Instead of mulling over possibilities for deletion, help out to define strict criteria for such lists and clean them of entries that don't meet them. Regards SoWhy 19:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also completely inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. For example the very first entry "Searing meat may cause it to lose moisture in comparison to an equivalent piece of meat cooking without searing." is totally against the actual article on Searing that states "Although often said to "lock in the moisture" or "seal in the juices", searing has been demonstrated[1] to result in a greater net loss of moisture versus cooking to the same internal temperature without first searing. Nonetheless, it remains an essential technique in cooking meat for several reasons:" so clearly not a misconception. I also note that nothing seems to be sourced as a common misconception, and I'm not sure how such a concept can be referenced. Tending towards the nuke it from orbit option myself. Canterbury Tail talk 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Iridescent: What!!!? Noooooooooooooooo!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not gonna fight anyone who wants to bring this to AfD, but I don't see how this article can be improved in a workable way as long as there's an editor there reverting literally everyone who tries to add to it, no matter what their sourcing looks like. The latest edit war is over a misconception that is about as well sourced as one can expect any such thing to get. Edit warring over that is a problem. But making the case that this article is a wreck? I'm right there with you. That's exactly why I would like to be able to improve it by adding well-sourced examples while removing poorly sourced examples. Hell, I was arguing in favor of deleting a lot of entries a few months ago, and Bryn's work looked good to me for a while. It wasn't until I saw them responding the same way to good edits as they did to bad edits that this started to stick out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you asking if I think Helen King, Fern Riddell and The Atlantic are generally reliable sources for this use? Why yes, yes I do.
    If you expect sources covering the history of sex and sex toys to take themselves completely seriously and never to show a hint of humor, then I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. Jokes are not as uncommon in sexology as they are in other academic subjects, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. Plus, with the... broad... interest humanity has in the subject, combined with those schizophrenic Western views about the acceptability of discussing sex in any sort of formal way, any expectation of finding immaculate sources discussing a topic in sexuality that the average WPian can verify information in is a recipe for disappointment. I also notice you quoted the highly qualified estimation, but don't seem to have acknowledged that it's a qualified estimation. I didn't say it was perfectly sourced, I said... Well, you quoted it, so you know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which isn't what I asked (although if you seriously think opinion pieces by Fern Riddell are a RS for anything other than Fern Riddell's opinions other than in her actual field of the politics of music hall, I think we're done here). Which, of "Dildographer", an old blog entry by Fern Riddell on the now-defunct Comment is Free, or "Whores of Yore" are you claiming represent "as well sourced as one can expect any such thing to get"? It's not like this is some arcane field where the sources don't exist; this is pure "I can't be bother to read the books so lets see what Google throws up" writing. I repeat, if this is what you consider the best of the article, you're making the nuke-from-orbit argument for me. ‑ Iridescent 21:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    other than in her actual field of the politics of music hall Where do you get that from? She's a historian who focuses on women's issues. See [154] & [155].
    And I know that's not what you asked; it's what you left out. I also responded to what you asked by pointing out what should have been obvious to you, had you been less concerned with arguing and more concerned with communicating. See the second paragraph in it's entirety. And I also previously stated I'm not necessarily opposed to deleting the article. But if we're going to keep it, we need to fix is, and we can't fix it if some editor owns it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess this has been posted, snowballed, and boomeranged a bit since I last turned my computer on (this place moves fast ;)). I see Talk:List of common misconceptions has a long archive history and it looked to me like they must have reached a consensus and some pretty common sense WP:LISTCRITERIA came out of it (I even mentioned my views on the LISTCRITERIA in talk) and at some point it got added in a 'Criteria for entries' template to the top of the page. Cleaning up the article to what the LISTDEF seemed add up to (a list of Articles that have a certain attribute - contain text describing a common misconception) got me accused of WP:OWN (and called a bunch of names to boot). Anyway, just responding since I have been named in this ANI. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    they must have reached a consensus... It took me 2 minutes to discover that no, in fact, they had not. One editor took it upon themself to create an edit notice. See my response to the IP above. What's your excuse for not doing the same research? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You have obviously stated you don't care what anyone else says (WP:IAR over WP:CONS) but here goes..... WP:LSC/common sense - when a LISTCRITERIA says "follow the people at the topic article if they seem to know what they are saying", well... that makes common sense. As I and other editors have said, if you disagree with that, start a discussion on the talk page to change the 'Criteria for entries'. You have a disagreement with that, not me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You have obviously stated you don't care what anyone else says Quoth the guy arguing against three people and lying about what sources say...
    (WP:IAR over WP:CONS) Not only is this a completely bullshit misrepresentation of what I said, but where is this consensus you speak of? I see a consensus of three editors that your objection to the Victorian content is bullshit. Is that it? My reference to IAR certainly isn't intended to override that, since I'm a part of that.
    when a LISTCRITERIA says "follow the people at the topic article if they seem to know what they are saying", well... that makes common sense. Yeah, I agree. So why have you been reverting 9+ editors all by your lonesome?
    You have a disagreement with that, not me. Even if that criteria is endorsed; you've already had your objections noted, responded to and dismissed by three different editors, yet you kept reverting. So no, in fact, I don't have a problem with that criteria. I have a problem with your behavior at that article. I might even !vote to delete that article if it came up at AfD: I'm of the opinion it's a shit show. I'd like to fix it, but if you want to nuke it, go to AfD and watch me change my tune. Otherwise, go away and let others at least try to fix it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And so it goes (I knew even responding was a bad idea). lying about what sources say.. you must be reading this ANI with your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA LA LA...". I think I will shut up now and let this boomerang go wherever its going. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all documented above. Pretending it's not doesn't mean no-one will read it. Also, you should read WP:SNOW and WP:BOOMERANG because I don't think you know what those terms mean. ;) But, here's the good news for you: Since it's pretty clear that the one thing we all agree on is that the article is a shitshow, I'll AfD it right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are unhappy with the quality of the list then why are you arguing with the only person that seems remotely interested in maintaining a quality list. Also, you before wrote that you had a source that explicitly showed that Bryn had lied. Do you have any intention of quoting that source or removing your aspersion that Bryn lied? If not, why not?2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already linked to it. If you can't be bothered to read it, that's your problem, not mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read both of your sources. Neither support the addition that was made. You accused someone of lying and said the source “explicitly” stated what was added. If this is true then what is the difficulty with quoting the statement from the source that supports the addition? You after all were the one who claimed Bryn lied which unsupported is an aspersion.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you're lying, too. Cool. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of doubling down on your aspersion why do you not just quote the source? I accept I could be wrong. Do you think it is possible that instead of lying, Bryn and I just disagree on your interpretation of the source?2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The trollish nature of MPants edits should be noted including making inflammatory accusation and calling more than one editor here a liar, claiming to want to clean up an article and then attacking an editor who does and edit warring over the article, claiming there are no rules[156] then starting an ANI claiming an editor is breaking the rules, confronting almost every editor in this ANI, spinning off straight into an AfD of the same article after he was rebuffed. He quotes Wikipedia policy and guidelines ad nauseam so can not be ignorant as to what they mean. His launching a spurious ANI, and even an AfD he of the same article he was edit warring over and trying to expand, is very confusing. It seems to be more to inflame or invite conflict than any kind of WP:HERE behavior. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    His launching a spurious ANI, and even an AfD he of the same article he was edit warring over and trying to expand, is very confusing. Doesn't seem confusing to me at all. I care about the project, so I've pushed for a way to improve the project at every step. You decided you WP:OWNed the article, so I reported you here since the few editors actually making an effort to improve that crap weren't able to with your constant edit warring. Note that I'm neither the only nor even the first editor to accuse you of attempting to own that article. But when a bunch of editors hijacked this thread into an argument about content, I decided to take a different tact towards fixing it: AfD and rebuild.
    You've already accused me of "name calling" for saying "Your objections at talk are complete spurious and have been addressed multiple times now" which is about the most hilariously over-sensitive accusation I've ever read, and now you're arguing that -because I finally dragged you here on something you've had pointed out to you multiple times by multiple editors- I'm NOTHERE? Hah! Good luck with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. Just commenting to say that the accused user has, in my brief experience with the user, misrepresented sources, used strained readings of criteria, and has generally been unhelpful in actually improving the article. Benjamin (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

    Nothing to do here. Black Kite (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This bot has brought changes to a edit on the page "Holy Trinity School, Allahabad".The changes on this page were authorised by the head of the office of this institution and were not vandalism according to the bot policy.I want the team at Wikipedia and their bot to revert the changes it has caused as you are halting our work which is important. Kindly revert the changes the changes and for further details contact us on our Gmail page <removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A21C:E8E1:25DA:5F7:7467:B28B (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ClueBot is functioning perfectly. You added unencyclopaedic garbage to the page, it reverted it. That's what it's supposed to do. Canterbury Tail talk 16:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly right. The edit in question is here. SQLQuery me! 16:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    yhw?💵Money💵emoji💵💸 16:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Flaring tempers over Chinese history

    (non-admin closure) Filed at proper venue. Apologies. Kleuske (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    These two (relative) newcomers, are at each others throats in "Transition from Ming to Qing" and "Heqin". I have tried to get them to talk, but to no avail. Massive WP:IDHT, WP:CIVIL, WP:ASPERSION issues on both sides. Conflict now ensuing on my TP. At wits end. Send cavalry. Kleuske (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think WP:AN/3RR is the proper venue for this. SemiHypercube ✎ 17:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably right... I'll report there. Kleuske (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Carmaker1

    Carmaker1 (talk · contribs)

    This user has been adding unsourced and/or speculative information, editing against project consensus, and leaving edit summaries that border on incivility. He has been sanctioned for this behavior in the past (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive971#Formal topic ban suggestion and User talk:Carmaker1#June 2018).

    Presently, Carmaker1 has been adding unsourced/speculative production dates to a number of automobile articles, and removing the model year dates that, per consensus, take precedence on articles about vehicles sold predominantly in North America (I won't attempt to rehash those discussions here, unless an administrator requests further background). Another editor and I have attempted to engage with the user on their talk page but have been ignored. While there is a legitimate concern in some cases (not all articles make it clear that model years are used), changing information to make the article confusing to the average person likely to read the article, instead of resolving the issue, makes it appear as though he's trying to prove some kind of point.

    Further, Carmaker1 often uses an angry and borderline-uncivil tone in edit summaries, including calling out editors by name (examples: [157], [158], [159], [160]). The last one is a clear attack on another editor, which was followed up with an "only warning" - for an edit made nearly a year prior, which seems to be a great deal of effort to track down an editor simply to harass them. On a similar note, he issued an "only warning" here to an IP for a single edit which, while incorrect, seemed to have been made in good faith out of a misunderstanding.

    Finally, the edit summary here of "I will not bother formatting the references..." further calls into question the user's ability to edit cooperatively. --Sable232 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is disappointing. After discussion, I advocated for this user not being blocked in December 2017 after they pledged to stop making uncivil edit summaries regarding disputes over "model years" in articles (and they did stop for some time). I don't think that an indef is necessary yet, but unless they have some explanation for their edit summaries, a short block is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is tiring to deal with the fact, other users are NOT intervening and ensuring that prose of an article isn't misleading and collectively maintaining a consistency with certain content. I specialize in providing a timeline and background history for topics on Wikipedia. Generally beyond that, I often don't delve into other things, but I can see that a lot of articles are often tampered with either by, unregistered IPs sometimes adding information contradictory to text within that same article or users who don't engage in discussion/explanations at all, to get an idea of their intentions. The problem I do have is, why do other established users often fail to catch this, yet are so quick to notice edits from regulars doing "repairs" or expanding on information? I did not address Sable232 on my page let alone read what they said (until after the fact), because of anxiety borne from the aggressive approach they had already taken in doing full reverts on my edits, instead of manually removing specific content that truly didn't have a supported citation or provided to be genuinely off. In ways, one can call that lazy, as Buick did indeed introduce particular generations of Regal in 1987 and 1996. Not "in 1988" and "in 1997". Plus a design website for the Chevrolet Corsica program, claimed that the model went into production in late 1986 as a 1987 model (debunked; I found a better source for Jan 1987). My Chicago Tribune and Oklahoma sources supported the Regal dates (and more), yet instead of removing other parts of my submission separately, Sable entirely reverted all of it. That can be perceived as petty, if not rather vindictive and trying to prove a point. Second, in many cases, we have no way of determining if certain users make changes in good faith or to play with pages, versus using their own sandboxes to experiment. There is a difference between introducing new information in an article without a good source or explanation versus deliberately changing dates that already have citations, just to suit a misinformed point of view. Case in point, claiming GM introduced the C/K pickup in the 1960s or AMC introduced the Jeep Wrangler in 1987. Yet it has been proven by me that the former model in question was launched in 1959, which falls within the 1950s and the latter model was introduced in May 1986. And yet, when I take an absence from the stress of this site, I discover upon return, often that someone has again changed this kinds of items around and then I have to correct it for the 100th time, often manually bit-by-bit after many diffs in between. Why should I have to do that, when there is a massive amount of able users still here when I am not logged in? If one wants to talk about misleading others to prove a point, then why revert my corrections and expansion of the Regal and Century timelines, to vaguely-organized designations that already confuse many Americans as to how old their car really is? It is strictly of Sable's opinion, that my changes will "confuse" people, if not conjecture and manipulative, through canned personal offense towards me. The speculative information accusation reads unusually fallacious, based on the supported citations. This is a tactic designed to smear the work of the person in question, without looking too closely at what actually transpired and create negative opinion. My suggestion is, none of us should be reverting content with supported citations. I spent a very long time finding every bit and shred of past GM history, to edit those articles. As beyond a citation, how is one supposed to verify a submission? Invite the OEM in question "GM" into a lengthy Q&A per Wikipedia article? A citation is supposed to suffice, so color me rather annoyed by those puzzling reverts and feeling exhausted about having to fix the same things over and over, without anyone else taking up the mantle. Wikipedia is copied and pasted by so many people, that quality control is very important. We have many excellent users contribute, but why is that a lot of things fall between the lines and are not quickly corrected back to what they should be? I have never been interested in Wikilawyering over other users, but straight to the point. Editing this site at times is not very easy and can be very time-consuming, so some of us can take it very personal if we perceive our time is being wasted and if it is even being used constructively anymore. I value my time strongly. My edit summaries for that matter, are designed to call attention to certain phenomenons that can be improved on or eliminated by learning what is wrong. People are not going to be intimidated by that, but some of it can be toned down if the message is already gotten. Considering many of the terrible things said and done to me when I joined here years ago, I question some of this as possibly crying wolf based on difference of opinion. Anyway, introducing contradictory information is a big problem I have and that of opinionated guesstimates, as against credible information. It is very clear some people really do not exercise thorough research of a topic they are editing and in the process, introduce misleading information generically or undo the valid information in place of what they added. A good amount of us and myself particularly, spend countless hours doing research, which isn't fair when other people do not and are not exactly being called to task. The only reason I am being brought here, is because of my edit summaries and clear disinterest in Sable's own approach towards my contributions, despite having provided evidence for them. I never had any issues working with others, who manage to stay on the same page and do not turn editing into Wikilawyering exercise via opinionated viewpoints. I often thank users for useful contributions I didn't manage to make myself and who make the content of articles richer in level of informativeness. Surely there are plenty of users who do so and I never have issue with them, based on their genuinely collaborative approach to things. As opposed to users that give the impression, they essentially live to revert others edits, whether accurate or inaccurate. I will admit, I need to learn better how to deal with such types. In conclusion, you can see the content I introduced, all have sources, so where was the problem that led to reverting them anyhow? Did my criticism of poor use of prepositions and formatting of date-related language, offend people? Bsically I want and need other users, to pay attention to this aspect of Automotive project content. Getting the timelines and background history fully accurate. From I have observed, it is NOT given due care and attention by other users, meaning I am left to do it myself very often. For one model page it is easy, but for so many brands and models worldwide, that is overwhelming to be doing by yourself. The only time this is given any attention, is by one lone user doing a clean-up of an article and even then, they miss these things and do not care to verify them as accurate. Year-to-year there are major changes and advancements within the automotive industry, that it does matter within an encyclopedia to claim "X model was introduced with innovative Y features in 2000", when in reality that just might be April 1999 launch date (model year 2000) and December 1998 press reveal. It matters very much, but a few users have tried to imply in the past it doesn't and that I "care too much". People need a very good frame of reference, so they are not misled so easily. If someone needs to know about a window of time a product was manufactured or introduced, it doesn't do them any good to provided information that isn't to the point. This should be very easy stuff by rule of thumb. A MY is often introduced the preceding October and sometimes even earlier for many industry-related reasons. Even though I am an automotive engineer with 8 years of experience since internships to present, I don't hold that over others and welcome people to provide more than I can to Wikipedia, as I like to learn new things in that manner.--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carmaker1: Please read this article. It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to read your comment unless you break it up into smaller sections, each based around a central idea. A "wall-of-text" such as this is virtually impossible to read, especially when it is very long: you are virtually inviting the response "TL;DNR" (i.e. "Too long; did not read"). If you wish your comment to be considered by other editors, please have some consideration for other editors and present your ideas in a fashion that effectively communicates them. If you are unable to do so, then you probably shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The personal attacks are certainly troublesome but definitely a symptom of a larger problem. Honestly, if Carmaker1 can't communicate how he/she is trying to improve the encyclopedia without insulting other editors, and as Beynond My Ken mentioned about Carmaker1's discussion style (and in the links provided by Sable232) then I think Carmaker1's ability to communicate in a collaborative manner needs to be evaluated. A quick look at this demonstrates Carmaker1's incapacity to communicate in a collaborate manner, which is a prerequisite to editing this project. —Mythdon 05:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have specific evidence of that claim of not being "collaborative" in the form of the majority of my entire edit history (every diff) being combative or non-collaborative? As unless more than a fifth or quarter of my whole edit history is proven to be as such dating back many years, I can only imagine that reads as slanted and rather a personal attack at my reservedness to not bother others for help so often and handle things myself. I edit pages mostly, but I do not frequently message back and forth between other individuals, as not everyone will respond in a timely fashion in which I can read their own response to me. Very few people respond to talk page discussions I have opened in articles and are only interested in monitoring people's edit history to revert. Most users are not like this thankfully, but a select few are as such and have gone to ANI as a threat.
    There are many users who do not respond to comments left on their talk page or that of an article they edit in, yet no action is taken regarding that? As I already stated before, very few editors have taken the particular focus that I have towards editing these articles. No focus is made on in-depth, step-by-step timelines of development of cars, because of many editors seeming to have little to no personal interest there and thus only take interest in if a citation is present or to revert content, without checking to be sure it is okay. How will there be any collaboration, if a sub-topic is of little or no interest to other present editors?
    It is hardly collaborative for someone micro-manage who can and cannot edit an article, because they favor "model years" as being the only item in an article, when both calendar and model years can written in an article, to explain and differentiate between the two. As busy as I am, I hardly even log in that much and I still see double standards in how these matters are being approached. European brand articles rarely suffer from this "dates" issue (until the topic concerns the US), as they either use both in conjunction (2017 as 2018 model) or simply introductory date (2017) and no reference to vehicle's year in question. It is usually Asian and US brands with contradictory article timelines that suffer this pattern I have tried to counteract on Wikipedia, as no one else helps because they generally don't care, meaning it is left to the person or people that do. Ask that question, as a fact is a fact and all I am doing is bringing them to the table if I can. If anyone wants to join me, the more, the merrier. I resent that no one takes the initiative in US brand articles to maintain the mentioned, the way other users do for non-US brands they care about such as user Stepho-wrs. Adding when a model changeover occurred in real time (year), is not nonconstructive editing.
    As for the "Wall of Text" complaint, that is just a personal attack and not a valid criticism. Many other individuals have lengthy commentary at times, so referring to that as inconsiderate seems like finding any and everything to criticize. It is a challenge navigating posting to ANI. From what I even remember, I have never been someone that resorted to racist commentary or that of chasing topics related to supremacists as a hobby, in myself seeing all human beings as deserving of equality. I greatly question how no one finds that offensive, let alone some racism I have encountered from others. I am plainly not interested in playing politics here. I am here to edit and for others to respect my contributions, when researched and cited. I give others the same respect on average, so why shouldn't that be returned to me?
    I have never gone stress-free on this website that I often hate reading messages or logging in bringing unwelcome anxiety, which says a lot about the environment and who knows how many other users feel similar. Many have never felt like they've belonged, unless they're an admin and end up retiring from this website User: OSX over unwelcome stress as simply volunteers. I don't know how many times I can say, a better collective grip on actual vandalism is needed. If a user reports a disturbing trend of editing and asks for page to be locked, please listen to them then. I am plainly tired of all this, regarding productivity. I have made many contributions, so why won't I take offense to certain one-sided viewpoints that don't take everything into account? Simply over some mild editing summaries? Yet I have seen people use curse words or foul language with no reprimand? I have work to do.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    QED. EEng 12:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Carmaker1: "As for the "Wall of Text" complaint, that is just a personal attack and not a valid criticism. Many other individuals have lengthy commentary at times, so referring to that as inconsiderate seems like finding any and everything to criticize. " It may seem to be a personal attack, but as was linked before it's not very useful to have such long replies. You may feel like you need to reply with this much, but you actually don't. Sorry to be clunt, but we're all volunteers here, and some of us have other things to do than read this amount of text. If you condense it down to just the key points, we're much more likely to read all of it and not risk overlooking important details. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It might help if you were just a tiny bit less clunt, if you ask me. EEng 20:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    EulerObama

    (non-admin closure) Several other editors have reverted the IP for adding promotional content to the mentioned article. Closing the thread now, with no prejudice against a WP:BOOMERANG block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Guys please urgent action required to prevent further damage. Vandalism on article ESME-Sudria. Has been blocked twice already the last three weeks for vandalism and negative behavior, specially on article Institut Sup'Biotech de Paris (Eastmain (talk · contribs) stopped him). Now he is shouting and threatening people. 80.12.27.215 (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    stopPlease read [161]--EulerObama (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a WP article but rather a pure BOOSTER hijacked page. The IP is correct to call the community's attention to it. I am in too nasty a mood to address it now, but somebody should. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog can you fix that [162] edit war--EulerObama (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is fixed already : vandalism on the article. Your behavior is a big big issue for Wikipedia, I hope this will stop soon. 80.12.27.215 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, it will likely end up in a block for you. Jytdog, I am sure your comment was meant ironically. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It looks like the IP is the one restoring the promo, I have reverted it, but this IP really needs to stop edit warring. This edit[163] by EulerObama was much too rant like, but it looks like the IP is the problem one here, this IP is at best aggressively misrepresenting a content dispute as vandalism, and appears to be insistant on restoring PROMO. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    UN GA 73 General Debate

    Hello there! I need help.

    I am the one who started General Debate of the seventy-third session of the United Nations General Assembly. But, in my honest view, it seems that someone has edited that article his own way and make disruptive edits (see here).

    In fact, I try to make this article better by doing final lists of speakers, daily and overall conclusions as well as concise replies by countries. This is to provide general readers with better understanding towards the content. But the content as well as almost hundred of edits, as of now, seems to be much disruptive than before.

    Can it be considered an edit warring? And if not, is there any opinion on how to make such article better? Thanks. Aamuizz (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly this looks like a relatively tame content dispute. A whole bunch of significant edits in a row isn't ideal edit behaviour, but it's not edit warring and you both seem engaged in talk. Why bring this to the drama board? Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I want anyone to see whether edits done in such article are problematic or not. I am somewhat unsatisfied with the quality of edits he has done in that article. We engaged in talks, but I am still unsatisfied with those edits. While I try my best to make such article more quality, he still want his edits to prevail. Aamuizz (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, at this juncture this is something you'll probably be able to better address by discussing it in the article talk. When I checked an hour ago there was nothing resembling an edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aamuizz, there is no rule against doing major edits in several steps rather than as one huge change, and many editors in fact prefer to do so. It is not disruptive and there's nothing wrong with it. If you disagree with the edits themselves, please handle that via standard dispute resolution. Step one of that process is to discuss the matter reasonably and calmly with the editor with whom you disagree, not to escalate the issue to a drama board. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Renewed talk page disruption

    Renewed talk page disruption 1 at Talk:Hubble's law after previous block expiration for same. Was reported at wp:AIV, but user Ad Orientem suggested to bring it here: [164]. Previous report at ANI resulted in block by user Caknuck (persistent disruptive editing). - DVdm (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass creation of sock spam accounts

    Hi everyone! There have been ongoing attempts by someone (or someones) to engage in the mass creation of spam accounts with similar usernames for quite some time, but it has since picked up substantially starting the other day. One example out of many that were verified by a CU (after I brought it to their attention) is 대학생 김괘걸, and represents one out of the at least 30 others that were blocked.

    As I type this ANI discussion right now, I'm currently keeping a huge floodgate under control regarding the very high number of sock puppet spam account creations. If you see my recent block log, as well as this edit filter log, you'll have an idea of just how many I'm currently managing and keeping contained at this very moment right now... accounts like 33最新弹窗引流协议无限发271383970, 63新弹窗271383970万事如意, and 新弹窗27138970妨仕涸频油扰 (to just name a few). I'm keeping them handled, blocked, and declined by the edit filter for the most part and the project has been mostly been protected from this flooding, but I'm sure that there are many more that I've missed and didn't block. I've been at this for about 3 straight hours now, and I'm probably going to be continuing to keep it handled throughout the night. The edit filter has been great with scooping up most of the account as they try and get created, but I keep having to update it as their M.O. changes in order to get around my previous updates to it (it happens about every 10-15 minutes).

    Can I have some CU assistance with locating the underlying networks and ranges that this is all coming from? Can I have some more eyes on this so we can put a stomp on it? I'm doing my best to keep this all under control, but I'm sure that there are more accounts that I've missed due to them using different usernames I didn't catch... I appreciate any help and assistance in advance :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: It looks like the rate of the attempted account creations have dropped to pretty much zero now. I haven't seen anything come into the new user or edit filter logs for about 20 minutes now, and I'm not seeing an attempt to sneak new accounts through with a username pattern that's completely different. The creation attempts may very well pick right back up as suddenly as it stopped (I've seen them do this purposefully in the past), so I'm taking this with a grain of salt right now. I'll keep this discussion updated or add another follow-up if things change. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a big ISP. Lots of /11s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate - Yeeeap, that's what I figured... are these IPs they're using open proxies? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are using single IPs in disparate ranges nullifying range blocking. They are popping through these and trying to make an account or three and then they move on.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Berean Hunter - Oh fun...... that's not going to complicate things at all... /s. Oh, I forgot to ask: were there any significant groups of accounts with similar usernames that I didn't catch or block? The usernames changed formats and were re-arranged quite a number of times in order to purposefully change their M.O. and get past the filters I put in place, but they generally all stayed similar enough to where you could quickly catch what they were throwing. I'm curious to know if they used other methods to sneak them by. I wouldn't be surprised that, given the high rate in which these accounts were trying to flood in, he didn't use that as a distraction to sneak in completely different accounts while the focus was drawn toward the flood... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah, I didn't see anything that the filter or you didn't catch. They may use one to three IPs in unrelated ranges and are cycling through them quickly. I have checked seven /16 ranges and there appear to be many more; I'm not sure if it is worthwhile to keep checking.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been keeping an eye on this for a while. To echo what Berean Hunter said, there are lots of /11 ranges involved. For those who can't read CIDR, that's a lot of big. If it gets extreme we have filter 895 which can block all Chinese names created on this wiki. There are not many Chinese names created on this wiki. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Zzuuzz! Exactly! Wikipedia gets extremely little accounts created that are in Chinese; that's how I caught what was going on quickly and why keeping the flood under control actually wasn't that terribly difficult or too much for me to do alone ;-). Correct; /11 CIDR ranges are massive, regardless if you're talking about an IPv4 /11 or an IPv6 /11 (an IPv6 /11 would be... stupid to use... lol). That fact aside, we can't even apply blocks larger than /16 in IPv4 or /48 in IPv6 - so even if we were utterly crazy enough to apply such a large block, we couldn't do it anyways... lol. Alright, that's good to know; thanks for checking and for letting me know that you didn't see any other accounts that snuck through. I just try to think in terms of, "okay, if I were the troll here, what would I do?" - I find that if I peruse those avenues, I end up either catching more disruption or taking steps to close doors and prevent more trolling ;-). Berean Hunter, if you haven't stopped diving through /16 ranges in order to look into the contribs and activity of the larger /11 ranges, I'd just stop doing so. With the information you both provided to me here regarding what they're doing, there's really not much that can be done... don't waste your time looking for something that you know won't be there ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You can block up a /19 on IPv6: see mw:Manual:$wgBlockCIDRLimit. I wouldn't recommend it, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hoi hoi, just noticed the pattern in some of their accounts 271383970 and blacklisted them on Meta. (well they'll find new patterns soon but anyway) — regards, Revi 14:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And gonna use the magic 8 ball... hold on. — regards, Revi 14:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    -revi - Add 27138970 as a blacklisted term on Meta as well (it's the same number as yours but with a '3' missing). They started using that number in creations instead and after I added the first number to the edit filter to reject them. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — regards, Revi 14:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC) (added — regards, Revi 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    Since it's already late in my timezone (10 minutes before tomorrow), I just did a quick check suspecting xwiki spamming, nothing showed up till now. — regards, Revi 14:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    2601:246:ca00:9ff2:1df9:fd87:4c24:5429/64

    These accounts have been adding nonsense to various articles as seen in their contributions. I think we need to make a range block for them so they don’t vandalize any articles again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B06A:DE42:3805:B5F4:D0A8:2DB7 (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there! Thanks for creating a discussion here to report your concerns. I look at look at the contributions for this range, and they haven't made any edits since yesterday (and of those were only two edits). I obviously can't do anything now, since time has passed and it would be pointless. Just keep an eye on the contributions from this range, and let us know if disruption continues and during the time it's currently going on. We'll be happy to take another look and (if needed) proceed with action in order to stop the disruption. Thanks again for expressing your concerns here, and I wish you a great day and happy editing :-). ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor missusing his power

    OP blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I want to report User:GSS cause he is miss-using his power and declining wikipedia draft without any research. I want to ask some question here that how he can decline draft submission within few minutes after creating a draft cause draft takes too much time to get review. I think he have some personal issue with Draft:Prakash Neupane. I want to describe all things here : His song Timro Najik is charted here: [165], his song has won national music award which is shown here [166][167] and he has artist page too. He has been featured in National Television[168] , Radio Kantipur [169] and News papers. And it shows that he has released 3 Albums in National newspaper Nagarik (daily).[170] than how has not fullfill the criteria?

    Additional Info: He has been featured in Kathmandu Tribune[171] Nepal Television, Kantipur FM, ABC Television (Nepal) which is reliable source and other major National newspapers which are in wikipedia. So, without doing research how can you decline wiki draft? You're not even a Nepali editor? and He has fullfilled wikipedia Notability for WP:MUSICBIO[172] criteria no 1, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12. 27.34.68.202 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurav456. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • He don't have any answer regarding my contribution and missusing his wikipedia power. So, he is pretending he is innocent and pointing towards SOCK investigations. I know he and his friends will play politics but i'm not a sock here. I created article asking deleting admin and within few minutes he just declined the article without doing any review. I have described all the things above. So, i request admin to suspend this user and remove his power. And the main things is he is not even Nepali editor and he don't aggrees Nepali National medias and governmental medias news coverage. 27.34.68.202 (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • please could you answer User:GSS why you declined the article when it has fulfilled WP:MUSICBIO criteria no 1, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12. I have discussed about yours Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurav456 but you declined article before i left message into your talk page. So, I want to ask to all the admins here Who will give me justice and punish him? In WP:MUSICBIO Criteria for musicians and ensembles there is written that Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria but i've fulfilled 6 criteria and he rejected me without doing any research. 27.34.68.202 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continued genre warring after block

    Power G (original) (talk · contribs) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps the problem could be solved if the "genre" parameter were removed from infoboxes entirely. SemiHypercube ✎ 16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SemiHypercube: Yes, let's hope that discussion fixes things, but this request needs attention today. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over Power G (original)'s editing history, I don't think there's anything drastically alarming here. Many of these edits seem to fall into the realm of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, but I'll admit, I'm seeing more BR and less D than should be happening. Once you've made a few changes and had them reverted, it's time to consider that your opinions (and, certainly, assigning music genres is a matter of opinion) may not jive with community consensus. So, I'd suggest backing off on the genre changing. If you find a music article where you disagree with the genre assignment, discuss it first on the article's talk page. Maybe people will agree with you, and then you're good to go ahead and make the change. Maybe they won't, in which case I'd say there's plenty of other work to be done, so move on and find other ways you can improve the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: You should post this on Power G (original) talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He was pinged here. I'm assuming he'll see it here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Second SemiHypercube's suggestion that Wikipedia stop trying to comment authoritatively on the genre of bands. It's rare that there will be an unambiguous genre agreed on by reliable sources for any band. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Reddogsix

    Please, remove the page mover privilege over https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/Reddogsix&offset=20180924&limit=2 (and similar disruption in the past) according to WP:Page mover #Criteria for revocation, p. 3. The user was clearly warned not to suppress redirects for such likely titles. Note that for Sidney Goldstein (sociologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) a confused editor created the article (not redirect!) anew. Thanks for attention. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ping There'sNoTime who granted the perm Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'll take a look at the top of this page or the edit notice when you posted, you'll see that you are supposed to notify people when you open an ANI thread about them. Natureium (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'll take a look at Reddogsix's talk page, you'll see that Incnis Mrsi did notify them, one minute after posting here (45 minutes before your post). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure removing the permission is necessary, if that was the only communication you had about it. It may just be a misunderstanding, rather than ignoring you, and this doesn't seem like an earth-shattering mistake. @Reddogsix:, all of those page moves that Incnis Mrsi listed on your talk page should have been done with a redirect, not with redirect suppressed. If you don't understand why, feel free to ask. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the number of CSDs of Reddogsix which have been declined even recently, they really should review the CSD criteria, which will be helpful here, since redirects are only supposed to be suppressed when a CSD criterion applies - and it is rare when they do in regards to redirects left after page moves Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If their CSDs are getting rejected frequently too, that's a problem, but I've run out of time to look at this for a few hours at least. Other admins? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • As of this revision, there's thirteen declines from SoWhy in the past three months; certainly they do a lot of CSDs, but WP:A7ing a school recently with so much CSD experience seems rather beyond the pale. I first noticed their CSDs when they CSDed a knight Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          (pinged) I can say from experience that this is indeed a user I will be skeptical about when seeing they tagged the article. According to my log, he is one of those I have to decline the most often, with almost 50 declines just by me, ranging back from this in May 17 to this last month. Not all are clear mistakes but many are articles with clear indicators or claims of significance. I haven't had time to assess whether this is a widespread problem or just them and me having different interpretations. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • @SoWhy - How many of those reversed CSDs have been deleted via AfD? Perhaps that is a better indicator of the true status. @Floquenbeam - I have no issue revisiting my redirection of articles and I have had other communication with Incnis Mrsi; however, not about the redirection concern. He was perturbed with me for nominating one of two images for deletion for copyright issues. While I welcome review of any of my actions, I am feeling a bit stalked by Incnis Mrsi. reddogsix (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              Nevermind that somewhere around half the articles SoWhy declined CSD on are still blue links/articles, How many of those reversed CSDs have been deleted via AfD? is not the standard; articles have to meet the strict CSD standards not merely be non-notable, which I hope doesn't need explaining to someone with hundreds of CSDs.
              Also, do you understand the issue with your suppression of those redirects? I've already pointed to the relevant guideline on when suppression of redirects is appropriate, WP:PMRC Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Brassmonger

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

    Brassmonger has been disruptive in a number of ways since he joined. He's had numerous warnings, which he's deleted or paid no mind to. I don't know if it's a CIR issue, or if he's trolling. Most recently he's taken to:

    • [173] [174] [175] Messing with other editors' drafts in a nonconstructive way
    • [176] moving pages to draftspace
    • [177] PRODed Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country for "Insidious Sexual Content"
    • as well as general nonconstructive edits that must be reverted by other editors. Half of his edits are deleted, so I don't know what other nonsense he's caused.

    Please either get him to understand what is expected of wikipedia editors or prevent him from causing any more disruption. (Pinging Chrissymad who's tried to help him on -help.) Natureium (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll add to that, his ridiculous and retaliatory "NPA" warnings in response to valid warnings from Drewmutt and myself. I'll also note it's mostly nonsense in the warning as well. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editor

    Hello, I'd like to bring your attention to a disruptive editor at M*A*S*H (season 10). The editor going by the name __173.235.84.234 was engaged in an argument with another editor regarding production codes of MASH episodes. No one provided citations supporting their points. I entered argument as a 3rd opinion against my better judgement (you will see my note on the talk page about how I felt I should decline the 3rd opinion due to hostility but decided to weigh in anyways).

    I went to an episode and pulled screen caps that settled the argument in __173.235.84.234's favor. This editor then made the edits, but included several hostile hidden messages warning others not to change the information again. I reverted the edit with a note telling the editor to just make their edit and that the hidden messages were over the top. The editor has now attempted to move the argument to my talk page, but I have stated that I will not be engaging with the editor any further. This editor's actions have been combative and hostile throughout and does not seem able to engage in a civil discussion. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    On second review, their message on my talk page is not as argumentative as I first took it, however, the hidden codes, dramatic argumentation, and lack of collaborative spirit are still issues that should be addressed with the editor. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Devil's triangle

    For the rest of the world, an alleged slang use of this word has come up in the conentious Kavanaugh hearings. This has led to an edit war over the article Devil's Triangle (disambiguation). (Alleged source for one of the edits.) I've placed the article under a 24 hour protection from unregistered & unconfirmed editors, & hope that the people involved will have moved on to other topics in the meantime. -- llywrch (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Devil's Triangle (disambiguation) Yetishawl (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    BATTLEGROUND and SPA by Iwog

    Iwog today expressed that "This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over regarding an issue on False accusation of rape ([178]). This user has edited solely on this article and its associated talk page. They made a few edits initially over the presentation of percentages in the article's lead and later adding a sentence to the lead that, to me, appeared to be a tendentious edits to try to comment about the "flip" of the topic ([179], [180]). This user has repeatedly opined about the "bias", "lies", and "dishonesty" in the article and that the lead is "written intentionally to deceive".

    I am requesting admins and/or the community review this user's behavior. To me, this user's behavior seems very disruptive. I know I have stronger-than-average feelings about this topic, so I'm also asking for a "reality check" that this user is indeed being a problem and that it is not my own stances on the issue making me view their behavior as such. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. It seems like this editor is more interested in pushing their POV rather than interest in verifiability. In fact, this editor mentions "accuracy" multiple times in edit summaries [181] [182] [183] [184] [185]. In the third diff, the editor engages in the fallacy that the truth is always "somewhere in the middle". Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and it's clear that this editor isn't here to contribute to the project but to crusade against perceived underreporting of false rape. The editor even says they're "going to war", which is good evidence that they're viewing this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and not engaging with the project in good faith. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The main complaint against me seems to be one of semantics. Since I'm new here, I was not aware that "going to war for truth" made my contributions into a battleground and you will find the rest of the subject is treated objectively. Although links were given for my use of the word "accuracy", no links nor any quotes were given that in any way indicated I was insisting "the truth is in the middle". I am well aware that this topic is rife with strong emotions on both sides which makes it vitally important that it is treated coldly and objectively. IMO the article is far from objective and contains much bias which I have detailed in great length. The accusation that I am not here to contribute is false. I am only here to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing my actual quote, "The actual number lies somewhere in the middle", I will clarify that my intention was to say the true number can lie anywhere within the data set bracketed by both known ends of the spectrum. I can see how this was misinterpreted. At no time did I ever intend to claim a number was half way in between or located anywhere within the set of unknowns. This is not a fallacy, in fact it's a statement of mathematical fact. Iwog (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest to you that maybe you should start with topics you don't feel so strongly about first, then? You should learn the ropes first before diving into articles that have the discretionary sanctions warning. For example, read up on WP:V. Accuracy is not a standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can believe whatever you want is "accurate", but we only include content that is verifiable. You don't seem to have a grasp of basics like these so I recommend that you edit in other areas first rather than edit war against multiple editors. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again I have to take issue with your use of semantics here. I am not using the term "accuracy" to indicate anything other than adherence to the citations being presented. In short, the way I am using the term is ONLY about statements on the page being verifiable.Iwog (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes needed at Irish neutrality during World War II please

    I think some admin eyes would be beneficial at Irish neutrality during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 51.37.225.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a "different" view of the nomenclature to be used, and has not responded to a request on his talk page to use the article talk page to discuss his position. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=861509219"