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 Abecedare (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 26 July 2019 (→Suspected undisclosed paid editing/COI: cmt). 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

    Vanya Ilcheva

    Insertion of original research after final warning. Edits concern promoting the historical role of one ethnic group in the development of calendars. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And this. What? “Ex-Bulgarian territory”? I don’t get it. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigos, you are more likely to get a quick reaction here if you include diffs of the edits that gave rise to your warnings, rather than of the warning messages themselves, of which people have no quick way of checking the accuracy without such diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, dif's please.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant to ping Jc3s5h in my previous comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The claims seem to be more dramatic as the edits go on. This one, with no more than a link to Bulgar calendar and a vague mention of UNESCO to support the claim, says "Oldest Calendar in the world, recognized by UNESCO in 1976 is the Bulgarian Bulgar calendar" and "It is a solar most accurate calendar ever made, with 365 days and 1 leap day every 4 years." Sounds a lot like the Julian calendar, which had to be replaced with the Gregorian calendar due to inaccuracy. This edit is similar, but to a different article.
    The Bulgar calendar which is wikilinked does not appear to have the either the claim about being the oldest, or the most accurate, before Vanya Ilcheva's edits. Since the claims weren't there before these changes, naturally they couldn't be supported by reliable sources, and Vanya Ilchev didn't add any. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They said that a calendar belongs to Bulgaria just because they said that "Croatia was an ex-Bulgarian territory" (same diff). They inserted their POV and claim in this diff: [1]. And their message on my talk page said that I "needed editing" and made fun of me. They also insist on using blogs as sources, and removing legitimate talk page comments by other users on my talk page, saying that I needed to "educate" myself. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 00:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    First off please so not put links in a threads header Nigos as it makes it impossible to access. Next that is not the way to ping another editor. You have to add the ping for Vanya Ilcheva in a signed post. Without a signature a ping does not work. As you see I have pinged VI for you. MarnetteD|Talk 02:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 02:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor is at it again. Jc3s5h (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jc3s5h what did you mean by that link? It was a document download for the state of Vermont. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 09:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've fixed the link. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Removing propery cited sources and them replacing it with original research is too much already. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 23:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term sockpuppetry at AFD

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

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

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

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

    Proof of not just canvassing but harassment from the author's FB account [2]has been posted to the AfD by an IP. User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång where do you think we should go with this now? Doug Weller talk 15:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm involved at the AfD, but I think a block for User:Mzmadmike is in order for calling User:Fabrictramp a pha66otte and linking to their Wikipedia user page. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for asking, I was just reading through that, even found an interesting source. I have no idea whatsoever, this is new to me, slightly creepy though. Wait and see? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Doug Weller The behavior of User:Mzmadmike and his toxic followers is so far beyond the pale... note that they also tried to doxx @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Doug Weller but note that I am now involved at the AFD as well.--Jorm (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Recommending blocking the editor-in-question. I'd post more, but these 'edit conflicts' are annoying. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we want this guy around anyway: "You are proof that Pinochet did nothing wrong". All of his edits to Talk:Nazi Party are, frankly, insane.--Jorm (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I just made the sound my cat makes when he's got a hairball. [3] 73.76.220.8 (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant "out of order" and have fixed that. @Fabrictramp: my ping failed. I've had 2nd thoughts about the block, we need to crack down hard on harassment. A community ban seems in order. I'll still vote Keep if the evidence is there. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and support block/ban. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up on this. The AfD is definitely a train wreck, much like the previous one. Sadly, if someone had added the info about being a Hugo nominee prior to the speedy request, I wouldn't have deleted the article.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • this bit of slander created by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uncle_G). However, if you bother looking at my user page (which, granted, I just got around to updating, not that I'd really given a damn about it otherwise), you'll see that your casual insult is invalid. Unless I've been a sockpuppet since 2006. That your first impulse with "but I don't like what these people are saying!" is to accuse all and sundry of being sockpuppets is insulting. The groupthink that "oh, it MUST be sockpuppeting/canvasing because a group of people disagree with me!" is simply astounding. NB - moved to end of comment stack per request. Do NOT revert my comments again. Edit to add: Folks, your behavior _in these discussion_ is evidence of harassment.

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

    • "[...] the original accusation (canvassing) doesn't hold up" He quite literally rallied his fanbase on Facebook to vote Keep at the AfD in question. If that's not WP:CANVASSING by definition, then I don't know what is. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Far from harassing wiki editors, it's the wiki editors _in this discussion_ who are conducting harassment" as a response to the undeniable evidence of WP:CANVAS violations through the facebook post and the attacks directly on the admin involved in the initial deletion, along with the attempt to classify Uncle G's evidence summation as "slander". This seems to be DARVO as a tactic. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • So how, then DO you classify an attempt to label a dissenting an opinion as a sockpuppet (in the discussion) then refer it here for further action, in a <16 hour window? What's the evidence supporting the assertion (and "hasn't edited a lot in the last 4 months" isn't evidence. If, for example, he'd asked for "what's your background" prior to making the assertion, I could have done _what _ wound up doing_, and documented prior wiki presence. But he pulled the trigger on sockpuppet allegation with essentially no supporting evidence. Given that the use of the term is not just technical, but specifically to denigrate statements in disagreement with his position, it meets the definition of the term slander "1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation." Hell, at least I've got a verifiable user ID tied to this discussion. You're posting anon.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 03:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Posting anon" -- sounds Shakespearean. "Wilt thou be posting anon, milady?" EEng 05:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, we must post post haste.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rumplestiltskin1992: if you were not canvassed, how did you come by the article to post a "KEEP" as a collective within 30 minutes of each other? Did you have this one article on your "watch-list"? Why this article? If your old user account is your only prior editing account, then that also shows limited editing history and certainly no inkling as to why or how this page would end up on your watchlist? Are there are other accounts than Cprael that you haven't revealed you have edited under? It is not slander to suggest that a whole swathe of individuals all joined one conversation thread in order to make an argument in favour of someone that they support. Sockpuppet also does not require you to be a single individual (i.e. Mike himself). You can sock (or meatpuppet) as individuals, but the intent remains the same - an attempt to unduly influence a process, or give the illusion of weight and support. Koncorde (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mzmadmike to compile the evidence of the numerous puppets by Mzmadmike, whether they be socks or meats or meatsocks or sockmeats or bacon socks[4]. I ask that @Koncorde: or @Uncle G: or another experienced individual review it and if they feel necessary, set it to request further attention by the investigators. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Koncorde: @Uncle G: Apparently someone has decided that my attempt to follow the process to collect this information is "vandalism" and deleted it. That's sad. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Imadethisstupidaccount: just use your Sandbox. Koncorde (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [[re|Koncorde}} I'm going to quote directly from WP:CANVAS "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." Note that there is an explicit requirement of intent _written into the guideline_. At the time that I joined the discussion, the ENTIRE post/thread consisted of the following:

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

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

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

    Actually, he said it _was_ a predictable action. Given the extensive retaliation that came out of the whole "Sad Puppies" mess, he has a legitimate point.--Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Link is broken. --letcreate123 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would you mind explaining why every SFF author nominated for AfD has been a midlist Baen author, that every one of them meets the requirement for significance, and that not one other author, from any other publisher or political persuasion, has been so nominated? In this case, I would suggest that (a) correlation _is_ causation, and (b) that the continued assertion of meatpuppetry are an attempt to pre-emptively taint adverse commentary. In the legal community, there's a concept called SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). This smells like the Wiki version of that. --Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the fact that I can't understand your first sentence (ie how can someone explain "that every one of them meets the requirement for significance"), are you saying you checked all deletion nominations for science fiction authors to know that they've all been midlist Baen authors? Doug Weller talk 10:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconding @Letcreate123:, what can be done about the WP:CANVASsed issues going on? The article subject has been continually posting some of the most vile things [5] I've ever seen come out of someone's mouth to encourage people not only to come to wikipedia but to engage in vandalism [6]. There is also apparently a private page where further WP:CANVAS may be happening. [7] "Dovid Steele If they are able to read your posts, come over to FREEHOLD" "Dovid Steele Group. Not so much a fan group as just a place for Mad Mike to hide. if you seek admittance please answer all the vetting questions as they are designed to weed out the leftwing freaks." as well as apparently one Larry Correia has put out to a private WP:CANVAS call at [8], as described [9] "Jeff Paquet Larry C has noted it, also and asked if any of his fans can help" 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD's just been indef semi'd by an admin, that should hopefully cut out any more canvassing in there. Peeps will still prolly talk in the AfD talk page but hopefully it should bear no disruptive effect on the AfD itself. --letcreate123 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Williamson's still sore because his puffy-shirt glam shot didn't make the cover of Women's Wear Daily. EEng 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, this [10] is so far beyond the pale. Written by Williamson: "Prediction: The next author's page the dog-fellators at Wikipee will try to sabotage is Brad Torgersen." Can the prohibition on WP:MEATPUPPET please be extended to his ban? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also his followers are now making up falsehoods ("Alicia Stockton That's in line with the hierarchy. They apparently tried to go after John Ringo's page yesterday with zero success."). This is something to be aware of as they may themselves be planning something, and I suggest John Ringo and Brad Torgersen both be pre-emptively locked to prevent any bad faith activity. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. I wonder if his friend who uploaded the silk-nightie picture has any pictures illustrating his interest in zoophilia and urolagnia. I was going to label him a "potty mouth" but I have the awful feeling that might turn out to be literally rather than just figuratively true. EEng 15:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point simply deny recognition of any kind to whatever schemes he's executing off-wiki, including (but not limited to) his "predictions". AfD's already been protected, user's already been banned, meats will eventually be dealt with individually, and all will be resolved. --letcreate123 (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Letcreate123: FYI, [11] happened right before a commenter on the Facebook thread wrote "Brad R. Torgersen's page has been nominated for Deletion...", and Williamson previously called for his followers to log out and vandalize. I am going to request page protection for John Ringo and Brad Torgersen on this basis. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose community ban on User:Mzmadmike for harassment

    Mzmadmike is not here to build the Encyclopedia and is banned by the community. Jonathunder (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • I'm very reluctant to go down the road of blocking people for comments made off-wiki, even when they're about Wikipedia editors, unless they fall into very specific categories like credible death threats. Sure, his fans are being annoying, disruptive and unacceptably rude, but admins get that kind of crap every time they delete an article on anyone with any kind of fan-base. If there's recent evidence of him being problematic on Wikipedia, that's obviously a different matter, but most of his recent edits just seem to be routine and appropriate updates to articles. ‑ Iridescent 17:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Iridescent: there was a time when I would have agreed with you. But I think things have changed and we need to be a lot less tolerant of off-wiki abuse. And in this case he started the thread with the abuse - I don't care about his fans, but it's not surprising that they are being disruptive in a thread where he starts with abuse. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, what category does specifically posting a link to the admin's talk page along with screenshots of the userpage, and calling them a "pha66otte" around a group of people to whom abusive behavior and slurs of all sorts are all over the common discussion, fall into? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because to me that looks like posting a giant sign and saying "sic 'em". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.220.8 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The original comment link is [12]. He may have deleted that particular comment but he left up another one making fun of the admin's user page that was just below it. He seems to have deleted one or two more subthreads on the Facebook post once they were noted to the deletion discussion as evidence, as well. 73.76.220.8 (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. I can now support community ban for disruption. I note that the FB discussion has now been deleted, which is great (I don't know who deleted it, though I'm reasonably sure someone reported it to Facebook). Anyway I still can't support based on harassment because frankly I don't think it rose to the level of harassment, and was rather off-wiki whining for which I'd prefer to deny recognition. That said, the canvassing and disruptive, offensive commentary on-wiki (including the legal threat) rise to the level of sufficiently disruptive to merit a CBAN. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Most likely he got a timeout from Facebook when Facebook deleted it. He has at least three accounts that he uses in alternation on Facebook to avoid bans there already, under the names of "Michael Williamson", "Michael Z Williamson" and "Michael Z. Williamson". The #2 sockpuppet facebook account, which uses a playboy bunny skull-and-crossbones icon, posted this [13] right after leaving a note that "My similarly named friend got a 30 day ban...". Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    did you say sneakers?  Dlohcierekim (talk)
    It takes a lotta nerve to label someone a pha66otte when you go flouncing about in a getup like this. But then of course his infobox says he's a "bladesmith".
    Request closure or this is going to turn into another train wreck as the AFD. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to state the words, "This person is banned", and not just "let's stop talking about this because they're blocked now". Here's why: The former makes a statement about expected behaviors and a precedent; the latter shuffles the problem to the future. Saying now, today, "This behavior gets you community banned" can help short-circuit discussions in the future.--Jorm (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The indef can be lifted by any individual admin, but a community ban can only be overturned by the community. That's what we need here. We keep his article, because he is notable, but we don't keep him in the community.
    On a personal note, as a science fiction reader, I'm glad that I've never read anything by this (Redacted), and hope to never do so in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban- I as a card-carrying member of the Fat Vile Basement-dwellers' Association agree that this person is not here to constructively edit the encyclopedia. He's a deeply unpleasant and disruptive person. Reyk YO! 11:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban - This Fat Vile Homeowner must show solidarity with his basement dwelling kin by confirming that this sort of comportment is inappropriate in the extreme on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban - Sadly, I have to support this and I'm a pretty avid reader of Williamson and generally support his views. His actions here and on Facebook are not excusable though and especially in the current environment, show willingness to belittle and harass those with differing views. I'm even more disappointed that he apparently deleted the discussion on Facebook without so much as an apology. Take responsibility for your actions, don't try to hide them. I'm also a bit disappointed in some of the comments here that are stooping down to his level. Be better than that. Ravensfire (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose ban An established writer understandably gets a little upset when someone anonymous suddenly declares them not notable. Canvassing, if you can call it that, was done by the writer, not the user. Get over it. I see no legal threat. Almond Plate (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I will pursue whatever legal remedies are available if this page is not removed. was posted by Williamson, and is unquestionably a legal threat. Canvassing, if you can call it that, was done by the writer, not the user. Wikipedia sees no distinction between a Wikipedia contributor and the person who operates that account. Community bans like these are directed at the person operating the account, namely Williamson himself, and not merely his account. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff Mendaliv is referring to can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Z._Williamson&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=907294524&oldid=907286075 (scroll down a bit) Rong Qiqi (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CAN pertains to editors, and there is no legal remedy available, so how can that be a threat. It's just words. You know, the tools of a writer. Almond Plate (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of if a legal remedy exists, the mere threat of a lawsuit has a chilling effect, as few people can afford to defend themselves in a civil suit. It doesn't matter if the threat has merit, what matters is the threat to drag you into court to waste your time and money, which exists as a technique to get your way. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Words have meaning, and our community matters. "Get over it" is the cry of those who wish to harass with impunity, because "it's just words." Sorry, that's not how it works. We're empowered to determine whether someone's choice use of words makes them a net negative to our community and, if so, whether or not we want to allow them to continue to participate. As usual, xkcd on point: Free Speech. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      We are supposed to look beyond the heat of the moment. A ban over something this small has a chilling effect on everyone. It will all be over when the AfD ends, which will be any moment now, and then I want to allow him to participate again. Almond Plate (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community ban - His comments here and on Facebook are beyond the pale, It's one thing letting off steam about someone but to link them and then call them <that word> is on another level of stupid, Get rid. –Davey2010Talk 15:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply to Almond Plate And he is free to pursue whatever legal means he pleases. We simply block from editing anyone who makes a legal threat. But that is just one example of his nothere behavior. The incivility alone is a sufficient reason to block or ban him. And his words, his writer's words, are the vehicle of his incivility. Should we shrug those off as well. What an excuse, "I'm a writer, so I should not be blocked or banned for what I have written, regardless of how hurtful." We are all writers here, of a sort. I cannot understand your need to defend him.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why experienced editors waste their time with someone like Almond Plate. AP created their account on September 18, 2018. They have made 184 edits since then. Their first edits to project space are to this dicussion and the AfD, and their comments are ludicrous and will have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • aside on irony If his writings "violence" motiff is an offshoot of the views of violence in RAH's Starship Troopers, in Johnny's Moral Philosophy class, When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”, then I hope he appreciates the irony of the situation. I'm sure Mr. Heinlein would. Now there is a writer that is notable.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pile on Support User is clearly WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia and is a net negative to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Net negative to the project. Support ban. (it's been 24 hours, I think this is pretty close to closure time). -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    NAC?

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

    Oh hold up, Rockstone35, you !voted and then closed. Even if you were an admin that wouldn't be permissible. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-admins are allowed to close community discussions, including bans. I've seen it done before, and I'm fairly certain that I have done it at least once in the past. However, like I said in the summary, if this is too soon or if we want to wait for an admin, I have no problem with it being reversed. !voting and then closing is permissible though, see here. An uninvolved user is someone who has no bias or conflict of interest, not someone who has no opinion about the situation. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rockstone35: Per WP:CBAN (my emphasis): If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly and enacts any blocks called for. You are both involved (by supporting the ban) and not an administrator, so you have no business closing this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 - You cannot vote and then close the dicussion, I would suggest Rockstone35 you repoen this and allow an admin to close it - Whilst consensus is blindly obvious IMHO closures like these should be left to admins. –Davey2010Talk 20:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: while I don't disagree with the "uninvolved" part, the rule does not prohibit uninvolved administrators from closing ban discussions, at least how I read it, it only requires them to notify the subject. I think we should update the policies to make it clearer. I promise I'm not wikilawyering, I just thought that closing this was okay. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying that sentence. It's obvious (to me) that all of those things need to happen at the same time by the same person, but I can see how someone might have read it differently before. -- Tavix (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: You're welcome! Thank you for removing the now-extraneous sentence. The other reason I was confused is because the non-admin closures page only prohibits closures which require an action by an administrator for technical reasons, which in this case, since the user is already indefinitely blocked, it doesn't. I think the page needs to be completely reworked because it really only talks about deletion discussions. But that's another topic. I edited the page on non-admin closures to clarify, feel free to review and revert if not necessary. Edit: was in wrong section, will reevaluate. All the best, -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An issue has arisen Linked to this [[15]]is claiming that a specific user is linked to a Facebook account. Now I am not up enough on the inns and outs of the SPI to know if this user is in fact the same as the one on the facebook account. But if not it may well be a case of outing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the Freehold Facebook site.[16] Doug Weller talk 16:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, if a user does not say they are userxxx on facebook we cannot say they are, even of the face book account userxxx say they are the wiki user. They have to admit to it here, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this [17] count? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a link to a Facebook page there, although the links are sufficient to show that the Wikipedia account belongs to the writer -- but did anyone really doubt that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I withheld judgement, after all any one can claim to be H G Wells. But the links confirm it is himSlatersteven (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI Report Denniss: Abusive Behavior

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

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

    Excessive use of undo`s in many articles. 1

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

    Driveby tagging is a bad idea. There ought to be an accompanying talk page note explaining the reasoning behind the tag/s. El_C 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page is highly inactive unless something happens to the page like move request or deletion were feedback are collected apparently. Regice2020 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Or the page gets tagged as an advert? Maybe that, too. We don't know because that discussion was not attempted. El_C 03:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup they do not want someone fixing then someone need to tag it based on feedback collection. I mean the product Ryzen 3000 series just released early this month. Many AMD buyers (the AMD fanboys) are just to excited on comments are being directed from a outside source to here. Denniss behavior against me is very unacceptable something need to be reviewed. Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup? I'm confused. What are you agreeing with? You added a tag without an accompanying talk page note, which I'm saying was a mistake. El_C 03:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Does removing wrong warnings [supposedly placed by them?] from one's own user talk page really count as "excessive use of undos in many articles"? Edible Melon (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue revolves around Fancruft. Oh boy Let me get something cleared up. During my United States Timezone July 8, 2019 and announcements in May 2019~June 2019 - New products recently released. (Ryzen 5 3600 (6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 5 3600X(6Cores/12Threads), Ryzen 7 3700X(8Cores/16Threads), Ryzen 7 3800X(8Cores/16Threads), and Ryzen 9 3900X(12 Cores/24 Threads). The AMD fans were excited and decided to spread their overwhelmed comments after looking at outstanding benchmarks (performance results of a product) on news articles, social (reddit/facebook) and even directed to Wikipedia Ryzen article to put their fan comments here and got away. As part of the general fixes, i placed few tag in good will to guide other editors to fix after AFD Discussion since a specific group does not want others fixing their page. Ryzen talk page is inactive as i said unless something happens to that page. These are the same general fixes i do on MMA/UFC articles. I mean if you have someone posting a infected website, what will the good faith editors do? They do a general fix by removing it without use of article talk page. Its simple. Got Denniss saying i hide behind the ip its not acceptable. Regice2020 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What general fixes are you talking about? As far as I see, these include PROD, two requests for protection, AfD, a move request, drive-by tagging and [seemingly pointlessly] removing half of the page. Edible Melon (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Request Sockpuppet investigation to be expedited (Support or Oppose)

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

    Private life speculation

    I would appreciate if Mm.srb were warned against engaging in wild speculations about my private life. I have hardened enough in my years on Wikipedia to take insults such as being called "arrogant and self-important", narcissist, or a vandal. Being compared to a 16th-century Jesuit was even amusing and, I must confess, elicited a snigger. When you approach a Western Balkans-related topic, you can safely expect to have sticks and stones thrown your way. I draw the line at the invasion of my privacy, however. I do not think my origins, life history, and current whereabouts are relevant to any discussion I lead on Wikipedia, and I would not like any of that to be casually theorized about[18][19] by random strangers on the Internet. I have asked Mm.srb to stop commenting on me at least twice before this,[20][21] but this is only escalating. It has not yet reached outing level, and I do not want it to. Surtsicna (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    1) This whole report is mostly a misintepretion of my statements. I think that the idea behind it is to "scare me" so that the other editor could continue to push his POV. After a lot of debate on the article, we reached a sort of a consensus. Soon after, the other editor just decided to revert to the version he finds appropriate, while I did the hard work of searching for academic sources and references for the topic. That version is the current one, mind you... 2) POV pushing and arrogant behaviour, for which I have zero tolerance both on Wiki and in RL, is the foremost reason why I made any speculation in the first place. That sort of bully like behaviour is not just pointed at me but another user who tried to make some edits on the article in question. That behaviour is evident and this is not the first instance (as he was banned and reported on multiple occasions). You can analyze the very tone and see the edits on Ignjat Job in which he easily reverted other editor's work while the discussion was ongoing. That is a POV pushing if I ever saw one. 3) just I tried to understand what is the drive behind other editor's resentless and unconstructive POV pushing. And I am not saying that this can be an excuse for me going over the appropriate level in the discussion in that one instance. 4) In fact I appreciate other user's and people's privacy. This might sound ironic to you, but that is the case. 5) I did not write that he is a narcissist but that something written by him is a nice example of mild narcissm. There is a big difference, because I did not attack the person, which means that the interpretation in the intro of this report is an attempt at manipulation. I did not call anyone a vandal. It is all in the TP. 5.1) "16th century Jesuit" was meant to ease the previous heated discussion with a bit of comedic effect and not to insult anybody. It's old news. 6) I would very much appreciateif User:Surtsicna was warned to not push his POV, behave politely and appreciate other user's different views.
    Please take a look at Talk:Ignjat Job for these speculations about my views, life and activity on Wiki... That was just a defence mechanism to the sort of aggression.
    1) WP:NOTHERE accusation is a bit rich coming from someone whose sole purpose (literally sole purpose!) on Wikipedia is establishing the Serbdom of everyone and their momma. 2) That is nonsense. A person from Yugoslavia is absolutely correctly and commonly defined as a Yugoslav person. If you disagree, take it to a broader discussion. I have no idea how someone having cousins who live in different countries is relevant to Ignjat Job. 3) I do not know what you are talking about. 4) Yes, and it is also nothing new that Serbian sources claim Job and pretty much every Slav, regardless of religion, as Serbs. So how is that different from the Croatian nationalist historiography? Ah, yes - the Serbian one must be correct. 4.1) Yes, that does excuse my removal of a blatantly biased claim. Shall we have another sentence next to it saying that he is a notable Croatian painter? You have acknowledged that as many sources can be found for that. How ridiculous do you want this article to sound? 6.1) ...Again, if you wish to push this mental gymnastics, please do it in a larger forum. 6) That is despicable. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. 7) Irrelevant and likewise despicable.
    This report is definetly not a one-way street. Mm.srb (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to discuss content disputes. This is about your gross invasion of my privacy. If it takes "scaring you" to make you stop poking your nose into my private life and debating it on article talk pages, so be it. Asking nicely has not worked and obviously will not. Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, I've now seen enough incivility and petty bickering from both of you to block both of you. I guess as long as you're slugging it out here it's pretty harmless.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not think it is reasonable to equate my saying that I do not want any random who haws (funnily enough, a word I picked up from an administrator on this very page) poking their noses into my private life with what is nearly an attempt at outing, or to call the latter "pretty harmless". I do apologize for causing any offense and consuming your time, though. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated archiving of ongoing discussions on Talk:Fascism

    The unanimous consensus of uninvolved administrators endorses BMK's archivals, and the talk page has been protected accordingly to prevent further disruption. Ritchie92 is warned that he may be blocked from editing if he engages in any apparent attempts of POV-pushing/vandalism, and will be blocked upon further evidence of such behavior. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to ask for assistance in dealing with the behavior of User:Beyond My Ken on Talk:Fascism in the last week. The user has decided at some point to just archive discussions that were active on the talk page without giving a valid explanation, in my opinion. I reverted the deletion of content from the main talk page, but the user insisted. Here are the relevant diffs: the user's first big archiving ([22], [23], [24], [25]), my first revert ([26]), more archiving ([27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]), more revert ([35]), more archiving ([36], [37]). I abandoned the edit warring (also probably those discussions were actually a repetition of themselves, so not a big loss). In the last of his reverts ([38]) the user started a new discussion topic with an interesting title. That was also not good after a while: the user decided that part of that discussion topic had to be archived and only one or two comments were allowed to stay (archiving again: [39], restarting it: [40], archiving it again multiple times: [41], [42], [43], and finally copy-pasting only some comments back into the discussion: [44]). There have been attempts to discuss, even though the user seems aggressive: see the user's talk page and mine. The user justifies all of this by saying that there is consensus among "the users" regarding a certain subject not to be discussed again. The discussions are about the presence of "right-wing" in the definition of fascism. Now there are many IPs and users that continuously ask for it to be changed to "left-wing" without citing RS, and of course there has to be a way to deal with the constant ridiculous non-arguments that clog the talk page of Fascism. So I am not here to discuss the merits of the specific edits. Nonetheless the user fails to recognize that a discussion about whether "right-wing" can be moved down in the lead and not be kept in the first sentence (for whatever reason) does not belong to the same set of pointless and unjustified discussions about removing "right-wing" altogether or even changing it to "left-wing". However my point is not of substance, but of method (but maybe I'm naive, as the user made me notice on his talk page by citing my edit count): Is the user violating the Talk page guidelines and/or being disruptive by archiving "legitimate" ongoing discussions? Or was I being disruptive by restoring archived discussions? Does consensus apply even to what can and cannot be kept on the talk pages? Thank you. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would rather this had not been bright to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slatersteven: Me too, but the other options do not work. Attempts to discuss it in Talk:Fascism were shut down by archiving them again. Also, the user is being aggressive and inconclusive on the user talk pages. Edit warring is out of question, so I'm not trying to restore discussions again on the talk page before I am sure that what I'm doing is not wrong. If I'm wrong I'll shut up. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There was clearly an issue with SPAs and IP editors bringing up the same exact argument over and over again in new sections on the talk page, but even considering that, Beyond My Ken's archiving has been excessive. Just look at the history [45], even after the initial archive of basically the entire talk page (which may or may not have been justified), he archived another 18k bytes of new text from a recent ongoing discussion and then edit-warred over it repeatedly over the past three days. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is there is a genuine issue here over our choice or words (well in fact wikilinks), which a few users (who are not SPA's and IP's) agree may be a problem. But despite this the thread keeps getting archived with out an real resolution. Even if it was just SPAs and IP editors I would rather we did not just shut down debates, but this is not the case here.Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We might have a different definition of the word "ongoing"... First of all, your last big deletion of content was at 12:45, 22 July and this thread was started by myself at 08:18, 23 July. So less than 24 hours difference. And anyway, 24 hours is not a time-span in which a discussion can be considered stale, resolved, or generally in the past. We all have different time-zones here, and other stuff to do. Second point, and most importantly, I did not act immediately also because I hoped for an easier resolution by discussing on our User Talk pages, which was rather unfruitful. Finally, the fact that you did not archive anything in the last 24 hours does not reduce the relevance of the questions that I asked in my first post, which are rather general questions about the management of a difficult Talk page like the one we're talking about. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I semi-protected the talkpage a couple of days ago, in part to remove the incentive to aggressively archive contentious drive-by edit requests. I don't see a present reason for archiving things right away now that there isn't a daily parade of new editors and IPs landing on the talkpage to demand that the article be altered to fit their POV or to explain that academic sources should be ignored in favor of partisan commentary. The semi-protection of the talkpage is something of a last resort - as evidenced by the above, the repetitive partisan talkpage activity was eroding the patience of experienced editors. The protection is for a month, and I welcome suggestions for a longer-term solution that doesn't involve lots of archiving or daily patient explanations to agenda-driven new editors.. Acroterion (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I can't see taking any action against BMK for attempting to curb the disruption caused by what sounds like trolling.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The OP appears to have forgotten that he edit-warred against at least three editors (Simonm223, BMK and myself) to restore the "large" archive of which the vast majority was simple trolling. Not only that, but his revert of mine contained the edit-summary "your judgement is biased" [46]. Perhaps the OP might more usefully go and read WP:BRD, WP:EW and gain a better understanding of what consensus is. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in good faith here, and I'm sure BMK and you also are, and I am sorry that User:Dlohcierekim is being so fast in his/her judgement, denoting me as a troll. But edit-warring rules do not apply if one reverts vandalism, and archiving entire ongoing discussion threads (containing more and less legitimate comments) sounds more like vandalism to me than restoring it. Anyway for the large archiving I admit I might have been wrong (but I still did not like the aggressive archiving), so I indeed gave up because it was actually full of trolls. However the last one, namely this discussion had no reason to be archived, repeatedly. BMK archived, I reverted, then BMK should have started discussion, instead BMK archived again. Read WP:BRD. I also started a discussion on BMK's talk page, and I received a warning on my talk page by BMK. It's anyway unclear (and a bit funny) to me if we should have a [[Talk:Talk:Fascism]] page to seek consensus about what goes and what doesn't go on the Talk:Fascism page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ritchie92: I did not say you were a troll. I pointed out that BMK (and others) had archived the talk page to stop the SPA and IP trolling.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh then sorry for misinterpreting your words! I am sure about the good intentions of BMK and other users, but I am questioning the method. First, archiving discussion threads does not solve the problem of the SPA and IPs (as also stressed by other users on this thread, and especially by User:Acroterion who temporarily solved the issue before BMK did the last chunk of big archiving). Second, to reply to your other comment, I don't think I am being biased on the "fringe" arguments that are brought by IPs etc., I totally disagree with them and I support the deletion of trolls on the talk page! What I did not like was the generalized archiving of very big, recent or still ongoing discussions, that did not only host trolls and might have been useful for the improvement of the page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I'm not the principal subject of this complaint, considering how it previously spilled over onto my user talk, I'm somewhat wounded I wasn't notified of this discussion at all. Fortunately Black Kite said precisely what I would have. That Ritchie92 editwarred against three other editors, breached WP:3RR in the process and asserted that consensus doesn't count on article talk. I was very satisfied to let this issue just die. It's unfortunate to see it here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but when exactly did I break the WP:3RR? About consensus, I still have not found where it is stated consensus must be achieved before editing a talk page. The consensus was to remove the IPs and the trolls, not to remove entire lawful discussion threads. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You totally misunderstand. The consensus on the talk page (and, no, I'm not going to waste my time providing diffs, the discussion is there in the talk page archives) was that it was disruptive to have IPs and new accounts constantly asking for "right wing" to be changed to "left wing" (or the equivalent), which was inevitably turned down with a request for reliable sources, which no one every provided, because such sources do not exist. So the discussion decided that steps should be taken to reduce the disruption. These included not responding to such requests (which unfortunately still happens too often), frequent archiving of those requests, and a banner on the talk page similar to the one on Antisemitism (which says that we know that Arabs are Semities), and other pages. I created the banner, which remains on the page (despite some efforts to remove it as "inaccurate", which it is not) and myself and others, have archived such discussions quickly.
    So, no, one does need a consensus on the talk page to discuss suggested changes to Fascism, but the prevailing consensus is that right/left replacement requests without reliable sources will not be tolerated and will be archived quickly. Your denial (on my talk page) that consensus plays no part in talk page discussions ("There's no such a thing as consensus about editing a talk page" [47]) is a ridiculous statement that shows neither awareness of the general role of consensus on Wikipedia, nor specific awareness of the history of Talk:Fascism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have struck through my incorrect assertion. I misread the edit log. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out, User:Simonm223.
    @Beyond My Ken: I perfectly agree with everything that you said here (Except that my statement about consensus on talk pages is being misinterpreted: what I meant is that obviously talk pages are when one builds consensus, so one has no way of achieving consensus before even editing a talk page, if one ever wants to make an edit "challenging consensus"; but even then, here there's no need for consensus to establish that vandalism and trolls must be removed from talk pages: it's already in the talk page guidelines! Therefore your anti-troll actions are actually more than justified). The point is that you archived indiscriminately entire discussions, including also the last discussion started by yourself in which there were no trolls nor IPs. And even if there were, one should only remove those posts and not the others! --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I recall the issue was not changing right wing to left wing, but just removing right wing (which is not the same thing) [[48]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The current discussion is about that, and some other things, which is why it is still on the page. The discussion which generated the banner and the archiving consensus was about right->left. The same problem occurs (with somewhat less frequency) on Nazism, Nazi Party, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And likewise we are almost constantly fielding identical requests to have Wikipedia call people who uphold taking direct action against fascism terrorists. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Right-wing talking points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And you think that in order to solve these problems one must archive and archive? I think this is not a good strategy and it does not reach the objective here. Also, as a counter-effect, it removes legitimate (and sometimes even valuable) comments. And it sets precedent for a similar dangerous behavior (archiving discussions indiscriminately) on other articles. --Ritchie92 (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My preferred solution would be to permanently restrict article talk in this set of articles to autoconfirmed accounts only with more stringent edit protection on the articles themselves. Since that's impractical, yeah, keeping these WP:TEND arguments off the front page and denying these annoying, repetitious, unsourced requests the time of day is likely the best course of action. Of course, I half-expect an arbcom discussion of articles about far-right politics and the movements that oppose them (internationally) to pop up any day now so, who knows. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of anything else, I think these [49], [50], [51], [52] were bad edits. Here Beyond My Ken archived a discussion that took place entirely after the talk page had been protected. It was a discussion among long-term editors, not SPAs. The semi-protection and the initial archiving are justified, but this repeated archiving afterwards was unnecessary, unhelpful, and overly aggressive. This is just removing currently active, on-topic discussions, and it definitely violates standard policy for talk pages. Beyond My Ken says there was a consensus for the archiving, but how could he know that? He archived every discussion about the archiving after just a few hours. This was just plain disruptive. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know that, because I took part in the discussion in which that consensus was reached. You apparently don't know that, because you have not read the talk page archives, something I suggest you do before you comment again on whether a consensus existed or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been following the page since before that RFC on whether to include "right wing" in the lead, and reading the talk page discussions while they were still on the talk page. Where did you find a consensus to do those specific removals? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I've read every discussion on that talk page for the past several months, and participated in many of them. Could you just link to the discussion that contains this consensus you claimed in edit-warring against multiple editors to remove the discussion of the past two days? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're going to make accusations directed at other editors, you'd better have all your ducks lined up in a row. Please do your own research, and AGF that what I'm saying is true: other editors certainly remember the discussion, which, as far as I can recall, took place in February-March 2018, maybe a bit later. Certainly not within the "several months" of your involvement. As I've said, read the archives: not only will they enlighten you, but they will give you a better sense of the past problems on the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm currently looking into Talk:Fascism/Archive 47 and Talk:Fascism/Archive 48 which contain the historical threads from the first months of 2018 that finally lead to the famous RfC started in March 2018. Unfortunately I cannot find any sign of consensus building or even discussion about whether users have free way to archive legitimate ongoing discussions about any topic referring to the "right-wing" wording. I only see discussions about the wording, and the usual IPs with their nonsensical theories. But even if there was a discussion, there is no way one can reach consensus regarding the generalized deletion/archiving of any new discussion. This is so against the talk page policies, and its purpose. Editors could agree to have a systematic approach in dealing with the trolls, SAP and IP users, but they can't make such a rule that applies even to long-term editors comments in the talk page. I agree with RRC on this. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My last contribution to this rather absurd discussion: I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know exactly what is written in WP:CONSENSUS, and sorry but it does not look like there is consensus on generally archiving any ongoing legitimate discussion in the talk page: this would be in fact absurd! How could a new or a different editor (who might have additional expertise or additional sources) then challenge an existing consensus? --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, your understanding of the role of consensus on Wikipedia is faulty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sighing, because you obviously have not read what I have written or you refuse to understand what happened in the edits: [53], [54], [55], [56]. On the side, I do not want the user punished, I don't care. I want to clarify when and where a user can indiscriminately archive ongoing and legitimate discussions. Again, I am not questioning the archiving of the spammers (even though we have seen that the archiving is no solution to the problem)! --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a discussion that's been open on Talk:Fascism for two days ([57]), and now an RfC as well ([58]) (which I pinged you to) yet you have yet to participate in either. Instead, during that period, you've posted multiple times on my talk page ([59], [60], [61], [62]), started this AN/I report, and posted to it numerous times. Why is this sidebar -- essentially complaining that I'm suppressing legitimate discussion -- so much more important to you than actually participating in an ongoing discussion? That seems a bit odd to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny, I sure replied in the talk you initiated, but you archived part of it, including my replies and restarted the same topic without them! I also just commented on your RfC. But anyway, this AN/I report – and my questions in general – are about your methods, I do not have any obligation to intervene in the discussion about the topic itself. And yes, making sure that people cannot generically delete legitimate and ongoing discussion threads from talk pages is more important to me than the whole right-wing nonsense, regarding which my main worry is that after this month an army of the usual suspects with swarm the talk page again, and we will probably be back again to the same crazy daily indiscriminate archiving. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understand correctly, you're more comfortable tilting at windmills rather than in participating in collegial talk page discussion designed to improve the article by coming to a consensus (there's that word again). It appears that you'd rather complain than improve, and that you feel that if a discussion does not take place on your terms, it's not a discussion you want to be a part of. My suggestion to you is, bluntly, to put up or shut up. Either participate in the discussion that's taking place right now, even as we chat, or don't -- that's your choice, no one can compel you to participate -- but please don't put up a front of self-righteousness when you aren't taking advantage of what's available right in front of you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On my terms"? The discussion was archived, the question is if a discussion can happen at all, according to you. We are not here to discuss about my personal scale of priorities. You shouldn't be bothered by it and you shouldn't comment on it nor make your conclusions about my POV. Now, we are here to discuss about what can and cannot be done on Wikipedia: it's the purpose of this page. My complaint about your methods are fundamental to the way things get improved on WP, and it's nothing personal against you (I am sure you were just overzealous in the last archiving of your own discussion thread). Anyway I thank you for your invitation to discuss, and I inform you that I have discussed and probably will keep discussing. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some inspiration for the WP rules experts here: I quote from the talk page guidelines, section about "Editing others' comments". First rule: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page, then: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection, and objection there was. Among the exceptions to the rule, the ones that are relevant to this discussion are: Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived which means that archiving of trolls and vandals could be a rightful thing to do, and Removing duplicate sections: Where an editor has inadvertently saved the same new section or comment twice. Note: this does not mean people who repeat a point deliberately, meaning that editors can repeat a point and not undergo deletion or archiving. These are the rules. Can "previous consensus" change these rules? (and we don't even know where and when that specific consensus to overthrow TP guidelines was achieved) That is my question. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked through all the archives for 2017 and 2018, and I don't seen any discussion about removing threads from the talk page, and certainly not a major, long-standing consensus that would justify doing so 4 times in 12 hours several years later. But I guess since no one else seems to care, and you're probably not going to do it again, it doesn't really matter. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talkpage protection

    • Continuing my comment from above, I've semi-protected the talkpage for a month, which appears to have dealt with the proximate cause of the dispute in this thread. As WP:PROTECT notes, semi-protection of article talkpages is to be used sparingly. However, that policy was formulated primarily to deal with occasional individual vandals and POV-pushers. What's appearing on Talk:Fascism and similar pages is a steady stream of new editors and IPs who are convinced that fascism, for instance, is a handy universal label to apply to people they oppose, and expect the article to reflect that POV rather than reflecting academic and historical analysis. These editors are clogging the talkpages. I see no reason to believe that this will change when protection expires, and some longer-term solution will be needed.
    • Right now, WP:PROTECT suggests that semi-protected talkpages redirect edit requests to WP:RFED, which isn't really set up to deal with that sort of traffic. I think we're going to need a project space page linked on long-term semi-protected talkpages that can handle this traffic, where editors with the patience and inclination to do so can winnow serious requests from the forum speech and trolling, allowing the article talkpages to be used as intended, and allowing editors on those topics some rest. That project page can link to WP policy, offer suggestions on reading archived discussions, and perhaps help to educate newcomers on how to approach perennially contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt it given the limited cross over between the two pages.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well maybe he's transitioning. EEng 11:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Round in circles}} is basically for this exact thing, though I see it's already on the talk page. Someone ought to write an {{FAQ}} to go with it, answering the question of why we don't label fascism as left-wing (or whatever other nonsense arguments keep coming up) and then when more new editors turn up with "there are left-wing fascists too!" or "Mussolini was a communist!" or whatever, you can just point them to the FAQ and close their threads. We'll never stop new and misinformed editors from turning up on the page and you can't semiprotect it forever; the best we can do is say "this question has already been answered, look here" and move on. If they get upset when we show them properly sourced and widely accepted scholarly facts, that's their problem, not ours. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ivanvector: I was going to write an {{FAQ}} based off this comment, but it seems someone has posted {{Warning Fascism left-wing}}. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know how long it's been there, though. Should I still write an FAQ? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Yeah, that was there when I wrote my comment, and the template has been around since February (not sure when it was added to Talk:Fascism exactly). I'm not really a fan of it, we should be trying to explain why we present the facts the way we do (we're an encyclopedia, after all). Instead we just have a bright red "fuck off, troll" and, well, it's working exactly how you'd expect telling trolls to go away would work - it just brings out more trolls. I mean, it's not working obviously, we might as well try something else. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 02:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote that template on February 25, and put it on the talk page that same day. I have absolutely no objection to a FAQ, which I think is a fine idea. If someone wants to write one, I (or someone else) can change the template to point to the FAQ instead of to the archives.
      Incidentally, the reason the warning hasn't been as effective as we had hoped has little to do with the warning, and everything to do with the far-right's concerted attack on Wikipedia, the effects of which can be seen on numerous articles about extremist right-wing organizations and ideologies, as well as historical articles about various aspects of Nazism and Fascism. Plus, of course, that the talk page really does need to be permanently semi-protected, since the FAQ is unlikely to be any more effective than the warning has been in fending off those who come specifically to make their POV requests. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh yeah, I'm 100% aware of all that. At least with an FAQ, when some new (but clearly not new) account shows up with some new diatribe about "left-wing fascism", you can just shut it down with "{{atop|Read the [[Talk:Fascism/FAQ|FAQ]]. ~~~~}} ... {{abot}}" and be done with it. I know it's not actually done, but you can claim the intellectual high ground of having tried to explain and inform, instead of playing into their hands with insults. Maybe it's ideological and silly, or maybe you'll actually educate someone who thinks Breitbart is a respectable news source and genuinely doesn't know any better. Probably not, though. I mean, this is pretty much no different from people leaving new diatribes about chemtrails and vaccines and what-not, we might as well respond the same way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, at this point, I see far-right movements and related articles ending up at Arbcom before the end of the year. Frankly the rate at which I've seen arbcom-related actions in that arena when it overlaps AP2 is already pretty telling. Simonm223 (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    lmao, I just found out that Dbrodbeck suggested we have an FAQ more than six years ago. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector, Simonm223, and Beyond My Ken: The new FAQ page can now be found here: Talk:Fascism/FAQ. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: Thanks for that, I've changed the warning box to point to the FAQ. One suggestion: the tone of the FAQ seems to me to be a bit chatty right now. Perhaps you can take a look at it with that in mind, and - if you agree - make some adjustments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken:[Thank you for the ping] I agree that the FAQ is conversational in nature, but I honestly can't help the fact that it's just the way I write. My hope would be other editors would fix the tone issue, so it's not in my voice. This current FAQ came after several tries on my part. I removed a lot of tongue-in-cheek references to even get it this far. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    asia countries page

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

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

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

    (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) Boomerang. It seem fishy that, Lo meiin, you did not edited those page nor their talk pages, and then as a new user, knew the way to ANI. Your first edit (that on not deleted page), was sending ANI-notice to AuH2ORepublican. Matthew hk (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be inclined to get a check-user sweep of Lo meiin against [nil Arabistan's was probably slightly more battleground based. Lo meiin - could you provide some diffs for AuH20's unilateral recategorisations on other pages. Depending on circumstances it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so, per bold, revert, discuss. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)] (the other primary party in the dispute), given that Lo meiin's handful of edits all focuses (from the start) on AuH20. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    • So the SPI case has closed as unrelated - I apologise to @Lo meiin:. Nosebagbear (talk)
    • Returning to the original issue, I feel that both AuH20 and Arabistan were acting uncourteously in the primary dispute. Arabistan's was probably slightly more battleground based. Lo meiin - could you provide some diffs for AuH20's unilateral recategorisations on other pages mentioned. Depending on circumstances it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to do so, per bold, revert, discuss. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nosebagbear, I dispute your characterization of my communications with Arabistan as "uncourteous"; I certainly did my best to hold my temper while dealing with insults from the latest inexperienced editor who jumped right into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from Day One. (As an aside, I guess that the restrictions on new editors being involved in edits that concern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict no longer are enforced.) I would posit that it is not uncourteous to point out that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state, and I have written nothing negative of the Palestinian people; the same cannot be said for most single-issue editors who exclusively edit articles to group Palestine among generally recognized sovereign states, as their vitriol towards Israelis (and, often, Anericans) shows up within a week or two of signing up as editors. I trust that @User:Lo meiin will live up to his word and doesn't follow in the footsteps of so many prior editors whose sole apparent interest (and writing style) were similar to his.
    Regarding the merits of my dispute with Arabistan to which Lo meiin has devoted every single one of his edits and actions, it simply is not the case that the State of Palestine "must be grouped" with generally recognized sovereign states just because it is a UN observer state. The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City. Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo, is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.
    The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then it should be grouped with states with general international recognition.
    In the meantime, I share the sentiment held by proponents of the State of Palestine here in Wikipedia that it is wrong to group Palestine with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as Abkhazia or Northern Cyprus. For this reason, I support the compromise reached by consensus several years ago of grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara--each a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition--together in a separate category. While these four de facto sovereign states do not come close to the level of international recognition enjoyed by, say, Slovenia or Bhutan, neither are they completely or overwhelmingly unrecognized states like Somaliland or Transnitria. I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states.
    I welcome comments from all interested editors and trust that we can reach a consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AuH2ORepublican: As a critical note, the correctness of the argument is a content dispute, which this isn't the venue for (you can be right or wrong, and still be uncivil). As a fairly important point, someone (presumably accidentally, it doesn't look willful) has managed to merge my two comments up above, so they now read...oddly. To clarify I felt that Arabistan was being more discourteous and WP:BATTLEGROUND than yourself. Re-reading, I'm unsure about the sarcasm of several points, so that should probably be re-clarified as significantly more discourteous. Nosebagbear (talk)
    • Importantly, though, neither editor has become egregiously, "think of the children", rude. The conversation is not currently active. I feel this would be better settled as "Deploy dispute resolution, such as Third Opinion, and everyone remember to walk softly when discussing dynamite". Nosebagbear (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    nationality vandal by a Malaysian ip is back yet again

    It seem the last range block was not enough (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Range block needed again for Malaysian nationality vandal (the third ANI filing for the same range within a year). Matthew hk (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    New batch of vandalized articles, all changing nationality and/or DOB without citation , same pattern as the last reported vandalism :
    --Matthew hk (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For now I have blocked the single IP. If there are other IPs that are currently being used (or recently used), please let us know so we can consider a range block. For the record, the existing range block appears to be 2405:3800::/37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He used the ip4 range 123.136.XXX.YYY in the first ANI filing in October 2018. I lost count this is the fourth or fifth filing. Matthew hk (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    POV-pushing at Serbs

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

    I think you and Mm.srb or how is he called are pushing POV and not letting others add true content to the page because you don't like it personally. Please learn what is a POV. Content on Wikipedia does not need to be sourced; add {{fact}} if you think it's arguable or controversial but do not edit war and revert with no reason, removing all my additions. You need a block, and everyone who makes edit war with no reason. --Obsuser (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just blocked for several reasons. 1) clear edit warring 2) Obsuser clearly acknowledged that they would be blocked the next time they added unsourced information to Wikipedia with I know and immediately proceeded to re-add unsourced information 3) removal of information without providing sources to support 4) refusing to engage with the community and talk but instead continuing to edit war. This being said the other editors in this situation didn't help, but inflammed it. Remember continual reversion of edits is only acceptable in cases of clear vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon clearer review of the edits, Mm.srb has also been blocked for extremely clear edit warring also. Dr K has not been blocked on purely technical grounds, despite the fact that they clearly know about the edit warring rules. Every editor involved in this was at fault here. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My only mistake was that I reverted 3 times trying to stop the POV-push. I should have reverted once or twice. But I stopped my revetrs and did not continue them. I opened an ANI report and a 3RRN report after I stopped my reverts. The article is still at the blocked edit-warrior's version and I did not revert because I have stopped the reverting on my part. But you know what? You can have the article at any state. If that is what I get for trying to stop the POV-pushing, I will not edit this article again. It is simply not worth getting involved in such crap and being threatened with blocks. Dr. K. 12:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a clear content dispute that should never have gotten to where it did. 2 people have been blocked over it now. This should have gone to the talk page instead of continual reversions and is clearly a content issue, not obvious vandalism. And as an Admin I will not roll back the article to another state as that would be taking sides in a content dispute and presuming one editor is correct over another. That being said you're more than welcome to continue editing the article, just not to keep reverting other users in an edit war. Just take the disputes to the talk page or ask other neutral parties to intervene instead of continual reversions of other editors. Canterbury Tail talk 12:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was not a clear content dispute. It was POV-pushing of unsourced content by a WP:TRUTH-quoting user. And I did I take it to the talkpage, but the other editor did not respond. As I said above, my only mistake was that I pushed my reverts to three instead of one or two. And no, I am taking Serbs off my watchlist. It doesn't pay to try to stop POV-pushing zealots if I am going to be threatened with blocks and be given warnings after stopping the reversions. Simply not worth it. Dr. K. 12:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was not a clear content dispute. It was POV-pushing of unsourced content by a WP:TRUTH-quoting user. That's called a content dispute. And the user that you had the dispute with was present on the talk page. Did they just not respond fast enough for you? AlexEng(TALK) 00:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get excited. You are defending the insertion of unsourced OR. The material speaks for itself. I assume you understand obnoxious OR POV when you see it. Here it is:

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

    In addition the edit erased that "Sebs are a nation". Now, if you think this homemade crap classifies as content, let's just agree to disagree. And no, they did not respond to me when I told them on the talkpage to supply sources for their unsourced WP:TRUTH. They rapid-fire edit-warred instead quoting TRUTH, and other nonsense. Dr. K. 02:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am baffled that a POV pushing on something as absurd and incorrect as nation denial was treated the same way as reverting those edits. The refs given were and are propagandistic garbage. It was not content dispute put a clear case of POV zealot, who has quite a ban history on Serbian Wikipedia. I'm not pointing fingers here, just stating the facts. This was a nice example of misuse of freedom of speech... Dr. K. neatly explained the rest. Mm.srb (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    On the article Tuff TV, we've been dealing with the television network's parent company continuing to insist it's returning the network (which went off the air about a year ago and insists was a 'pre-planned hiatus') to the air, although there is no proof of that at all to speak of, and they've been trying to add WP:COI edits to change the page to their narrative, through IPs and a few months ago, a user account which was blocked on sight. I reverted their newest COI edits last night...to wake up to an IP legal threat (and of course, reversion), which obviously will chill me from editing the page any further, so I don't know what else to do here besides cease and ask for admin action, along with a RFP (I am not notifying the IP out of fear of retaliation). Thank you Nate • (chatter) 19:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mrschimpf: First of all, I feel sorry that you have received such a threat. I have warned the user, admins should feel free to block if needed. Please note that the IP is registered to The Connection, Inc. ([63]), and that organisations seems to have nothing to do with the article's subject (right?). I am going to check the rest of the article history for now. --MrClog (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that sucks, sorry you had to experience that. It happens to the best of us. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If necessary, an email can be sent to The Connection, Inc., informing them that their IP is used to make legal threats in the name of another seemingly unrelated company. Mrschimpf: if you would like to discuss the legal threat with legal experts, you should feel free to email legal@wikimedia.org about the situation, they may be able to advise you. --MrClog (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Thank you for the quick action MrClog...I seem to run into this every couple years because I'm intent on keeping neutrality on network articles, so hopefully this is all that needs to be done. I appreciate the help here. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive personal attacks by Noman1985

    RESOLVED
    User blocked for 1 week. I have placed the article on my watchlist in case they use sockpuppets. (non-admin closure) --MrClog (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Noman1985 has been vandalising Ahmadiyya-related articles. I gave him an "only warning", and he responded with some really unpleasant personal abuse on his talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. Trying to figure if it should just be indef. Canterbury Tail talk 14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ”Noman is attacking me?”

    Where’s Poseidon when you need him, anyway? Qwirkle (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for that. I suspect there's also some sockpuppetry going on as well, so I'll try to investigate. PepperBeast (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've increased it to a week. Simply unacceptable. Deb (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Somaliland PoV pushing

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

    I am not sure what seems to be the issue. I edited the article to indicate the Golis mountain range was in Somaliland, similar to how the Alishan Range article indicates that the mountain range is in Taiwan and not China. As with Taiwan, Somaliland is a de facto independent country. Koodbuur (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. And whether or not you were recruited, your edit was clearly disruptive. Would you care to answer whether you were coordinating off-wiki? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I had the Golis Mountains article in my watchlist, and made my edit without taking into consideration prior edit warring between other editors. I apologize if my edit was disruptive as I did not intend to engage in an edit war. Koodbuur (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Brazilian date vandal

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

    It looks like this is probably the same person as the IP that was previously blocked, but I gave a warning. I guess ping me if they continue to change dates (or report to WP:AIV). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll report back if they keep doing it, and probably revert their other edits as unsourced [looks like MarnetteD beat me to it - thanks]. I also looked further back in 189.47.* and found 189.47.95.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who received warnings and a block for the same kind of numerous improbable date changes. That's all I could find. I thought maybe someone would recognize them - since those three IPs each did many date changes a day, but only for a couple of days each, I'm guessing there must be a bunch more IPs, but I don't know where to look. Not that I have time for another project right now, but I thought I should point it out... --IamNotU (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    MarcusBritish personal attacks

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

    Can you quote the part that's a personal attack? I'm not really interested in reading someone's manifesto. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate: At a guess, it's within these last sentences. The proposer is out of his depths here, trying to revise a topic in which there are editors far better suited to the job. Proposer's claim "most sources don't cap it" is a lie. His dating is selective, misleading and abuses the notions of editing in good faith. Finally, proposer is on a never-ending crusade to rename all "Campaign" articles, without waiting for discussions between other members to reach consensus. This is disruptive editing loaded with mishandled evidence and contempt for English standards. This is deviant attempt to Americanise historical articles. How does an RBMK reactor explode? Lies. I've applied bold to what I'm guessing may be the personal attack. Amaury • 05:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he accuses me of lies and bad faith, but the entire paragraphs are personal attacks. Instead of focusing on the issue, he is talking mostly about me, as he perceives me. He talks about my past, my country and state of origin, my career, etc., all as part of saying why I'm not fit to argue my point with him, a military historian. I agree it's a huge wall of text; it should all be stricken, rev-del'd, and then he can be invited to try again if he can do so without the attack. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote the start from my second link (and there's more that came in earlier threads, easy enough to find since he has very few edits this year doing anything other than arguing to capitalize "Campaign"): N-grams produce spurious results that don't tell the whole truth. Neither does the proposer. He doesn't use genuine references, only cons the community with cherry-picked samples. Has no genuine interest in history, and probably doesn't own a single historical text. Editors should stick to what they know and not meddle in areas they have no clue about. This is too personal and accusatory of bad faith. He can make points about N-grams without attacking me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like MarcusBritish was subject to an indefinite block from 2014 to 2017 for unspecified reasons, but it apparently involved "continued personal attacks" and a "harassing email". So, maybe MarcusBritish should tone down his rhetoric. If someone wants to strike a perceived personal attack, they can; however, policy forbids using revdel on personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Too many citation needed tags on the Romani people articles.

    (non-admin closure) Not a matter for ANI. Amaury • 05:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I’m so sad that nobody is adding sources on the Romani people article. The Boyash article looks so ugly with all those citation needed tags. Add a source from Google Books.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:3400:1003:d542:e27c:181e:de5c (talk)

    Not an ANI issue aside, I will note that a large number of citations were replaced with citation-needed tags with this edit. There is no summary but based on the note left in the article, I'm assuming this was because the citations were poorly formatted, which is a terrible reason to remove them. If there is another reason, it's not obvious. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personnal attacks

    Denniss try to accuse me to be a sockpûppet. After Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Regice2020, he continue [64] [65] to accuse me to be a sockpuppet. It's not acceptable. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are you edit-warring with them on their talk page using different IPs?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Denniss modify my messages many times. He give me warning whithout reason. I ask him to stop accusation of sockpuppet, but he clears my message and continue. I ask him to don't modify my messages, but he clears my message and continue. I don't want to be registred and i can't do anything for my moving IP. I don't try to hide. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The SPI was created by me, and I am, as far as I know, not Denniss. You (and other IPs in the same range) seem to be demanding respect. However, respect doesn't imply we have to agree with everything you're saying and doing. I don't think removing excessive indentation from a message is not acceptable, as it certainly doesn't alter the meaning (see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_others'_comments, it mentions "fixing format errors"). The page Ryzen is definitely not under control of AMD right now (otherwise, you should be able to link to a few edits by AMD employees adding advertising-like content or something). It doesn't appear to be advertisement either to me. Edible Melon (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never says Denniss created the SPI. But he knows the result, and continue to accuse me. It's not the place for talking about Ryzen. 2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why Denniss modify indentation? I talk to Sakkura, i don't speak to Carewolf. I ask to Denniss to don't modify my message. He clears my message from his talk page[66] and modify my message again [67]. It's not acceptable. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, place your message where it should be. Edible Melon (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Numbering British Prime Ministers

    We don't number British Prime Ministers in the way that we do American Presidents. I am sure I can recall threads here about it, with users being blocked/banned in relation to this. Can anyone help remember which users or threads? It's started again, Willwal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) going through them all. DuncanHill (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspected undisclosed paid editing/COI

    This user has since the creation of their account created the following pages (in chronological order):

    These pages are all books written by Vijay Nahar and one page is about the author himself. In addition, the user has created Global Institute of Technology, which seems unrelated to the rest.

    The user's username not just explicitely mentions "nahar", but what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samrat Mihir Bhoj Evam Unka Yug seems to quite clearly show they have some COI. Power~enwiki said: "If the ISBN has not been entered into databases, it may be too soon for an article". Less than 24 hours later, Tapanvnahar shares a picture of the letter in which the ISBN was shared with the publishing company, saying that it will soon be added to the online database. Power~enwiki said that time was probably not the solution because the book was published 4 years ago. Then, the user said: "The letter issued for publisher is already attached. Still we are trying to process for updation in online database" (emphasis mine). The "we" seems to mean "we" as in, "we, the author and publisher". I then asked: "Are you the author of the book or in any other way afflifiated with the book/publishing company?". They replied: I am not author and not affiliated with the book/publishing company in any way." I then asked: "Then how do you have the letter in which the ISBN is assigned?". They then said: "I mailed and asked for ISBN evidence regarding this purpose."

    This would be possible, but I am not convinced. The user's use of words, combined with their very narrow interest and the fact they had this letter, seem to impy to me that this is undislosed paid editing/COI. --MrClog (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with what MrClog said. However, it would help to have a Hindi reader to check the (scanned) Hindi-language references before taking action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to indef the user since this is blatant COI and promotional editing, which the was told about back in December 2018. That, along with the responses at the AFD, show that the continued COI editing is not an honest mistake. See also this deleted draft, which shows that the problem stretches back to 2012. In fact, I have yet to find a single mainspace/draftspace edit by the user that doesn't involve a COI.
    Side note: I haven't looked into this at depth but the IPs commenting at the [[current AFD appear to be the user's sock/meatpuppets. Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    US Air Force Security Forces are not infantry.

    We have a problem with an editor, and possibly others, adhering to a mischaracterization of United States Air Force Security Forces as Infantry.  Not only is the notion false, but multiple attempts have been made to demonstrate this to the editor from multiple former infantry members.  There are only two places you can find bonafide infantry in the military, and that is 11 and 18 series MOS´s in the Army, and 03 series MOS´s in the Marine Corps.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_Air_Force_Security_Forces

    Furthermore, this misinformation has been propagated on several other articles, even thought the claim is patently false, and not in line with the doctrines of the United States department of defense, or their respective services.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_force_infantry_and_special_forces

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry

    The evidence provided for these assertions is based on quotes in the media saying things to the likes of ¨We are the infantry of the Air Force″. These claims are pretentious, and not in line with military doctrine. Those units have a distinct roll, that is very different from the infantry. Not only is the training different, but standard operating procedures, mission, and doctrine are significantly different than a bonafide infantry unit.

    Please read the talk section of the fist link that I provided and view the conversation on Secrity forces not being infantry. Since the assertion that non infantry units are infantry is considered by many combat veterans to be a form of stolen valor, this is a highly contentious mischaracterization.

    Dirty11Bravo (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Was not notified on my talk page as is required. Dispute resolution is a more appropriate place for this. Moreover a sockpuppet investigation is currently open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrkoww that includes this user. Garuda28 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=907986759"