Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Siihb (talk | contribs) at 04:43, 27 October 2019 (→User:Siihb at Talk:Steve Huffman). 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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

    Benjaminkirsc reverting my edits to My Sims Agents, adding a copyvio back to the page in the process

    Hello! This happened last month but I only noticed this now. Benjaminkirsc undid my complete rewrite of My Sims Agents, citing that the information I added was "unnecessary" and had "possible incorrect grammar". However, when they did this they failed to realize that the whole reason that I rewrote the page is because the version they reverted the page to is a fairly obvious copyvio, which was mostly unsourced, and was literally written like a sales pitch, because it was one. Normally, this would just be something that I would warn a user about, but I realized that they had been reported to ANI once before. I'm honestly not sure how they could miss that they were reverting the page to a version that was literally an advertisement. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been keeping an eye on Benjaminkirsc's edit since the last AN/I visit (I was hoping to see improvement), and while they've managed to stop swearing so much in edit summaries, they're still having issues with edit warring and civilly disagreeing with other editors (including a handful of undos with the edit summary "wrong," like Special:Diff/920805947 and Special:Diff/920805947. Their reactions to others on their talk page have some communications issues as well, with very brusque replies and no further engagement. creffett (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ​FYI: the first dif you posted is of an edit by Zacharyalejandro, not Benjaminkirsc. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    TheAwesomeHwyh, oops, I always have trouble getting the right diff ID, it's probably the next diff. Thanks for pointing it out, fixed. creffett (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel that the copyvio is wrong Benjaminkirsc (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ​So... then why did you revert back to it? TheAwesomeHwyh 01:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it was a problem Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ​??? What? You reverted to a copyvio... because the copyvio was a problem? TheAwesomeHwyh 22:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposing indef block: I just took a quick look into their edit history and found these summaries showing some serious WP:CIVILITY issues. An where an IP user literally only added the number "90" to the article, which could've easily been a mistake, was reverted with the summary "WHAT WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Another, where another IP user added the wrong release date, was reverted with the summary of "YOU ARE WRONG!" Both of those edits were done after this AN/I report was filed yesterday / earlier today (depending on timezone). TheAwesomeHwyh 22:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not related thouogh. Do that somewhere else. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ​I don't think you understand. This page is for all of your behaviors, not just the one mentioned in the section title. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can undertand what your saying but, this is talking about My Sims Agents. If you want talk about that, please let me know in my talk page. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ​No, as I've already said this page is for everything related to your edits. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Benjaminkirsc, you're missing the point. Having your attitude and competence repeatedly discussed on the noticeboards is NOT normal. How many editors are following your edits to make sure you're not going off the rails yet again? If you continue as you are, then sooner or later the community will decide that the value of your contributions is not worth the cost of watching out for, and correcting, your mishaps. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Cabayi et al. Benjaminkirsc, you were warned about your behaviour especially the way you were dealing with vandals and others in edit summaries. You seem to have cut out on your "fuck" and stuff but some of your edit summaries still leave a lot to be desired. The fact that some of the examples highlighted don't seem to be clear cut vandalism is even more reason to be concerned. In this case [1], your edit summary was okay. However as I pointed out your edit seems to be wrong. Two of the most recent sources support Imagine Publishing as the publisher, so does the image of the cover in the article. If you are going around yelling at people for being wrong, there's a good chance you are eventually, if you haven't already, going to yell at someone when you were the one who is wrong. Think about that for a minute. Note when I reverted you, I did not see the need to say "WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU, THE 2014 SOURCE CLEARLY SAYS IMAGINE PUBLISHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". It does not help you or anyone else. Not really the place for this but since I brought it up here, it seems Future plc acquired Imagine in October 2016. So the current digital only edition is I assume published by Future plc although it may also be published by Imagine depending on whether they maintained that as a subbrand which I don't know. This was after the print edition ended in April 2016, which suggests the print one was published by Imagine to the end, which is supported by the source suggesting to buy it from the Imagine store. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Good thing I didn't yell or curse there. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you're still missing the point. You also still haven't explained why you reverted to a copyvio, so.... Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Resorting to the maximum right from the get-go might be a bit much...Buffs (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    TheAwesomeHwyh, your report begs the question, why didn't you tag the copyvio with {{copyvio-revdel}} to clear it out of the article's history? Why haven't you still? Cabayi (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cabayi I don't know, actually, sorry. I've done it now. TheAwesomeHwyh 01:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks TheAwesomeHwyh. Cabayi (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indefinite block or community ban. The editor does not appear to understand they should not revert to copyvios and has shown little ability to understand the feedback they've been offered. Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Very weak support for CIR block - it's pretty clear that this editor just isn't getting it, if you look at their talk page, responses here, and responses in the previous ANI thread. I'm reluctant to block here, but I'm not sure what other options are on the table when they just don't seem to understand why their actions are inappropriate, and I suspect that if nothing is done we'll be back here in another month or two. I'm kind of perplexed by this editor's actions, to be honest - usually in these kinds of cases it's not listening, but my read here is more "not understanding" than "deliberately ignoring." creffett (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a block of a few months to give the editor some time to mature? WMSR (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indef block. It seems like his MO is to do something bad and then refuse to understand the negative feedback. If you look at his talk page it is filled with final warnings for the same conduct going back several months, and his responses have been mostly glib one word answers or one-liners. There's no sign that he is really getting better. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indefinite block. I've sorta been keeping an eye on him for a while and have greatly noticed his refusal to work with others and deciding to ignore site policy. Him yelling at other users through edit summaries (and the occasional cussing) don't help his case either. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 16:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I didn't realize that he hasn't been blocked before. I can see your point about him not getting a block before, and frankly I'm surprised since I've seen people get in trouble for less severe misconduct and IDHT issues in the past. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I suspect we're dealing with a lack of competence due to youth. A block for a couple years wouldn't be necessarily a bad thing. WP has plenty of editors who were a pain in the ass but after maturing for a few years they became very productive editors. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support reasonable block. I agree with Buffs, a permanent ban is a bit over the top. I've had limited dealings with Benjaminkirsc, so take my opinion for what it's worth. When he removed some info about a mobile port from a video game article (Special:Diff/918276204), I reverted and said he needed to use the talk page to explain his deletion (Special:Diff/918278677). Which he did. I explained his reasoning from flawed, and that was pretty much the end of it. So he is certainly capable of listening to others and taking advice. And I have no reason to believe he's malicious in any way. However, I'm inclined to agree with Blackmane, I do get the impression that he's very young, so a block of a few months/years might not be a bad idea. Bertaut (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy: this is the talk page discussion Bertaut is talking about. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't see how a block of a few years (!) is that much kinder or gentler than a 'nuclear' indef block. If anything, it might be better to offer the guy mentorship or something instead of a block. If he's really just immature but could be contrusctive and in good faith this might be a better option. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is, we did offer mentorship (and a run through the CVU course) during the last AN/I discussion, Benjaminkirsc didn't engage with the offer (as you can see from the above discussions, part of the problem is that they basically don't engage in discussions at all). creffett (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair. The distinction between an indefinite block and a block for several years does sort of escape me though, but I'll defer to your judgment on that of course. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A block for several years expires automatically when the several years is up. An indefinite block doesn't expire ever, but must be removed based on some other condition (discussion with the blocking admin or a successful community appeal, usually), which can be a time of a few minutes or many years depending on the circumstances. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I would add that while time limited blocks automatically expire so may seem to be a lesser block and generally speaking, any block can be appealed; with a time limited block it isn't that uncommon especially with a long block like a month or more, that the is the block is expected to last the length of the block unless a mistake was made. (Sometimes, especially with edit warring and stuff, it's expected that the time limited block will be successfully appealed if sufficient reassurance of not repeating the behaviour.) When I supported a indef block, I explicitly intended this as a "indefinite" block and not a permanent one. I also didn't want a WP:cban, but a normal indefinite block which can be appealed to any admin. I was hoping some admin would share my views and impose one without much more discussion. (Technically, this discussion could be taken as "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community".) Although I do have concerns over their edit summaries, my main concern is they really have given no indication they understand or care about copyvios. If they give sufficient reassurances their block could last minutes. I mean it doesn't even have to be a block if they would properly engage with the discussion. What they've said so far doesn't reassure me they are capable of this at the time whether due to WP:competence issues or something else, but it could also be they're just ignoring the concerns since they feel they can. Nil Einne (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Karldmartini

    Based upon the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Karldmartini, I believe that Karldmartini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be topic banned from adding product images that he has created to any Wikipedia article, but at the same time allowed to suggest on article talk pages that the images be added. I can repeat what was said at COIN here if required, but I think it is easier to simply read it there. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thomas.W - Honestly, those gifs are kind of cool. I don't know if they necessarily belong on Wikipedia though but I thought they were pretty neat. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Being "cool" and "neat" doesn't automatically make things suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No arguments here. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Karldmartini just responded at COIN, so we may want to see how that discussion turns out before doing anything here. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon (talk · contribs) - I don't know if you had a chance to see this on the WP:COIN page, but it looks like he thinks that you withdrew the initial offer that you made about the restriction on adding images directly to articles, but if you're OK with reinstating that offer and he is going to abide by it then this thread might end up being resolved in the near future. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been 12 hours since I asked for a clarification.[2] I figure we should give him at least 48 before assuming that he isn't going to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like Karldmartini has contracted ANI Flu, so it is time to consider whether to impose a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy Macon - As I read it he agreed to the stipulation that you presented some time ago, and admits that he inadvertently violated it. Guy does have a point though...I did agree to firstly suggest they be added to "proposed changes' and yes, I did break this rule...quite flagrantly it seems! You may not believe me but I completely forgot about it. It was in May. It is now October.. Reading between the lines I think he does intend to follow that rule and simply slipped up in one instance, but will not do so again going forward. I don't think that he should be topic banned from suggesting images in article talk for other editors to consider and implement -- only topic banned from adding the images to articles himself. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "...topic banned from adding product images that he has created to any Wikipedia article, but at the same time allowed to suggest on article talk pages that the images be added." is the exact opposite of "...topic banned from suggesting images in article talk"
    I don't buy the "reading between the lines". User:Ronz warned him in February of 2016. User:Kendall-K1 warned him in March of 2018. User:JSFarman warned him in March of 2018, I warned him in May of 2019. User:Johnuniq warned him in October of 2019. The edit summaries of his last two rotating image additions[3][4] made it crystal clear that he was well aware of the fact that multiple editors had disagreed with his previous rotating image additions and that he decided to do it anyway because they are wrong and he is right. And now, when I asked him for an explicit commitment to stop the objectionable behavior,[5][6] he went silent. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    An unresponsive user?

    Rahmadiabsyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) An ip had tried to reach out to this user about adding some tv show's episode listing, on Black Clover (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). And I gave advice to say WP:CRYSTALBALL. But the ip went to talk to me about this user. That their mainly unresponsive on their talk page. On a concern that if adding a tv show's episode too early, it doesn't match the refs/ or sources it presents. Per WP:VERIFY. (Example; from last week, here and the ip's response and from today, this and the ip's second response.)

    Before, I had a concern about this user because of WP:SPLIT concerns and that the user may have been reading from wikia/ fandom without adding sources about a new tv season. Or that wikia/ fandom falls under the rule/ guideline WP:USERG. Then starting from here (note; In the edit summary I might have been irritated. Because leading up to the split, I kept having page notices from this user.) In which I supplied the WP:SPLIT or WP:COPYWITHIN. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Another issue that the ip had a concern of, on my talk page: Is that, is there a language barrier for Rahmadiabsyah for not replying. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a comment, when I started the concern a week ago. Detailing that, what if you add something too soon. But no one knows if the content is verifiable until the show has aired. Then until it does, I am thinking that Rahmadiabsyah to stop adding it. But since then there has been no answer from the user. Until today. 99.203.50.212 (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tainted-wingsz - Does the response from Rahmadiabsyah here resolve your problem? 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't really ask a user to stop. But they're sort of still unresponsive. And maybe answering vague messages, then who knows. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To 38.142.216.106, it felt like a weak response. I was thinking that the ip 99.203.50.212 earlier wanted to know where can the episode's be found at. Other than here;[1] But in the last two weeks Rahmadiabsyah was silent on replying to the ip. Because every Monday the ref or the tv's schedule updates and it sometimes may tell the episode's name in advance. But in the past it only shows what date is it airing at. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For the message, I still kept looking. If you go to here;[2] and press the; ブラッククローバー it will show you the episode listing and on Monday at 15:00 (UTC) or a little later. That's when the tv schedule has been updated. (That would show the new episode's name in an one week advance. And the episode that's airing later at night.) Then a few hours before it gets updated, Rahmadiabsyah was adding the name to the episode in. So right after I removed it. From that until the tv schedule was updated, is this WP:OR? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a little hard to prove. If it's not Monday anymore? The main point is. What if your adding something and it could wrong. As some tv show didn't go in chronological order. That's one reason to wait. Which I think you wish for Rahmadiabsyah to follow. But, if there not very responsive and doesn't edit much. So since there's no action taken for the moment. Then let this be. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Short opinion

    Question, I have a lingering thought. Since Rahmadiabsyah does edit and adds the next episode title. Then the IP may repeat this, removes it, and tries to ask Rahmadiabsyah again. And they don't reply swiftly. So what do we do with the user then? Unblue box (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If I wasn't clearer earlier ago, I was digging more into this. If it's around Monday at 15:00 (UTC) and until the show; Black Clover has finished airing on Tuesday at 9:55 (UTC). There is a short timeline where you can find the next episode's name. But during that time what happens if it doesn't say anything about it. Then in the last two weeks the IP removed Rahmadiabsyah's edits because the ref,[1] doesn't tell what is the next episode's name and the IP remove it. Then asked Rahmadiabsyah, about this inquiry. Before the show's tv schedule has been updated on Monday at 15:00 (UTC) or later on. Then it raises a question of mine, if Rahmadiabsyah doesn't edit often and doesn't reply to messages when the IP had a concern about this two weeks ago. Is the user being unresponsive and what do you do with that? Nor if this editing pattern would continue. Then next the IP went to Tainted-wingsz about this concern. Since he is one of the main editors on Black Clover. Unblue box (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblue box, Users are expected to engage in communication per WP:CIR. If a user refuses to engage, report them here, and provide as evidence all attempts to engage with them. Often those users will get a short block to get them to engage, and if they don't talk, the blocks get longer and longer.
    As a side note, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here in general, perhaps something got lost in translation. Are you saying that Rahmadiabsyah isn't engaging? What are their problem edits? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to get at, well summarize the above messages. That there is a way to find the tv show's episode, but there's a chance that it can be wrong. Then since Rahmadiabsyah isn't responding, that apposed a problem. As the IP tried to talk on here, in the relating edit and this second edit relating to this. Leading up to the ani notice. Then after those edits there was a vague answer from Rahmadiabsyah. So the IP and Tainted-wingsz tried to explain this to Rahmadiabsyah. Then after still no answers from them. Unblue box (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, I fear that when it's Monday. This might happen again. If Rahmadiabsyah added the new episode's title again and 99.203.50.212 removes it. Then this problem drags on into a third week. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. If there's nothing else going on, but it leaves WP:CIR concerns that's left now. Why did it take two weeks for Rahmadiabsyah to reply? I still wonder if we should just "wait and see" next? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel if I'm premature here? Rahmadiabsyah just added some stuff to here and I still wanted a reply. Is the person ignoring what's going on for almost three weeks now? 99.203.50.212 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from here Tainted-wingsz (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In a lengthy message from 99.203.50.212 they suggest that, if Rahmadiabsyah still doesn't reply because of WP:CIR. It's clear that they edit, but doesn't reply back. Can we try two days giving Rahmadiabsyah a break. Then thereafter is up to anyone's guess. Unblue box (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b "エピソード ブラッククローバー|テレビ東京アニメ公式". TV Tokyo (in Japanese). Retrieved October 22, 2019.
    2. ^ "TV Tokyo timetable". TV Tokyo (in Japanese). Retrieved October 22, 2019.

    Yet another editor using an IP sock

    Recent contributions show a striking similarity of interests. Editing as an IP is not proscribed per se, but the user alternates between IP and the account in an edit war. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no doubt whatever that this is one person, who has also used the IP address 98.27.17.189 in the past, but apart from the one incident linked by Incnis Mrsi I have not seen any edits which could be regarded as abusive use of editing with and without logging in. (However, there are many hundreds of edits, and I can't guarantee there aren't more problem edits that I haven't seen). 98.27.17.104 is currently subject to a CheckUser block. I shall post a message to Chad The Goatman advising him not to alternate IP editing with logged in editing, especially when editing one article. For now, I think there is nothing else to be done, but of course I will be willing to reconsider that if future editing shows further problems. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 11:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with JBW's comment and observation here. The different IP addresses used look to be in-line with a typical IP change that Charter customers will see happen once in awhile (dynamic IP allocation). Unless more evidence presents itself, I wouldn't call this intentional. A message to the user is a good start here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    rev war with users NorthBySouthBaranof‎ & Pepperbeast

    Hi.

    I seem to be in a rev war with users NorthBySouthBaranof & Pepperbeast over the article Paternity_fraud. Also NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page. Care to take look? Thanks. If I here should inform NorthBySouthBaranof please say. --J. Sketter (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • J. Sketter, say. In the meantime, stop edit warring. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, RS is not an "empty claim". It's how we work. I am beginning to think that there are some issues here--pertaining to OR, RS, BLP, and gender matters. Weird claims like "A woman can't cheat by mistake" bother me--and have you never heard of how King Arthur was conceived? I'm about to run to class and I wouldn't be surprised to find you topic banned by the time I get back. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Gentle reminder that you are required to notify all users that you are reporting to WP:ANI, as I have just done for NorthBySouthBaranof and Pepperbeast. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that J. Sketter is here to push an agenda, and that agenda includes misgendering subjects of articles, such as Zoe Quinn. "It is, we can mention she either wants or really thinks she has many persons in a single woman's body. But I guess there's no RS for her schizophrenia." and "Quinn's quest for plural noun is attention seeking or self-marketing" are particularly fun gems. They also refer to DS notices as "spam". --Jorm (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP's history at False accusations of rape is also particularly interesting for context given the similarities to the current dispute. --Jayron32 16:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added userlinks and pagelinks at the top of this report. Thanks to the IP editor for notifying NBSB and Pepperbeast. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness gracious. Seems to me that the OP is someone who is WP:NOTHERE.--WaltCip (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wait some of the admins to come to the real issue here. This heavy targeting by some block of users is interesting and I'm naturally flattered! As I see I'm against, let me count... 5 named users and 1 IP. I do count the 2 admins as nonpartial ones. Anyways, I return to this tomorrow I believe. So I can deal with every item in order. --J. Sketter (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'm late to the party, but just wanted to concur with Jorm's comments. J. Sketter seems to fancy himself some kind of gender defender and has an obvious axe to grind. PepperBeast (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    J. Sketter - To clarify, I'm not against you. My only involvement was to notify the users you referenced of this thread, which is a mandatory requirement for anyone who posts here. Please don't lump me into any kind of conspiracy theory or accuse me of bias just because I followed a simple neutral rule that is posted at the top of the page. Thanks. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a topic ban from gender matters is the least we should do here.

      Oh, J. Sketter, you said you were waiting on us to get to the "real issue". Well, that's easy. You were edit warring. You removed a bunch of content that was strongly sourced, you were reverted, you reverted, you were reverted, you reverted again, you were reverted by another editor. You didn't post on the talk page until two hours later, and that post started with an insult: "As so often some editors like to debate for the joy of debating." So, what I see here is a couple of infractions, all of which are blockworthy already--edit warring, disruptive editing (against consensus of at least two editors), vandalism (removal of sourced content), lack of good faith (claiming they're just reverting for the sake of reverting. So I'll be happy to give you a warning for that: do not do any of those things again or you will be blocked. OK?

      But the real real issue is your apparent agenda-driven edits which fly in the face of various guidelines we have, and that is what you invited scrutiny of when you posted here, where I assume you were hoping to get those other two editors punished. We refer to this as the boomerang effect. And I reiterate that a topic ban on gender, very broadly defined, is a good thing for the project. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not in a place where I can dig too deeply, but it looks to me like this editor is having problems in the area covered by the GamerGate set of discretionary sanctions, so pretty sure unilateral administrative topic bans (among other things) are fair game here. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no article more deeply affected by the GamerGate sanctions than Zoe Quinn, with perhaps the exception of Gamergate controversy, so yes. They are absolutely covered by that.--Jorm (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a good point. I don't know if this user's conduct is necessarily driven by GG (though it's plausible) but the article itself definitely falls within the scope.GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if not, "gender matters" is within the broadly-construed scope of the GG sanction. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I looked at their Quinn edits again and revdeleted them as BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am unsure why, given the content of the diffs Drmies has revdelled, the user has not already been indefinitely blocked. Fish+Karate 08:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, he's never been blocked or warned before so an indef block for a first offense might be considered a harsh reaction. I can definitely see both sides of the argument though so maybe Drmies is just waiting for the discussion to play out before taking additional action. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, you're pretty much spot on: since I have been responding here and making an edit (and suggestion) or two, I think it is a good idea for me to await what others have to say. The user hasn't been warned, and I am unwilling to just drop the most serious sanction on this person, though I am not convinced that they are a net positive. User:Fish and karate, if you feel an indef block is warranted, go for it: that I haven't done it doesn't mean I'm against it. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, I came here to clear a dispute in a article content and got this instead.
    @Drmies I see you're threathning me with blocking partially based on rather made-up arguments:
    You said // my response
    - stop edit warring. // You may see I already did that by posting here
    - RS is not an "empty claim". It's how we work. // If I dispute the connection between an article text and the source content it's not rejecting RS's, naturally. And there backing with a RS status is sidestepping the real issue.
    - You didn't post on the talk page until two hours later // It's 13 minutes, and still I'm the only editor willing to discuss on the talk page
    - lack of good faith (claiming they're just reverting for the sake of reverting) // if my opponents only argument is repeating "it's a RS", it naturally can lessen the good faith
    Also I can't edit against a consensus when there had been only one user against my pow.
    Further you make an baseless accusation my motive posting here was I "were hoping to get those other two editors punished"?? I'ts odd if an admin keeps a view that users' only motive to ask for admin help it to get his adversaries punished.--J. Sketter (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jorm After the 2nd thought your notification was well-intentioned. I'll collapse them, thou.
    Thanks for the IP for saving my trouble to notify NorthBySouthBaranof‎ & Pepperbeast. --J. Sketter (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    At first you liked me indefinitely banned, so this proposal shows at least some wisdom on your part, Karatefish. You base your new proposal on the procedure (yesterday they were just guidelines, now we have some more dangerous juridical stuff to deal with - a ref not for cultural illiterates), but you should tell how I'm eligible for that by any of the six cases listed in [[7]].
    Further. For the the Gamergate & multipersonal Quinn I don't care if you block me out of those topics {misgendering language redacted}}.
    Further, Karatefish, you'd like to block me out of any articles in the constantly updated list Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Current_areas_of_conflict (I had to make this clear to myself and am sure a little bit of clarification helps other readers). I still have failed to read what are the edits you specifically considered to make your criteria? Personal dislike is not a valid reason. --J. Sketter (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you're new here, you really need to take a step back and try to learn from what you're being told if you don't want to be blocked or banned. For starters, "just guidelines" suggests you don't understand how things work here. You can be blocked for persistently violating our guidelines in a way that is harmful, not least because doing so normally means you're violating some policy (e.g. WP:Edit warring). Please don't take "guidelines" to mean you're free to just ignore what they say.

    And you were alerted of the discretionary sanctions regimes for both BLPs and gender or GamerGate related areas about 5 days ago [8]. Any of your actions since then which are considered by admins to come under the purview of the regimes can result in suitable sanctioned. While you cannot be sanctioned under the regimes for stuff occurring before the alerts were given, your actions before being alerted may still be relevant. If you persistent in causing the same problems now, we have more reason to think you're not going to stop.

    Also, while you did open a talk page discussion at Talk:Paternity fraud I don't think you should get that high and mighty about it since you opened this ANI only about a day later. And you apparently removed sourced content when you had only read the abstract of the cited article.

    In addition, opening a talk page discussion is not helpful when you're discussing something which has been discussed with extensively and you are not adding anything new to the discussion plus you're not even in the right place to change policy, such as with your comments at Zoe Quinn.

    Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    J. Sketter, if you continue to use transphobic language and deliberately misgender someone, I will personally do whatever I can to ensure you receive the maximum sanctions that can be applied to you. I honestly think you should be blocked for that up there right now as you are obviously aware of the Gamergate sanctions and have just violated them. I am redacting your misgendering. --Jorm (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the fact that J. Sketter tried to remove discussion from this page and based on the user's diatribe above, something more than a topic ban may be in order. WMSR (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic ban per Fish & Karate. I'd action this myself but I'm on my mobile phone. I don't think there's any doubt that this is the correct course of action, especially given the editor's comments and removal of others comments here. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • TBAN per Fish & Karate with short rope towards further sanctions too, as J. Sketter's comments here have me unconvinced of their ability to edit constructively. Perhaps moving topics to one they feel less strongly about will help, if they are able to do that. Pinguinn 🐧 10:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikideas1 (talk · contribs)

    This guy is screenshotting websites and uploading the media using "Own work", when it is clearly a screen grab. He also adds his "politically biased" graphics to articles to further his agenda. Maybe have a look at this guy.

    At the article Forklift he added some ridiculous design which doesn't even fit in the section or the article.

    212.98.173.17 (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The reporter neglected to notify Wikideas1 about alleged licensing problems and did not notify Wikideas1 properly about this very thread. See talk:Forklift #"Container_mounted_forklift" for the content dispute in Forklift. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reopened this as it seems to be an issue. I've posted Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs) closing remarks above, and removed the "close tags". As stated clearly in the posting directions for this page the editor must be notified. I'll do so now. — Ched (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll also supply a couple of the diffs that seem to be in question:
    1. Forklift post - forklift pic
    2. Abortion in US by state - uploaded picture
    3. Incarceration in US - pic

    These seem to indicate a pattern in last few months and IMO deserve discussion with regards to how appropriate the uploads and postings are. If Incnis Mrsi feels the IP is posting inappropriately, they should also provide diffs as AN and ANI posts look at behavior of all parties involved. — Ched (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is definitely my own work I create graphs using numbers for Mac. And to create the map I used pixelmator. Wikideas1 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikideas1 - What about this image? Or this one? Looking at your user talk page on Commons, I see copyright violation warnings and numerous notices for deletions that go quite a ways back, and where the nominator cited similar problems (licensing and the claim of "own work"). What happens on commons isn't something that can be used to justify administrative action here, but local uploads that violate policy, as well as edits to articles that add images that are later shown to have licensing issues or are copyright violations can be. I suggest that we review this user's image uploads (both local uploads and commons uploads) and make sure that there are no other licensing issues or copyright violations that can be found. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing on Second_Battle_of_Ras_al-Ayn_(2019) by KasimMejia

    KasimMejia appears to be engaging in disruptive non good faith editing on the page Second_Battle_of_Ras_al-Ayn_(2019). (1) He put the page up for deletion (2) He put a Wikipedia noticeboard incident up about the page and myself, without discussing the issues with myself (3) He then removed the link to the page from the main page about the operation 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria (4) he then put citation tags all through the page, some justified, but many spurious (5)At one point, he had 4 Banner problems on the page. Considering he is pushing for the page to be deleted because he says it is unsubstantial..at the same time, he is removing material from the page that should be there, and without seeking any sort of consensus on the talk page. At one point, he had put 16 citation tags in the article, and 4 issue templates at the top. I am not sure his editing has the genuine interest of wikipedia users at heart. I have asked for him to return the material to the page until consensus is reached, and he has refused. I don't have time to deal with this, and I can see he has had issues with edit warring in the past, and want to avoid this. I would ask that an admin has him blocked from the page, thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You two need to learn to work together instead of both of you continuing to bring your content disputes to ANI. El_C 10:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have assumed the above activity, plus this is not standard/good faith wikipedia article creation, especially considering KasimMejia has only been editing for less than a month.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article talk page is the place to raise these issues. Do so while assuming good faith, even and especially when disagreement is acute. Other editors' interpretation of the material may vary highly, but strive to reach consensus to sort out the article's direction. The AfD is part of that process. There are also dispute resolution requests that are available to you. Please take advantage of them rather than look for an admin to decide in your favour by fiat — that seems unlikely to happen at this time. El_C 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff that he has linked was taken out by me after 1 minute. [9], [10]. KasimMejia (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I nominated the page the user created for deletion due to lack of material. I also added verification and original research templates due to both problems at the page. I also opened a notification about the user here 2-3 days ago due to him adding uncited material. Later I improved the page he created by taking out unverified additions as well as the template and inline templates - he is now accusing me of disruptive editing for that. One final note, before opening this notice, user accused me of being in bad faith two times on my talk page, "having and agenda" and told me to cease working on the page he created or he will have an admin banned me from it. [11]. KasimMejia (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, thanks El_C Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just one more example of why WP:NOT#NEWS should be enforced, and we should wait until proper secondary sources, which don't include breaking news reports, appear. Both of the editors involved, from my cursory examination of their comments, appear to be reasonable people, but in this rush to lay down the first draft of history here they are bickering. Let's let historians decide what is history, and then have an article based on what they eventually write, rather than treat news reports as if they were secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Slatersteven raised a similar point earlier this week about a related topic and I agree with him and Phil Bridger. There's no need to provide up-to-the-minute war reporting coverage on Wikipedia, in particular of a war that is literally happening right now. We are never going to be able to make an effective Wikipedia version of embedded war correspondents (w, and trying to do so usually leads to edit warring and policy violations by good faith editors. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very much linked to the now closed thread about DS sanctions over at The Turkish invasion main article. Yes I do think wp:notnws is being ridden roughshod over. Its a policy and it is being ignored, here and at other related articles. I do not know (nor frankly do I care) who is at fault here. What I do care about is that this is not encyclopedic (and is borderline tabloid) reporting.Slatersteven (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization)

    There is a problem with a neutral point of view on the page of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Particular attention was drawn to an active user in the Russian Wikipedia Wanderer777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who at one time replicated his version of the article at once in several language sections of Wikipedia. Moreover, he submitted the information in such a way that it does not correspond to a neutral point of view. When I tried to improve the article, my edits were simply deleted, despite the presence of the "in use" template.

    For some reason, the author’s sources were deleted: https://daily.rbc.ua/rus/show/spasti-planetu-ukraintsy-ochishchayut-vodu-1449570920.html https://un-sci.com/ru/2019/05/29/ukrainskoj-akademii-nauk-ispolnilos-28-let/

    I found the additional sources, but I'm afraid that they will be deleted the same way, and my work will be in vain. I left a message to Wanderer777 on his talk page but did not receive a response. Wanderer777 contributes a copyright infringing link. To do this, he turned to a user Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who added the link to the White List. Now Ymblanter has deleted not only the sources, but also the categories and infobox.

    This behavior of the participants leads to the fact that they violate the fundamental users of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Since one of the users is an administrator, I write messages here-DrPoglum (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Judging by the page history and the edits made by the OP the OP is doing at least as much POV-pushing as they claim the editor they're complaining about is doing. The "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" appears to be a private organisation with dubious scientific achievements, and the material added by the OP (with lots of material not supported by the provided source; the main source is an article in a Ukrainian newspaper that just reports on claims about the effectiveness of a certain industrial process made by the organisation, but has no info on the organisation as such, in spite of being used as a source for that by the OP) was removed by an en-WP administrator for being whitewashing and removing good sources. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed, this is a fringe organization, and whereas I am not a fan of Ukrainian media (most of them are unprofessional and look more like blog aggregators), replacing links to them by links to organization itself is not really according to our policies. I know Wanderer777 for many years, still from my times on the Russian Wikipedia, he is in good standing there and has been elected to ArbCom on one or two occasions. If anybody needs a translation of his message and my response, I can provide the translation. Nobody ever pointer out to me an issue with copyright infringement, if there is a link in the article to the copyright infringement site, I will be happy to remove it. The rest I believe belongs to the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Btw I can not recollect myself adding any links to the whitelist. I mean, I can not exclude this either, I believe I did this on a couple of occasions in my life, but I certainly do not have any recollection of this fact, or see any connection with this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And the link that was whitelisted there (translated into English here) proves that the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" is nothing but a scam, selling diplomas to whoever is willing to pay for them... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, it is clear. Still, I do not see anything related to copyright infringement.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find any copyright violation either, but I did find an interesting edit by "DrPoglum" where they removed the incriminating link I commented on above, the one showing the organisation to be just a scam, with an obviously false claim about removing a spamlink. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you had checked what the discussion that was linked to says you would have seen that blocking it was a false positive (getting caught because of having "online" in the URL), and that it was whitelisted to get around that problem. So it had absolutely nothing to do with being a copyright violation, it also definitely wasn't a spamlink as you claimed in your edit summary when you removed it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll have to forgive me but, I do not understand your arguments. Narodna Vlada (ukr. "Народна влада") - the official media in Ukraine, registered judging by the registry under the number КВ 9567 (link to the gov.registry https://dzmi.minjust.gov.ua). They filed a complaint under the DMCA procedure for distributing their article without permission and their complaint was upheld. In this regard, materials infringing copyrights were hidden from the search results. Such links become impossible to add as sources to the Wikipedia.--DrPoglum (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you talking about? The link you removed is to "expres.online", not "narodna-vlada.org". DrPoglum's now changed editing style and inferior language skills makes me believe that the person who is using the account now isn't the same as the person who wrote the articles and filed this report... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 06:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the logic behind this? What can it give? English is not my native language, so in complex sentences I can make inaccuracies, especially when I switch to working with several non-native languages. "expres.online" infringes copyright "narodna-vlada".-DrPoglum (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to this Ukrainian news site (provided as a Google Translate translation so that you can check for yourself), the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" has nothing to do with real science and scientists, instead being created by non-scientists primarily to award fake academic diplomas to themselves and others... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The site above is an aggregator and cannot be an authoritative source. There are only 17 views per article, 3 of which are from me. And an unknown author. And according to this source (national media) this organization brings together scientists and manufacturers and a specific example is given. However, this source has been removed by Ymblanter.--DrPoglum (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This source that describing the scientific activities of the organization, its history, structure was also removed without explanation.--DrPoglum (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    COI/paid editing by the OP

    I had some time to spare so I decided to check the OP's edits, and found that he's active here, with this account at least, only during a short period each year, using his period of activity here last year to create an article, Municipal Guard (Odessa), that can best be described as a hatchet job on what seems to be a private army loyal to the mayor of Odessa, and then during his period here this year going all in on Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization), and completely white-washing it, so since he spent his time here in 2017 creating a bunch of articles about books by South-African writer Jonny Steinberg (books that at first glance don't seem to be notable on their own, including a couple of articles that have since been deleted and one that survived thanks to the tag being removed by a throw-away account that has since been blocked as a sock), editing that seemed to indicate a possible COI, I decided to check if I could find a direct connection between doing a hatchet job on the Odessa Municipal Guard and glorifying the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. And I found it. According to that article (which is in Ukrainian, but the link leads to a translation of it) the direct connection between the two is Oleg Maltsev, claimed to be running a sect in Odessa, having an organisation that is a rival to the Municipal Guard, and being a prominent member of the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences". That link also shows that DrPoglum's article about the Municipal Guard, and their attacks on journalists only tells us part of what happened, failing to mention that the confrontation, between the Municipal Guard and Maltsev's group, started the previous day, and that the journalists that were said to have been attacked weren't "real journalists" but members of Maltsev's group. So the OP seems to be engaged in either paid editing or COI editing, but the impression I get is paid editing, supporting whoever pays best, and not doing it for "ideological reasons", since they seem to have switched sides, previously creating articles about books by Jonny Steinberg, and now supporting Maltsev's interests, because Steinberg and Oleg Maltsev seem to be bitter rivals, writing books about the same subjects (a "war" that has previously been fought also here, on en-WP, with the two sides nominating articles about each others' books for deletion, as can be seen a few lines up...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • You are trying to start discussing me, instead of the situation that is happening. By making my modest contribution, I try to be useful to the community.
    1. I did not remove the criticism from the article, this can be seen from the history.
    2. I am ready to check by Checkers.
    3. How does this justify deleting other sources categories and infobox?
    4. Do you really believe that the organization that has existed for more than 25 years, which includes scientists and professors, which has private universities, has left only negative information and not related to science?
    5. I do not represent anyone's interests, but only talk about neutrality in the article. I do not know about paid edits.
    6. One president of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences has more than 150 patents and many scientific papers. Do you really think this is a pseudo-scientific organization?
    7. Now most scientific organizations and institutes are private.
    I edit when I have free time, and never engage in vandalism. You can put my articles to be deleted if you think they are not notability. I am for observing the basic principles of Wikipedia. You can also expose the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization) page for deletion, since without the sources that was deleted, the notability is not visible. But what does this have to do with violating a neutral point of view. Ymblanter himself confirmed that he had known the user Wanderer777 for many years, so I am no longer surprised at such a reaction.-DrPoglum (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked the edits made by Wanderer777 (who I can't remember ever seeing here, i.e. on en-WP, before), and can't see that he did anything wrong, nor did Ymblanter do anything wrong. But you did, since what you added to the article didn't match what I found when looking for sources, which is why I decided to check your other edits... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to say that you did not see any violations in the actions of Ymblanter and Wanderer777. But how do you comment on the deletion of information confirmed by independent sources and the deletion of the sources themselves, categories, infobox. This is not a violation in your opinion?--DrPoglum (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Point 4 above ("organization that has existed for more than 25 years"), reminded me of the Ukrainian/English Europe Business Assembly, which has existed for more than 19 years, and has sold fake awards totalling millions of pounds to many academics and politicians, at least some of whom were likely otherwise reputable. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The only difference between the Europe Business Assembly and the "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" (which should not be confused with the fully legit National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) is that the former is aimed at the international market, while the latter is aimed at the domestic (Ukrainian) market, where being able to call oneself an Academician, and wearing a lapel pin showing the honour, still seems to be as big a thing as during Soviet times, so among the people who have bought, or in some cases apparently been given, fake diplomas, honours etc from the fake "Ukrainian Academy of Sciences" you'll find both politicians, businesspeople and (minor) scientists, many if not most of them people who don't have any legit university degree at all. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Google Sсholar you can see the scientific work of members of the organization. For example Scientific works of the president of the organization Olexiy Onipko, Scientific works of vice president of the organization Livinsky Oleksandr. My request specifically concerned a violation of the neutral point of view in the article. There are more authoritative sources that describe the scientific activities of the organization.-DrPoglum (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of people who are willing to sell their soul for money, if the price is right, so having a figurehead with real credentials is common among sham/scam organisations and companies, and doesn't prove that the organisation as such is legit. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Onipko? I know, I know ... Onipko rotor inventor. But independent research has shown the low efficiency of this rotor. Look АКТУАЛЬНЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ЭНЕРГЕТИКИ АПК // Материалы VI международной научно-практической конференции. — Саратов: 2015 or Бубенчиков А. А., Артамонова Е. Ю., Дайчман Р. А. Применение ветроколес и генераторов для ветроенергетических установок малой мощности // Международный научно-исследовательский журнал — Вып. 5-2 (36) — 2015. — С.37. --Wanderer777 (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those Google scholar results are singularly unimpressive, very far from the kind of citation counts that could pass WP:PROF#C1 and even farther from what most reputable academies would accept as evidence of scholarly accomplishment. To me, they support the claim that this organization is a sham. But the point of discussion here is not that, nor even whether it is a notable sham (that's for the current AfD to decide), but rather whether there is a pattern of problematic editing. If there is, I agree that it seems to be purely on the part of the editor promoting this organization, DrPoglum. DrPoglum has had past articles deleted as unambiguous promotion and some other articles like The Number (book) potentially deserve the same treatment. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Asim143 and titles

    The article has been move protected, and a recommendation given to educate the user in regards to relevant policy. This should be the next step, but don't hesitate to create another ANI report if issues continue despite educating and helping the user with policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 07:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Asim143 (talk · contribs) seems to have an infatuation with referring to Fazal-ur-Rehman with (and, in prose, solely by) his title of maulana. They've twice moved the article to include the title (violating WP:Naming conventions (people)#Titles and styles) and have blindly search-and-replaced all instances of "Fazal" in the article to "Maulana" ([12] and [13]). Notably, this came on my radar because they came onto #wikipedia-en-help demanding we protect the article on their preferred version; I and another helper refused to do so, and they don't seem to be getting the message. —v^_^v Make your position clear! 13:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It would also appear that an article they created about a cricketer, Syed Muhammad Asim, is an autobiography. [14][15] The only source cited for the cricketer is a dead link. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftified the article; that shouldn't have stuck around in mainspace in that form. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's disruptive – but, as far as I can tell, nobody has explained the rules to Asim143 on his talk page or on the article's talk page. I've move-protected the article for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were just the move I'd've taken it to RPP. But the blind replacement of his name with the title is also concerning. —v^_^v Make your position clear! 20:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Within minutes of this discussion being closed, Asim143 deleted NinjaRobotPirate's post on Asim's talk page about the use of honerifics with the comment "The person is real celebrity", moved Draft:Syed Muhammad Asim back to Syed Muhammad Asim with a similar edit summary (the article is now at WP:AFD, after unsubstantiated claims about playimng first-class cricket have been removed), and edited the Fazal-ur-Rehman article again, with the edit description "Added Some More Facts About Articles Refrences" while giving no reference whatsoever. 86.134.75.242 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramesh Nagaraj Rao (2nd nomination)

    This has been largely resolved with Oshwah's closure of the AfD. If anyone should be reprimanded or slapped on wrists, reading this case once more before it gets archived will serve as a reminder for those, if any, whom the cap fits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please can we have an admin look at the history of this AFD:

    • An editor who voted delete in the AFD, hats/closes sub-discussions, marking them as "extended content", though the discussion is relevant. One of them with the personal comment "verging on WP:BLUDGEON". This action is clearly not appropriate for someone who has already voted.
    • User:Winged Blades of Godric, the nominator, removes a "keep" vote by a IP. This is clearly against policy, as IPs are allowed to vote in afd's. The validity of the vote is for the closing admin to determine.

    I reverted all of the above (with explanation), only to be rollbacked with the dismissive comment "busybodies", and then again with the comment "Go away". I requested them to [self-revert on their talk page], but alas, no response.

    SD0001 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @SD0001: I see that Nosebagbear got there while I was typing his, but please make sure that all users involved, including Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs), are notified of ANI discussions, Iffy★Chat -- 22:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've looked, the IP seems to have restored their !vote. I'll restore it if it gets removed again without good reasoning. I'll take a look as to whether the hatted discussions can/should be extended. I don't believe either WBG or SerialNumber (who I've notified for you, since you also mention his edits) should have made those specific edits, though it should be noted that SerialNumber's second hatnote is actually hatting the nom's (and thus someone sharing his viewpoint). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unhatted the first section, some is a discussion on interpretation of the rules and wouldn't be an issue if hatted, but other aspects are directly relevant to the discussion and the quality of the sourcing. Nosebagbear (talk)
    • Comment See User talk:Kautilya3#Edit war. Winged Blades of Godric has been repeatedly reverting attempts to add sourced and relevant content during the discussion. With removal of content, hatnotes on comments, deleted votes, the Afd process here seems sort of broken to me. Winged Blades of Godric seems passionate about getting this rather bland article deleted, not sure why. Maybe Kautilya3 would care to comment? He seems fairly involved, having contributed to earlier versions of the article, voted to delete it, then reverted to the pre-expansion version. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article protected due to edit warring. Guy (help!) 22:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the AFD has been open longer than 7 days, it can be closed at any time now, right? Because the consensus on the AFD is clear that the article should be deleted. The arguments for deletion has sufficiently shown that the article subject does not possess significant primary coverage. Of those who disagree, one user listed a number of sources that were found, which was met by arguments showing that these sources don't provide significant primary coverage of the article subject, but only trivial mentions that last only a few lines, or trivial mentions within page footnotes. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:RELIST, yes it can. I'm considering just closing this AFD... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you could close it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate -  Done. Closed as "delete" and with an explanation of the rationale provided. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but would an admin mind warning the nominator that they shouldn't remove comments that they disagree with or hide discussion without a good policy justification? He may have been right on the merits to nominate the article for deletion but it bothers me that he tried to manipulate the discussion by censoring or redacting other users' comments? 208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair request. Is there someone who can do this? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: perhaps a CU, who will establish wether the miraculous appearance of IPs on an obscure procedural page was anything more than coincidence; as I assume that was the nom's original cause for concern. ——SerialNumber54129 13:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Most likely. I'll leave it to someone else to follow up and have a note. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From the above, it appears that this thread might be waiting for one more admin comment. User:Oshwah's decision to close this AfD appears well-timed, since having to rule on who was behaving well or badly in the AfD could have led to endless debate. Shall we say that some of the behavior was less than ideal. Do not get too concerned about IPs participating in AfDs. If they are not working in good faith, that is something the the closer can form an opinion on when doing the close and they can assign the appropriate weight to the views that may be expressed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    What may not be clear from the above is that Winged Blades of Godric removed a large amount of material from the article before nominating it for deletion. After it was expanded with new sources, he launched an edit war to remove the expanded version. The AfD discussion was on his gutted version, which indeed had little evidence of notability. Much of the debate was hidden behind hatnotes. And he deleted the IP's comments. I would say that he should at least get a slap on the wrist. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Aymatth2, stop pinging me. ∯WBGconverse 13:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Asim143 moving draftified article back to mainspace

    Article is an autobio and will almost certainly be deleted at the AfD, and preferably salted. No need to go to the extreme and block anyone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See here. This seems to demonstrate to me, as a user following the original case, that this user may not have the competence to edit Wikipedia. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 08:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    TheDragonFire300 - I've moved the page back to the draft space and modified the redirect I left so that Asim143 cannot undo the move, overwrite the redirect, and move it back. I'll leave the user an explanation and warning. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done (diff). Please let me know if the user causes any more disruption, and I'll be happy to take another look and determine the necessary next steps from there... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: Thanks. Though I wonder whether the redirect in mainspace defeats the purpose of drafitification. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    TheDragonFire300 - I was debating that as well... If anything, the redirect can be deleted later. For now, we can keep it and see what the user does in response. I hope that they understand and don't attempt to move the article back to the mainspace again... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This shouldn't have been re-draftified, but taken to WP:AFD. See WP:DRAFTIFY Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD. @Oshwah:, please revert. Iffy★Chat -- 10:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Iffy - I agree with your comment.  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Muhammad Asim is now open. Iffy★Chat -- 11:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Iffy - Perfect, thanks for doing that. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that they basically dismissed Ninja's warning and their seeming inability to take on criticism, wouldn't an indef until they start communicating be justified? —v^_^v Make your position clear! 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but this is an autobiography and the AfD closer will almost certainly salt it when they delete it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic ban violation by KHMELNYTSKYIA

    Reported user is blocked for one month for numerous violations of their topic ban. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The user is topic-banned from Ukraine [16] and has been previously blocked from topic ban violation [17] but continues to edit (and sometimes edit-war) on topics related to Ukraine [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Every single edit since their last block expired is a violation of their topic ban. I have blocked for a month. – bradv🍁 19:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tetsou TheIronman

    Tetsou TheIronman keeps adding incidents that don't meet the inclusion criteria to terrorism-related list articles. The inclusion criteria per a recent RfC says To be included, entries must be notable (have a stand-alone article) and described by a consensus of reliable sources as "terrorism". Their edits don't meet those criteria, since they almost never are notable. I didn't check them for the "described as" criterion but at least this incident didn't meet any of the criteria.

    Tetsou TheIronman has been warned several times on User talk:Tetsou TheIronman#October 2019. His additions have been reverted with an explanatory comment [23] [24]. It should be clear to them that their additions don't meet the inclusion criteria. Sjö (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Tetsou TheIronman evinces one of the strongest cases of WP:IDHT I've ever seen. I've explained the RfC set criteria to them countless times, and they've claimed to understand, and that they will cease inserting inappropriate entries. Then the second they think nobody is looking they go right back to it. A topic ban from Terrorism related articles would be appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [25]is an example of them promising to improve their conduct in September. They did not. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Tetsou TheIronman (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)hey i think there should be changes in the criteria, because i have made editions with reliable sources and they are deleted (for example an incident in Mexico in November 2015), I consider that these editions are arbitrary and go against the global principle of Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means and the use of common sense[reply]

    IiKkEe's stylistic changes that leave articles, especially medical articles, in an inaccurate state and/or state of disarray

    At various articles, especially medical articles, and especially with regard to the leads, IiKkEe makes unnecessary stylistic changes that often leave the text in a less accurate, simply inaccurate, and/or sloppy state. It's not unusual for these edits to not align with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. It's not unusual for IiKkEe to change the context and/or meaning of things, and to give WP:Undue weight to things. And this includes articles that are of WP:Good or WP:Featured status. The editor can make many edits in a row, which, in addition to usually needing to be reverted or tweaked, can take up a lot of time when reviewing the changes. And the editor's content is sometimes unsourced. As seen here, here and here, the editor has also been known to edit war just to retain their edits. The editor has gotten a bit better about this over time, being more willing to go to the talk page to discuss, but it's not enough. Discussion can consist of the editor wanting their way, and then editing the article in some other problematic fashion if they don't get their way.

    To get right into this matter, see the examples below.

    Examples of IiKkEe's problematic editing, spanning years.
    • In March to April 2015, IiKkEe's edits to the Hypertension article, a GA article, were such an issue that an editor felt that that "it may need to be delisted now." IiKkEe responded by, for example, saying, "I agree the article was a good article and I acknowledge the major contribution you have made to it. I don't think that I completely reworked the article: I did make 134 specific edits with a justification for each in the Edit history notes, and I believe each were an improvement to an already good article. I could be wrong: please feel free to critique one, some, or all of my edits on the Talk page and voice your specific objections, and we can discuss them there in a spirit of mutual respect with the aim of reaching a consensus." Right there IiKkEe acknowledges making a whopping 134 edits, or however many edits, to the article. The editor who complained replied, "I have made almost no contributions to it - which just goes to show that you took almost no time to understand the standing of the article. I just noticed that you acted with terrible arrogance, and we probably need to delist the article." Indeed, IiKkEe's 2015 edits to the article contain numerous errors or issues, and, to save time, I can only point to a few. After the article was restored to its GA status, IiKkEe still needed to be reverted. For example, here, where the editor changed the text to state "fast heart rate at rest" (which contrasts what resting heart rate and tachycardia state), here where the changes were labeled confusing and it was noted that the definitions were already provided in preceding sentences, here where the editor removed an entire section that needed to be restored, here where the editor added birth control as a cause of hypertension (although birth control can be sourced as an increased risk), and here where the editor called a study a treatment.
    • In April 2015, IiKkEe made this edit to the Cushing's syndrome article, stating, "clarify causes of excess cortisol in MEN I and Carney complex." This had to be reverted, because, as stated on IiKkEe's talk page, it's not two hereditary diseases that cause Cushing's syndrome. "More than two diseases cause pituitary adenomas." It was noted that the editor also "added details that are not supported by the ref in question."
    • In April 2018, at the Animal article, IiKkEe's had to be reverted on one of their edits that removed something as "unneeded." The article had just reached good article status via Chiswick Chap's hard work. And then there were more accuracy issues with IiKkEe's edits to the article in December 2018.
    • In October 2018 at the Blackmail article, where I think I first encountered IiKkEe, I reverted IiKkEe because the editor added unsourced text in place of sourced text, and gave the unsourced and unencyclopedic example of "Buy me that necklace or I'm not going out with you." The editor tried a different version, I reverted again, took the matter to the talk page, and contacted WP:LAW. As noted by an editor on the talk page, issues with IiKkEe's edits included the fact that blackmail is not a statutory offense in every jurisdiction, and that "there is no need to separate the common and legal definition—it is the same definition written in a different way." The lead issues were remedied, but not before IiKkEe made a mess of the lead.
    • In March 2019, IiKkEe made edits to the Obsessive–compulsive disorder article, which included IiKkEe asserting that "feel the need to check things repeatedly" was redundant to what was there. I reverted, stating, "Checking things repeatedly is not necessarily performing certain routines repeatedly. And we use 'or' for a reason. Maybe discuss on the talk page?" IiKkEe kept at it. Didn't bother discussing on the talk page. I took the matter to the talk page, stating, "IiKkEe, you need to discuss your changes because you are changing the context or meaning of some material. Keep in mind that this is a medical article, which is why WP:MEDRS has high standards. Why not just to stick to what the sources state? When reverting you here, I stated that checking things repeatedly is not necessarily performing certain routines repeatedly. For example, a person with OCD might feel the need to repeatedly check for an email reply. But this doesn't mean that doing so is a routine for them. After all, that is just one email reply. Once the other person replies, that matter is over. The person with OCD might not communicate via emails enough for repeatedly checking emails to become a routine. You went back to changing the lead. You made it so that the lead states 'the need to perform certain routines repeatedly such as checking on the status of something (rituals),' which led Doc James to remove 'checking on the status of something (rituals).' It's best to just leave the lead as it was and include 'feel the need to check things repeatedly,' just like we do in the infobox." In that same discussion, Doc James stated, "It is important to be actively reading the sources when text is adjusted." Since then, the lead of that article still doesn't have "feel the need to check things repeatedly." This is because I didn't feel like dealing with IiKkEe anymore at that time. And where the text used to state "Common activities include hand washing, counting of things, and checking to see if a door is locked.", it now states, "Common compulsions include hand washing, counting of things, and checking to see if a door is locked." The lead still needs tweaking since feeling the need to check on things repeatedly and performing certain routines repeatedly are both compulsions, but they aren't necessarily the same thing.
    • In April 2019, at the Concussion article, IiKkEe spoke of "copy edit[ing] for accuracy." But like Doc James stated on IiKkEe's talk page, "What is this 'over 15 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury (TBI)'? Are you reading the sources in question? There is no such thing as a score over 15." And Doc James, who watches a lot of medical articles, if not most of them, has had to revert IiKkEe at various articles, as the next few examples will show.
    • In August 2019, at the Heart failure, Doc James had to revert this ("also known as") because it's not "formerly called congestive heart failure", and he had to restore text to its more accurate or just plain accurate form, after IiKkEe's edits. In September at the same article, he had to revert this unsourced material that IiKkEe added. And here he reverted IiKkEe, because, in his words, the text "did not make sense."
    • In October 2019, at the Osteoarthritis article, Doc James reverted IiKkEe because of unreferenced material and because he was correcting IiKkEe's incorrect material.
    • In October 2019, at the Human papillomavirus infection article, Doc James fixed IiKkEe's edits because "it is a step wise process, goes from precancerous to cancerous." Here he was clear about IiKkEe's edits not being supported by a reference. Here he was clear that "no ref [was] provided" and that he was reverting IiKkEe "to better match the source." No reference for this either. This edit shows Doc James reverting one of the stylistic changes where IiKkEe felt the need to explain what a Pap test is. This edit shows Doc James reverting back to a WP:MEDMOS setup (which IiKkEe has been made aware of times before, including on their talk page). Another MEDMOS revert by Doc James here.
    • Also in October 2019, at the Subconjunctival bleeding article, Doc James repeatedly adjusted material, as seen, for example, here and here after IiKkEe's edits, and reverted IiKkEe here (after this change) because "usually it is one blood vessel, not multiple."
    • Even with this October 20, 2019 edit at the HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer article, there's a problem with what seems to have been meant to be a simple copyedit...because IiKkEe removed "lack of any such evidence of a primary tumour" from the "occurs in 2-4% of patients presenting with metastatic cancer in the cervical nodes" text as redundant. So right now the text says "The occurs in 2-4% of patients presenting with metastatic cancer in the cervical nodes." What occurs?
    • Today, at the Masturbation article, IiKkEe made edits like this, where IiKkEe strays from the source, saying, "delete unneeded and inaccurate 'or other sexual pleasure'. IMO it is only for sexual arousal." So IiKkEe calls "or other sexual pleasure" inaccurate based on his or her opinion? The first source clearly says "to achieve sexual arousal and pleasure." And the third source clearly says "for the purpose of sexual pleasure and/or orgasm." The only reason that our Wikipedia article says "or other sexual pleasure" instead of "and sexual pleasure" is because sexual arousal in this context falls under "sexual pleasure." With this edit, IiKkEe replaced "usually to the point of orgasm" with the "with or without inducing an orgasm" wording, stating that the new wording is more accurate. Again, "more accurate" according to whom? To IiKkEe? The first source clearly says "to achieve sexual arousal and pleasure, usually to the point of orgasm (sexual climax)." And the third source clearly says "for the purpose of sexual pleasure and/or orgasm." A variety of other sources also stress the orgasm part. People usually don't masturbate without achieving orgasm.

    There are a lot of other examples of IiKkEe's changes that leave articles in compromised states, but I focused on the examples I reviewed and some that are mentioned on IiKkEe's talk page. This Potassium article example is another from IiKkEe's talk page. IiKkEe can be polite enough when interacting with editors, but being polite isn't enough to negate editing/competence issues. Furthermore, as indicated by this section on IiKkEe's talk page, IiKkEe has a tendency to thank editors via WP:Echo and go right back to editing disruptively. I've experienced this with regard to IiKkEe and other editors whose edits were riddled with issues. It can have the effect of seeming antagonistic even when it's not meant to be.

    IiKkE's editing reminds me Anthony22's editing, except that Anthony22's problematic stylistic changes mainly concerned biographies. He was recently "indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia." Original thread on that is seen here. I'm not sure what the best remedy should be in IiKkEe's case, but if the community decides that he should refrain from editing medical articles, this should be broadly construed to include anatomy and sexuality articles since they can overlap and IiKkEe has edited problematically at some anatomy articles (such as Nephron) and questionably at a few sexual topic articles thus far. I just know that something needs to be done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Like Flyer22 Reborn said, there are many more examples of this behavior. Here are just a few that I've seen over the last 2 weeks:
    • Here they changed "usually involves" to "is" purely for being "more direct", but had to be reverted because it ignored that sources vary.
    • Here they removed "typically" in the 1st sentence, which caused it to be only about the female genitalia and making it contradict the 3rd sentence about the anus.
    • Here at Oral sex they changed the 1st sentence significantly by changing "or" to "and". It went from saying "(including the lips, tongue, or teeth) or throat" to "including the lips, tongue, and teeth; and the throat".
    • At the same article, they changed "female genitals" to "vulva", which had to be changed to "vulva or vagina".
    • IiKkEe then, because they wanted the terminology to be "comparable", changed the sentence from "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the vulva or vagina, while fellatio is oral sex performed on the penis" to "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the female genitalia - the vulva and vagina - while fellatio is oral sex performed on the male genitalia - the penis and scrotum". Thus, they again made up their own definition for fellatio. They were rightly reverted. I also replied to them on the talk page.
    Again, these are just a few very recent examples from just a few articles that IiKkEe has edited. This editor seems to put their own subjective and often poor style opinions ahead of sourcing and common usage. This results in problems, as explained by Flyer22 Reborn.
    As shown by her examples, this appears to be an ongoing problem over many years. IiKkEe should have learned better by now. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They are one of a certain type of difficult editor, who just tinkers carelessly or beyond their capacity. They have been around since 2014, very rarely engaging on their talk page. This pattern suggests English language competence may be a factor here. A widescreen topic ban may well be the only remedy. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mixed up with the Anthony22 issue a month or so ago and I agree that it's a big issue. In this case, it is even worse since he is making a flurry of small but significant changes to articles that alter the meaning (often making them inaccurate). This type of edit is hard for a user who is not a subject matter expert (e.g. someone like Doc James) to patrol since it is not overtly vandalism. It wouldn't be a big deal if this user was responsive on the talk page but he isn't -- like Anthony he just does whatever he wants and leaves it up to others to clean up after him. If this user is willing to be more responsive and to stop making such changes without discussion, I would be OK with letting it go but so far he hasn't been. 73.128.16.15 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock and cleanup needed

    2601:49:8402:EA20::/64 has left behind a massive dump of unsourced edits, mostly fiddling with birthdates in actor bios. What I've spot checked doesn't seem correct, e.g. [28]]. In any case today they've moved on to adding outright death hoaxes, complete with fake sources, so I'm not AGFing here. I've mass-rollbacked all the top edits, but there's probably lots more buried behind other edits that needs to be undone. I'll start, but would like some help. Thanks, all! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That's block evasion by Special:Contributions/2601:49:8401:f48b::/64. I'll try to do the clean up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything is cleaned up. As a bonus, I also range blocked another vandal. Thank you for reporting this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! That can be very tedious. For the record, 2601:49:8400:b377::/64 looks like this user's previous IP, but I guess there's too much collateral on ‎2601:49:8400::/46 for a block. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's very tedious. I volunteered to do stuff like this when I became an admin, though. Anyway, I can keep an eye on the IP range, but I don't think it's necessary to do any wider blocks right now. The collateral probably isn't all that bad, but those /64s seem to stay allocated for a very long time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Disputed and WP:BITEy block of new editor

    The user has been unblocked which kinda makes this case moot. The admins involved are all veterans and highly qualified and I won't say what I would have done under the circumstances. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Rcorsini54 created a user page quoting four poems or song lyrics. C.Fred warned Rcorsini54here that Like I said, a line or two is fine, but the parts that look like they're full songs (or at least more than one verse) are probably in violation of policy. I will do you the courtesy of letting you clean them up, but technically, any user could remove them at any time. Rcorsini54 responded on User talk:C.Fred, (diff) saying Thank you, C. Fred... will clean them up. Rcorsini54 then (minutes later) cut the quotes down to 4-6 lines per song posted to the Teahouse asking Just wondering if the edits I made are ok content wise without putting up a complete song lyric. Shortly after that Bbb23 speedy deleted the user page User:Rcorsini54, under WP:CSD#U5, with no other editor having tagged this for speedy deletion. I honestly do not think that the final version meets the U5 standard of Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. which is included in Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have in my user pages?. Rather it seems to me that this constituted A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material ... such as (free use) pictures from Wikimedia Commons, favorite Wikipedia articles, or quotations that they like. as explicitly permitted by Wikipedia:User page#What may I have in my user pages?

    Earlier, Rcorsini54 made edits to Pete Townshend and Adam Duritz (this and this), both were promptly reverted. Each was an apparent attempt to communicate with the article's subject. This is not helpful, but it is minor and easily explained -- however no one attempted to explain -- both edits were reverted with a minimal edit summery, and no note or warning, templated or manual, was placed on the user's talk page.

    Not long after deleting the user page, Bbb23 blocked Rcorsini54 indefinitely for Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia; also disruptive and WP:CIR.

    I posted to Bbb23's talk page, describing some of this and concluding with I ask that you reconsider the block, please. It seems to me that there is a WP:BITE issue here. The response was this A few other editors posted to thread, and I posted further, all easily visible. But Bbb23's latest response, posted as i was editing this, proposes to wait, leaving the block in place, until Rcorsini54 requests an unblock (assuming that s/he does request one}, and evaluate that, Bbb23 also said All that said, we have three administrators who disagree with my actions here. They haven't persuaded me to unblock, but they have fulfilled their responsibility to talk to me before taking any action. Why doesn't one of you just unblock the user. Accordingly I am about to unblock, but I would like community review of my actions. I want to be clear that I am in no sense seeking to "punish", and I assume good faith that Bbb23 believes the block justified. I would like to know if the community agrees that such a case justifies an indefinite block. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was first admin on the scene, as it were, to this user. I saw his edits where he expressed his POVs on certain artists [29][30]. These weren't constructive edits, to be sure, but they weren't outright vandalism. The user had also started an autobiography in draft space. I pointed out that was a bad idea, and he assented for me to delete it, CSD G7. At that time, there were one or two small music quotations on his user space; however, the thing that caught my eye was the comment, I will begin populating with helpful info beginning January 1st 2020 for "clear vision!" That was enough to get his talk page on my watch list and to keep an eye on what he was up to, but it didn't create a direct problem.
    The next day, he expanded his user page with additional song quotations; I cautioned him, in a non-templated fashion, about copyvio. The user then went to the teahouse to ask questions. All seemed well, IMO, until they said I think this is due to a multiple device look. It was 2... my 2 sons. I asked them not to login as me anymore. WP:LITTLEBROTHER is in the house. Bbb23 blocked a minute later.
    This block seems like the nuclear option. The editor surely wasn't off to a good start, but I don't think he was beyond saving. I'm still willing to assume good faith in the user—and see if he rolls back the claim about his sons logging in when informed (gently, I would hope) that account sharing is not allowed and that compromised accounts can be blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    C.Fred The user was warned here in a response to the Teahouse post about the user page deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC) @C.Fred: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DESiegel: That message was 15 minutes after the block. —C.Fred (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No real opinion on the block, but the unilateral unblock without the agreement of the blocking admin was uncalled for and against policy. DESiegel should have taken it to AN first rather than unblocking and coming here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing in the blocking policy (especially the section you linked) prohibiting reversal of an administrator action. Wheel-warring is forbidden, but a simple reversal isn't. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) TonyBallioni, the comment, quoted above, by Bbb23 of Why doesn't one of you just unblock the user seems to be an invitation to do just that. I can to ANI rather than AN because I wanted a quick response in hopes of avoiding a BITE effect. I was originally going to simply describe the situation and ask for community consent to an unblock, when going to User talk:Bbb23 I read that comment (diff above) and changed my mind to unblock right after posting hre. I would also note the comments of other admins at the talk page, which I in no way solicited, seem to make the unblock not exactly unilateral. Must all unblocks now be approved at a notice board or by the blocking admin? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Multiple ecs, replying time Reaper Eternal) Disagree: the section below on unblock requests says if agreement can’t be come to, to take it to AN. Unilateral unblocks are highly discouraged. That being said, I was about to strike it, as Bbb23 said they could unblock, which I didn’t see. That being said, this thread seems like drama for the sake of drama since he said they could unblock... TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The section of the policy page on responding to unblock requests says: administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended. It does not say that discussion must take place before the unblock, nor that ANI is not an acceptable venue. I think my record is fairly clear, I do not like drama for the sake of drama but when an action seems to me to violate policy or procedure and may occur again, I think that a community discussion is often a good way to clarify what should be done in similar cases going forward. I explained my motives above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have different readings, but as I said, Bbb23 was fine unblocking, so my criticism is moot. On the merits, I likely wouldn’t have blocked, but I also don’t really have much of an expectation that this user will be productive, so I probably wouldn’t have unblocked either. Now that they’ve been unblocked, I don’t see a point in reinstating the block. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the unblock. The block was a little too hasty—the user hadn't yet proven that he wasn't here to contribute. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Outing

    Nothing to see here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At least an attempt: [31]. I'm not from Washington (see User:Toddst1#Who_I'm_Not) but he's obviously tried to google stalk me. Toddst1 (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    yes, Todd here is having a rather over zealous attack. It is not stalking you to mis-read your identity page. Rodolph (talk)
    I think he misread your "who I'm not" part of your userpage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps (probably) you're correct. Still freaked me out. Let's move on - I may be a bit testy this evening. Toddst1 (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    109.147.186.187

    Blocked for 36 hours. Next time, AIV would probably be a better venue to report these sort of violations. El_C 16:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    user:109.147.186.187 is adding unsourced content after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sca and an 'enemies list'

    Colleagues, This may only be a minor point, but I have twice asked Sca to remove what can only be seen as an 'enemies list' from his talk page. I had a minor disagreement over the renaming of the 2019 Grays incident article (and the applicability of WP:TITLEVAR in using the British term term "Lorry").

    The following day I went to his talk page to apologise if I came across as terse, when I saw the message "This page, and its archives, may not be edited under any circumstances by users Fgf10, Wakari07, Davey2116, Nfitz or SchroCat". (Looking in the history, "this edit added me to the list which, at the time, included The Rambling Man, Fgf10, Wakari07, Davey2116 and myself. A subsequent edit removed TRM but added Nfitz to the list in his place - Nfitz also countered Sca's position on the Gray's title, and appears to be the only interaction between the two of them, but I haven't gone through the full history). I politely asked Sca (from my own talk page) to remove the notice, but he did not. I left a message on his talk page repeating the request, but this has also been ignored. (For the record, that was only my second edit to that page, the previous one was a 'Happy Christmas' message in 2015). I have no desire to post on that page again (aside from the necessary ANI notification).

    I believe such 'enemies lists' are frowned upon (as seen with this matter) for being polemic in outlook and uncollegiate in spirit. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We tend to respect that editors can request someone else not post to their talkpage. Making that request should be sufficient on its own, without documenting it at the top of the page. Sca, if you ask someone not to post there, the burden is on that person to remember, and if they do it anyway then you can bring them to ANI. So no particularly good reason to keep such a list, it seems. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't even realised I'd been released from the dreadful guilt and harassment. But nevertheless, I saw it much more as a reflection of Sca rather than a reflection of the people he considered "banned" from his talkpage, so I never really thought twice about it, despite Sca feeling fine with interacting with me and mentioning me many times and in many places across Wikipedia. Having been removed from the banned list, I can now rejoice in my new-found love of Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically User:Sca lost an argument over WP:ENGVAR and is now going to throw their toys out of the pram.In light of their approach, is there any reason you'd want to post there; after all, discussion takes place on the talk article page. Which will soon, of course, be getting moved to its new title. ——SerialNumber54129 17:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely no reason I'd post there at all, which makes it all the more bizarre to ban me from the page. The only reason I went there in the first place (and saw the note by accident) was to apologise of coming across as terse. I don't think that message would be welcome now! - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SchroCat recently has posted argumentative comments in reply to my posts about legitimate editorial subjects, particularly those related to the Grays Incident – especially on the Grays talk page. Upon reflection, I concluded any further interaction with SchroCat would be counter-productive and pointless, and added him to those users prohibited from posting on my talk page – this, in order to obviate possible future use of said page as a forum for argumentation on his part.
    For my part, in the interest of harmony, I hereby undertake not to post on SchroCat's talk page or to engage with him elsewhere on Wikipedia. (I would welcome a no-contact order affecting both of us.)
    Regarding TRM's comment, he and I formerly had an unpleasant history of conflict, but in recent years he has mellowed and we've had no disputes of note. Indeed we occasionally cooperate at WP:ITN/C. I'd been thinking for some time of removing him from the do-not-edit note on my talk, and did so coincidentally with adding SchroCat.
    The do-not-edit note is by no means an "enemies list," as SchroCat polemically asserts. It is solely an effort to avoid fruitless argumentation. (Other users listed there reflect serious past conflicts.)
    My ideal for WP users/editors is collegial harmony. – Sca (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not particularly about the lorry deaths, only about the lorry deaths in the past 12 months or so. Ditto for Nfitz. These weren't "argumentative comments": they were disagreeing with someone who decided not to bother with our guidelines. Ditto for Nfitz. Considering we operate in entirely separate spheres of interest, the offer of "a no-contact order" is laughable. Just take the enemies list off your talk page, as I've asked and others have advised. It's uncollegiate, unco-operative and completely unnecessary. I know you don't want me to post on your talk page: I get that, and considering the only comment I'd made on your talk page before that note was a Christmas message, I don't know what you were trying to prove. If your aim is "collegial harmony", as you claim, in what way is "A stupid, annoying comment" an example of that? - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "collegial harmony" is facilitated by you displaying such a list. As for a formal interaction ban, I get the sense that such a remedy would be premature at this time. But I also get the sense that this will be informally subscribed to, anyway. El_C 19:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a little baffled on this, as I don't even recognize the name of User:Sca. Digging deeper, we had a brief, and I thought civil and thoroughly forgettable exchange the other day at Talk:2019 Grays incident about not needing to change titles of British articles to not use British English. The exchange was pretty much me saying why, him responding that 75% of the world don't understand what a "lorry" is, and me pointing out that most English speakers live in Asia, and know what a lorry is, and tagging them to ask how they get 75% - to which there was no response. Obviously this can't be about that, as I don't think I've ever looked at their talk page before, and can't find any edits by myself ... can User:Sca tell me what previous encounter I've forgotten - I'm not finding much, but "Sca" isn't the best search term. Sorry to have to ask this - but I do have some memory gaps from the 2015-2017 period, when I was having some health issues - I have no doubt it's me that's forgotten! Nfitz (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text is unhelpful in a collaborative community, and it is factually incorrect. If one of the named editors raised an issue concerning Sca at a noticeboard, policy would require the editor to post a notice at Sca's talk—there is no such thing as "under any circumstances" at Wikipedia. Regardless of that, posting an enemies list is a violation of WP:POLEMIC and the text must be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • By longstanding practice the community has made it clear that editors may, within reason and with obvious exceptions, tell other editors not to post on their talk page. While I discourage the practice in all but the rarest cases as it creates a road block to communication, sometimes I acknowledge it is the lesser of evils. (Full disclosure, over the years I have asked two editors not to post on my page.) Obviously there are going to be exceptions as noted above. If there is an established rule for how to go about this I'm not aware of it. But to my mind, posting a list of the excommunicated may not be the best way. I'd suggest a polite note while pinging the other editor and letting it go at that. On which note, I have always interpreted such requests as a defacto severing of diplomatic relations and that is not a one way street. On the rare occasions when I've run into editors who tell someone to stay off their TP and then turn around and continue to post on the other's, I have made my disapproval known. As for this specific case, whether or not Sca's list is a good idea may be debatable, but I'm not seeing a convincing argument that anything here is actionable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO the list should be removed as per POLEMIC, Given some noticeboards explicitly state notices must be given it sort of makes Sca's notice void/invalid, List should be kept off wiki imho. –Davey2010Talk 01:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • As others have said, it's generally accepted that when someone asks another editor to stay away from their talk page, this should be respected with reasonable exceptions like compulsory notices. The editor 'banned' should remember the request and if the persist on violating it, they're likely to be sanctioned for it. Since it's not a formal interaction ban, if an editor barely engages with another and forgets about the request after a year and violates it, the editor who made the request can just remind them if they still wish it to be in place. It's not necessary to include any sort of notice on the talk page listing the editors, and such lists should be removed given the problems they cause.

      As has also been said, if you want an editor to stay away from you, you should stay away from them. This includes not posting on their talk page except in cases when it would be acceptable for them to post on yours. And limiting any discussion of them or their behaviour. On your talk page, you should basically never discuss the editor, not even obliquely. If someone else brings them up, remove it or at least tell the person who brought it up you will not discuss it and ask not to post about the editor any more. On article talk pages and similar, discussion of user behaviour is often off-topic anyway and while there's some tolerance of it when it's directly relevant to disputed content, it's problematic to do so when the editor cannot discuss your comments of their behaviour directly with you. On noticeboards like AN, you can mostly post like normal. Although you may want to at least tell people you banned the other editor from your talk page. And you should harder than normal to ensure your comments have some relevance to deciding what to do about some situation.

      For the user who was 'banned', it's more complicated. We don't want editors to escape sanction or scrutiny simply by 'banning' people. But at the same time, given a desire to disengage, if the discussion seems more needling than useful scrutiny, this is likely to be taken more harshly than normal. Ultimately since it's not a formal interaction ban, the editor who issued the ban is free to remove it if they feel they want to engage more directly with the editor 'banned' over their concerns. (Again, game playing like persistently 'unbanning', saying something, than 'banning' again is likely to be perceived poorly.)

      I would add that while I think many of us can understand it coming up once or twice, if you've felt the need to 'ban' 6 people from your talk page, there's a fair chance this speaks more of you than of them. In addition, even if you do ask someone to stay away from your talk page, it's generally expected this arises because of actual disputes you've had on your talk page such that you don't welcome further communication there. Rarely I can imagine it arising from dispute on the other editor's talk page. It arising from disputes you've had in other places seems something that would be very rare. If it's happening a lot to you, again maybe consider what this reflects on your editing here.

      Nil Einne (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we've all seen people banned from talk pages, because of what is said on each others talk pages. Not sure that's the issue here. I've ran the interaction tool, and some other searches, and the closest that Sca and I have ever come to each other before a brief and civil exchange yesterday on a mainspace talk page, was that we both posted on the same Admin's talk page, 2 weeks apart, in September 2006, in two different threads. Surely simply and politely pointing out an error in assumption in a forgettable discussion on a minor style issue, during a rename debate, isn't worthy of being banned from someone's page, you've never looked at before. How is that not a violation of WP:5P4 - unless it's some case of mistaken identity. This is a collaborative project, and blocking collaboration on trivial issues doesn't work. At the same time User:Sca has a 15-year long unblemished block history (the one block appearing to have been erroneous) - so I can only assume that this isn't typical. I remain baffled on how I got swept up in this (and how I've never encountered Sca in 15 years - presumably we edit in different circles). Nfitz (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks

    Close this as a warning to both users to conduct themsleves in a civil manner. HistoryofIran, especially has been flying a bit too close to the sun with regards to personal attacks and innuendo. They are cautioned to keep their temper in check and take a deep breath before pressing that submit button. Other than that, time to move on. El_C 18:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    According to User:HistoryofIran, I am, among other things, lazy, the exact opposite of knowledgeable and not someone to be missed on Wikipedia, a sad, little person, and a pretty sad fella who should see a therapist (leaving aside the consistent incivility in all of his comments addressed to me). Some of my comments about his behaviour in that conversation might also be assessed as personal attacks or at least as incompatible with WP:AGF, even though I consider them to be simply accurate and fact-based assessments of the attitude that he has displayed in his interaction with me - briefly, harmful to the project (I'm sure he will oblige with relevant diffs if necessary). However, since he has expressed a desire for our discussion to be reported here (or else for the entire exchange to be deleted), I thought I might as well call attention to it, while making sure that the comments by both sides are taken into account.--87.126.23.210 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    While the language in the diffs you link to is certainly uncivil, I don't think it rises to the level of a personal attack. And a request that information be properly cited with sources is not out of line. Readers are not expected to use Google or other searches to determine if an article's content is correct, that is what citations are for on Wikipedia. I would have used a {{cn}} tag rather than simply reverting, but that is not a rule. Please bear this in mind.
    All that siad, is there something you want us to do about this matter? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He did, I just removed it, since I don't want more to do with him nor am I interested in taking much part in this topic tbh. Yes, I already knew that I wasn't no angel in this part, especially when Drmies comment enlighted me about that removal part. However, I suggest people to read the whole conversation (where his comments are arguably personal attacks, and looking at the last comment by the IP, it is clear that he brought this issue here to deliberately "hurt" me). Also, the IP didn't only add unsourced additions, he also changed actual sourced additions, albeit a minor one tbf. Do mind that he had already made uncivil accusations from the start [32]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) For your information HistoryofIran WP:TPO says 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. I would advise you not to blank entire topics in this way again. Neither party shows to great advantage in this exchange, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Siihb at Talk:Steve Huffman

    User:Siihb filed a thread at DRN for dispute resolution on Steve Huffman. In looking at it, I saw that User:Siihb was using the talk page as a forum rather than discussing, and was ranting about censorship, and was also making conduct allegations about User:opencooper who was addressing Beutler requests for edits because of Beutler COI, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Steve_Huffman. I closed the thread at DRN. User:Siihb asked me at my talk page to re-open, posting a long screed. They and User:MarnetteD began quarreling on my talk page, and I hatted the discussion. I then went to Talk:Steve Huffman, and cautioned User:Siihb that I did not normally pay attention to an editor who posts at length but erases messages from their own talk page. Siihb replied with a diatribe: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Huffman&type=revision&diff=923143003&oldid=923081524&diffmode=source

    I would also take incident with the statement of me quarreling on your talk page. I simply asked for the thread to be revisited and Marnette chimed in with insults in the exact same way they are on this thread. Siihb (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am neutral. I tried to look at a dispute, and was insulted by Siihb, and am finished with this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Siihb has been using talk pages as a battleground including making lots of accusations without a shred of proof. Ponyo has tried to explain things to the editor but has been ignored. I apologize to you Robert McClenon for the posts on your talk page. I was just trying to leave you links to some relevant talk page threads to save you some time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MarnetteD - Apology accepted. My real issue was with User:Siihb, except that I wasn't interested in re-opening the dispute anyway. As I tried to caution Siibh, they are acting like an editor with an open mouth and closed ears, and should listen to Ponyo. They are the user who owes me an apology, but I don't expect it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, yet again, users making negative comments about me. Once again, as I did on your talk page Robert, I will ask that we focus on the actual issue here. The issue is over formatting on controversial/negative issues relating to the subject. Matt Lauer's page has a scandal clearly broken out as a separate heading, However, on the Huffman page, editors (specifically opencooper) choose to remove an edit breaking a major news incident out as a separate heading. If my DRN wasn't formatted correctly thats fine. I will re-file. The issue, which has received 0 attention, and 10000+ words of posts deflecting, is that this article for Huffman is not in line with similar articles (such as Lauer). Which of the two is correct. If you want to beg off of help for the incident because I was insulted, you should recall that you insulted me first by suggesting I wasn't worth listening to because I engaged in fully allowable wikipedia behavior (removing talk from my talk page), and pointed out you had done the same. Does anyone at all want to get back to the actual issue or should we all keep wasting time and energy about a simple heading for content that was already on the article and sourced, well before I even joined wikipedia. FFS.

    Siihb (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    An unblock request waiting for three days

    See User_talk:Tatzref#ANI. Maybe it was malformatted. As I wrote on his talk page, while I cannot access the original content, seems to me like he should have gotten a warning, not an indef block. Suggesting that an off-wiki site should out an editor, while there is no proof one even knows of WP:OUTING, should merit a warning, yes, but hardly an indef, IMHO. PS. Also, if Tatzref lost temper a little, it is worth considering that he was subject to some off-wiki harassment like someone impersonating him to suggest he was posting on StormFront, see last paragraph here. Nobody identified who tried to frame him, but a few weeks ago User:Icewhiz got indef blocked for offline harassment of which I think Tatzref might have been one of the victims. I'd advise Tatzref to cease pointless speculation on whether there is any connection between those incidents, but I don't think he did anything warrant an indef (he didn't out anyone, nor did he harass anyone on or off wiki, did he?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    LG-Gunther and sock tagging

    I won't name any other names here for the purposes of WP:DENY, but my beef here is that said editor, while he may have meant well, kept on tagging sockpuppet accounts of a certain long-term abuser even though that did more harm than good, i.e. unwanted attention from said LTA. I've already filed an MfD request before, using this as precedent; problem was that I didn't word it right enough to merit a delete consensus. And even if I did make a successful MFD, I'm worried that LG-Gunther would disregard the consensus and (unwittingly) tag the pages regardless despite the troll craving for such attention. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @LG-Gunther: please leave tagging to checkusers and SPI clerks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting an administrator strike uncivil comment directed towards me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinhan Bank Canada

    I am contemplating reverting the comment made by @4meter4: in response to a reply I'd made—days earlier—to another Wikipedia user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinhan Bank Canada when I'd legitimately challenged the user's posting completely irrelevant links in an AfD discussion, but didn't know if that's the correct protocol. Nevertheless, I feel as though @4meter4:'s comment to me was uncivil, unnecessary, and may border on a personal attack. It does not belong in an AfD discussion. @4meter4: is most welcome to take this to my Talk page, if he felt it still needed to be addressed, but it doesn't belong in an AfD discussion.

    Thanks, ---Doug Mehus (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    One ping is enough. Anyway, it's pretty tame as far as incivility goes. I would just move on or ask for further clarifications on the user's talk page. El_C 04:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, Thanks for the reply. Can I use the strikethrough wiki markup on that comment from 4meter4? It just bugged me that the user brought something back up which had been resolved days ago. I just think it's a problem with the editor not assuming I was acting good faith with respect to challenging my edits. In other cases, you'll note from the thank logs and my contributions that I've either thanked him via the edit log or agreed with him on other AfD discussions, so you can see I certainly don't have any personal or systemic problem with the editor.Doug Mehus (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that would be inappropriate. Again, if you wish to query the user about their comment, their user talk page is place to do so. Also, no one can see another user's thanks logs — that function is strictly private. El_C 04:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C:, Oh I didn't know that that our 'thanks' is private information. So you, as an admin, can't even see when I thank another admin or editor for things? At any rate, I sent @4meter4: a wiki bear hug hoping we can move forward positively, and I'll just not reply to the comment in question. Doug Mehus (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, Doug. No, both pings and thanks are private — no one can see them but you. El_C 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi all. I think the comment was taken way more personally then I intended it. I am concerned that Dmehus has recently tried to get other people's opinions striked or altered at a few AFDs because he does not agree with the comments/opinions of others. It's getting to a point where I grimace at participating in an AFD with him. I don't believe it's his intention to be disrespectful or uncivil, but he is making it a difficult place for people with differing opinions to express themselves in a collaborative process. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada Computers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Nations Bank of Canada. I too have no personal vendetta against Dmehus, and we often do agree with one another. I just have a problem with the way he has demanded that other editors remarks be striked or demanded that they change their remarks. That is very disrespectful to other editors, and I felt the need to say something about his behavior toward User:Cunard, User:Carajou, and myself. Thanks for the wiki bear hug. I know we can get along going forward.4meter4 (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @4meter4: Thanks for your reply and kind words. Your rationale for commenting was helpful for me in knowing that it wasn't directed as a personal slight in some way. I think it would be helpful for me to explain why I had originally requested an admin strike Carajou's comment—there had been some odd coordinating AfD discussion activity in the NewtonX AfD discussion, so my question was to whether or not irrelevant comments and sourcing can be struck from discussions. It wasn't like the source provided was at least relevant to the article at hand - it wasn't; it was on some bitcoin company, CoinDesk, which seemed somewhat spammy to me and I really questioned why it was added. Nevertheless, @ThatMontrealIP: clarified for me, and indeed, in a previous admin noticeboard incident, another admin clarified that admins generally don't strike irrelevant/baseless AfD comments from AfD discussions because, as that admin put it, they'd be doing nothing else all day.
    I hope that my explanation is helpful, and I do thank that admin and ThatMontrealIP for clarifying on when comments actually get struck.Doug Mehus (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=923222526"