Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

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

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

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 2017, at the Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion article, they had to be reverted on sourcing issues like this one, MEDMOS issues, and so on. 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 often 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)

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)

• User:Flyer22 Reborn thanks for raising this. I share your concerns. It is not clear if IiKkEe actually reads the sources in question or simple changes text to what they personally feel is better.
• In this edit[1] they changed correct text to first "a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 to 15 (under 13 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury(TBI) and over 15 as moderate or severe TBI)."
• Than in this edit they changed it further[2] "a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 to 15 (over 15 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury(TBI), 9-12 as moderate TBI, under 9 as severe TBI)."
• There is NO such thing as a GCS of greater than 15. Gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

Since the editor continues to edit articles while making no response to the complaint here, I've blocked them for 48 hours. Any admin can lift this block if they become convinced that User:IiKkEe can and will change their editing behavior to answer these concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for assessing this, EdJohnston. I wouldn't state that IiKkEe is as unresponsive as Anthony22 usually is, considering that IiKkEe is significantly more open to responding on his (or her) talk page, but I don't see that IiKkEe's behavior will change at all. Like you noted on IiKkEe's talk page, they continued editing while concerns were being expressed in this thread. And IiKkEe's response indicates that IiKkEe still isn't willing to comment in this thread. IiKkEe stated, "Who are you? Who do I discuss this with? I assume with an objective administrator assigned to look into the accusations, not one of my accusers. I am not familiar with this process." So IiKkEe appears to be stating that this case is in administrators' hands alone. Also, one does not need to be familiar with the process to take the time to respond in an ANI thread about their problematic behavior. Once the 48 hour block expires, IiKkEe will keep on editing the way they have before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• After a discussion at User talk:IiKkEe#ANI, I unblocked IiKkEe so they could respond to the issues raised here. I suggested focusing on a small number of key points. IiKkEe has asked for "a few days" which seems excessive to me, however, there should be a response before further editing occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Considering that threads on ANI are archived after a certain timeframe, IiKkEe's responses should come before this thread is set to archive. Either that, or it will continue to need a new comment to keep it from archiving or it should be tagged with User:DoNotArchiveUntil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Added DNAU template to keep this alive until discussion takes place. If there is no response from the user within a week, then we should probably move on to an indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at User:Kutyava

The article Darul Huda Islamic Academy is an educational institution of good repute in Kerala of India. which may be known from various reliable sources available online. The page was in very good condition some times ago. There is another competitive organization the supporters of which are enemies to each other. One of the editors has deleted everything which I added even from google books about this institution which creates doubt about his intentions. The editor in question seems to be not neutral and has a liking for competitive movement of which he has created pages see here. Please make him stay away from articles affiliated to Samastha (EK faction) as he has created pages of Samastha (AP faction) and affiliated organizations like Kerala State Sunni Students' Federation. Clear subject matter bias. ScholarM (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment I have done absolutely zero effort, but by happenchance noticed this, which may be of use when looking into this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ScholarM reported by User:Kutyava (Result: ) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Kutdyava also made an inappropriate report at AIV that mischaracterized ScholarM's edits. I haven't carefully evaluated ScholarM's edits, but describing them as "only for promotional purposes" is without basis. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Although stuff like this (which has been edit-warred back in multiple times) does look pretty promotional. Mind you, stuff by Kutvaya like relisting your own AfD which gained no traction aren't brilliant. Both Kutvaya and ScholarM have completely broken 3RR today on Darul Huda Islamic Academy. Perhaps they both need a time out. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

There was very marginal discussion on the article's talk page, but it went nowhere, and both editors continued reverting each other. Both have been sent to the penalty box for 24 hours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Discussion was closed, but I do think it's worthwhile to discuss both editors' conduct. On one hand, some of the material that ScholarM added to the article may have been borderline promotional, while on the other hand much of the content that Kutyava revised or removed was done apparently to cast the institution in a more negative light. Should either or both of the editors be topic banned from the article? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  For comparison:

  • • This is the version prior to either editor's involvement
    • This seems to be Kutyava's preferred revision (diff from stable
    • This is ScholarM's (diff from stable)
    • This is a comparison between the two preferred versions

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

As an side, I found ScholarM's edits elsewhere to have been troubling. I think the chances for them becoming subject to ARBIPA discretionary sanctions are... not low. El_C 19:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I was blocked for 24 hours due to edit warring. For long, I have been a very rules abiding editor at Wiki. I have contributed positively to it.

In future also I will avoide any such type of warring and disputes. I request admins to allow me to continue constructive editing. Further, regarding the complaint, I would like to submit that there is clear case of either paid editing or agenda account in case of Kutyava. I was not editing negatively. Some of the points came up unintentionally which may be called as borderline promotion. I will avoid that too but its very disappointing to see continuous disrution in some pages of Samastha (EK faction). Though I can help improve articles of both factions. ScholarM (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Ivanvector. ScholarM's editing is clearly pushing a positive POV, and Kutyava is clearly pushing a negative POV. Neither appears to be simply "countering" the other in good faith, but intentionally POV-pushing. Both are affirmatively causing harm to the article and I strongly endorse a TBAN for both. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

IDHT user with severe CIR issues

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

---

Subject: User:서덕민 (For simplicity's sake, they will be referred to as Seo)

There is a troublesome user who renders their username in Korean that does nothing but make obsolete, low quality edits to the project. Seo's edits vary from complete nonsense to ridiculous grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. Check their contributions here. Despite numerous warnings on Seo's WP:IDHT behavior and WP:CIR issues, not only did they *not* respond to the warnings, they have continued their disruptive pattern of edits.

Diffs:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

I think a block might be necessary. Users that outright refuse to communicate when other contributors voice their concerns are harmful to the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Seo has logged back on and made some new edits, but they have opted to ignore this thread entirely. There is no acknowledgement to their issues, even after a lengthy discussion here. Either they don't care that their lack of response would be percevied as WP:IDHT, or they think they did nothing wrong. Or both. It's a serious issue, either way. They have not uttered even a word about their actions even after being reported. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

ooooor they’re new here, speak ESL and don’t even realize there is an issue. This is an editor that needs some guidance, not a pernicious troll. Try some good faith. —AdamF in MO (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

How do you expect to guide someone that won't respond nor listen? The communication between us and Seo is completely one sided - we tried telling them that their behavior is problematic, but to no avail. It's hard to AGF towards someone that doesn't even try to talk. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Patiently. Not sure why it's hard to assume good faith - there doesn't seem to be anything malicious or even mischievous in the edits. I'd have thought it would be pretty easy actually, given they don't argue endlessly with long posts justifying that what they are doing is correct. Meanwhile, failing to AGF is a far bigger issue - and we seem to have never-ending patience for that! Nfitz (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

So in other words, it's okay to keep polluting the project with unsourced, low quality additions *and* ignoring warnings from other users, as well as refusing to acknowledge that they did anything wrong? Plenty of ESL users here could contribute in coherent English, and Seo isn't one of them (assuming that they're even an ESL to begin with).

I would love to AGF, but I honestly can't if the user is 100% unresponsive. You claim that they're "quietly" listening and adjusting based on the messages and warnings they've received, but that's just an assumption in the absence of their response. Since when is it okay to ignore legitimate concerns about one's behavior? As far as I am concerned, that's WP:IDHT.

In any case, since it's apparent that Seo's English isn't up to par, maybe they should brush up their English first, before editing on the project again. Based on one of Seo's drafts here, I'm convinced that a machine translation might have been used to write the article. And even if it's not machine translation, it's still really poorly written and formatted. Look, I'm all for guiding new users, but if they won't even respond, then what else could we do? Not much except for reporting them on ANI. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• What's the relevance of 서덕민's Hangul script in their username? The name seems to meet WP:USERNAME, particularly WP:NONLATIN. Your last warning on their userpage, that lead to this, was about vandalism - but I'm not seeing an example. Is there one? Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Nfitz, on a closer glance, it's disruptive editing rather than vandalism, but it's still pretty bad. This one is unsourced, for instance. And after being reverted, Seo just entered a vague statement citing that the name is available in "many more" cultures.

Putting that aside, the utter lack of communication regarding their behavior means that they have WP:IDHT issues. It's been hours since I've posted the report, and they don't even have anything to say here in their defense. It's like they don't even realize that there is an issue. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

They haven't edited since then either, and often don't edit for days. Might not have even seen the notice yet. I don't see that it's trolling though ... Nfitz (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

They've received plenty of warnings before, and has not responded to any of them. That's an WP:IDHT issue. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any previous warnings of trolling. Is it really IDHT ... I don't see the same thing being added, and it looks like there is an attempt edit differently. It's not great editing - sure ... but there seems to be WP:BITE issues and a failure of WP:AGF here, with false accusations. Nfitz (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Nfitz, how are they false accusations when I'm not the only one that handed out warnings to Seo? JesseRafe warned them of similar issues too. I usually try to assume good faith, but in this case, an editor that doesn't even try to address the concerns that were voiced by users is detrimental to the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You did falsely accuse them of vandalism. You do that quite a bit. —AdamF in MO (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, pretty much every trolling IP or disruptive user I report end up getting blocked due to disruptive behavior. Why are you defending disruptive users that are actively damaging the project? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven’t ever done that. Not even a single time. Please be careful about casting aspersions. Pointing out that you are doing something wrong is not defending other people —AdamF in MO (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You attempted to discredit my warnings on this trolling IP here, and after I reported them on ARV, they got blocked. They posted a death threat in Japanese on another user's talkpage here. So how am I doing anything wrong? I followed proper procedures for this. If users are editing disruptively, I hand out warnings to them.

Users that ignore warnings have WP:IDHT issues, and those are the same types that tend to keep editing disruptively until they're blocked. To me, trying to discredit my warnings to trolls is the same as defending them. If you don't agree with my viewpoint on that, that's fine. Still, I don't get why you're trying to stop me from protecting the project when I am doing my part in weeding out the trolls.

Assuming good faith is important, but you have to understand that some users are simply not here to build an encyclopedia. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nice history lesson bub. Those warnings you gave were still false accusations of vandalism. No where in your post do you show me defending anyone. So yet another false accusation. Please stop. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting that they are false accusations even after they got blocked for trolling and personal attacks? If my warnings weren't valid, do you think my ARV report would have had any substance? The blocking admin did the right thing, as you can see here. If anyone needs to stop, it's *you*. Stop trying to obstruct me from weeding out trolls and vandals. I'm trying to protect the project. I don't get why you're so opposed to that.

Anyway, let's get back on track to the original topic, which is Seo, the subject of this report. I believe some sort of action needs to be taken against them. Their lack of response here is quite concerning. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism has a specific and defined meaning here. Please see the policy on that. This user has not vandalized. Many edits are misguided edits by a new user but this user isn’t vandalizing. Then there was your false accusation that I’m defending these editors. That accusation is false and a borderline personal attack. Yes let’s get back on track. Can you diff an edit that is vandalism, from SEO? —AdamF in MO (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That's not what this report is about. I am not trying to accuse them of vandalism on this report. Rather, I am reporting them for WP:CIR and WP:IDHT, as noted above. Also, I already modified my warning to indicate that they were editing disruptively, rather than outright vandalism. That was before I even filed this report. Jesse and I have already provided diffs where Seo was shown to be littering the project with spelling and grammatical errors. Despite given warnings, they still continued to reintroduce low quality edits to the same articles where their edits were previously reverted. They also have not responded to the warnings that were given to them, nor have they responded to the report here. Given these reasons, they definitely have WP:IDHT and WP:CIR issues.

To quote IDHT: Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you.

As we could clearly see, there is *zero* communication between Seo and the other users, including myself. They just keep disrupting the project in accordance to what they think is right. There are a few possibilities as to why Seo is outright ignoring the warnings as well as this report. Either they think staying silent means that the situation is just gonna blow over (which will be proven to be untrue in due time), or they don't think there's any issues with their problematic edits. Or both. I'm sure if and when they log back on, they're just going to continue editing disruptively as if nothing has happened.

Now, let me quote WP:CIR.

There is a presumption that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:

*The ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively.

*The ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus.

To quote the "Responding to suspected lack of competence" section:

The English Wikipedia is the largest Wikimedia project, and for that reason, people will tend to come here first to contribute. Poor use of the English language can lead to perceived competence problems.

It's clear that Seo's edits also demonstrate that they are not fluent in the English language. I don't think they even realize that they've been disrupting the project this entire time, which is quite concerning for a user that has accumulated more than 130 edits. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Your above comment is both verbose and a complete waste of time. Maybe CIR issues are in play. But, like I have said numerous times, and you have agreed to, they haven’t vandalized, ergo your warning was mistaken. You appear to agree with me on this. Accusing me of defending trolls was completely baseless and quite bizarre. Regardless, let’s see if they log back in and continue their behavior and we’ll see if they respond to discussion. Cheers mate. Thanks for your hard work with anime and voice actors! —AdamF in MO (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How is it a waste of time when it is a detailed analysis of Seo's problems? What about Jesse's warnings, as well as Bonadea's message here? We have tried to communicate. Seo's just ignoring us. Unresponsiveness is IDHT. Anyway, as it turns out, Seo did log back on, and they've elected to continue disrupting the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

JesseRafe warned them once about 3 weeks ago about "no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles" (which appears to have been followed) and once yesterday about adding unsourced content. You've made accusations of vandalism, trolling, IDHT, CIR, and complete nonsense. No one else has done otherwise - why do you claim this? And where's the evidence of trolling? I don't even see examples of "complete nonsense" - for example adding Mari being a Korean name too (마리), in addition to the existing list of Breton, Japanese, Estonian, Georgian, Hungarian, Finnish, Welsh, Swedish and Norwegian (did someone forget Cornish and Manx?) doesn't seem to be complete nonsense. Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I detailed the other instances of gibberish being added below (and prior to you comment), you must not have seen it. Also, that page does not indicate Mari is a Korean name, only an article in the Korean language that says that Mari is a name - there's a difference: it's largely about non-Korean women named Marie. Look at Seo's edits holistically, not individually, they are adding very little of any substantive value, but repeated attempts are disruptive like at Karen and they don't respond to their critiques or reversions but continue the habit. Also, I don't think it's strictly true that they stopped adding original research three weeks ago as you assert, but almost all of their edits are still original research and none are sourced. JesseRafe (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There's clearly some language issues and errors. But where's the previous warnings of vandalism, trolling, complete nonsense, IDHT, and CIR - Sk8erPrince's defence was that others had warned the user of this. I don't see any trolling or vandalism in their work - most of their edits you can at least see what they are trying to do - I assume the handful that look nonsensical are typos. Nfitz (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Correct, there are language issues and errors, but also useless drivel being added even when the English is fine. Saying "The Female given name" as an etymology is wrong in so many ways, and it is not a typo; "Japanes" is a typo. They are not addressing their errors, and continue to obstinately make them, which is Sk8erPrince's point. You say you can see what they are trying to do? What, please are they trying to do when they say "Korean The Female given name"? It's a nonsense fragment. They don't engage in communication about their problematic edits and largely disrupt the project, specifically about names. JesseRafe (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If we were to start eliminating drivel, then we'd have to remove about 3/4 of the articles here! :) "female given name" is clear - though perhaps not grammatically correct - it's a girls name (though is that politically correct?). We are reminded in WP:ANYONECANEDIT that you can't break Wikipedia; all edits can be reversed, fixed or improved later and that WP:NOTPERFECT. I don't see any obstinate restoring material after deletion, and an attempt (not necessarily success) by 서덕민 to improve. How is this vandalism? How is it trolling? Where were the warnings of that by others? I find the false accusations and exaggerations more concerning. Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I am having a hard time assuming good faith if you are defending the addition of "The Female given name" in the context of that individual edit on that page and all the other similar edits made by this user. It is not clear. It is completely pleonastic: devoid of meaning, context, and significance. Every other language gives an etymology... because it's the section headed "Etymology". How is this ""The Female given name" a clear etymology to you? It's a useless, vain bromide, that if left up, would be damaging to the encyclopedia. This user has made a dozens of other edits like it that harm the encyclopedia. They have been asked to stop doing so. They have neither responded to that ask in word or deed. That's the issue here. JesseRafe (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This in good faith. Are you referring to this edit? The grammar/spelling is poor, and they didn't provide the Korean meaning - but they correctly provided the Japanese meaning of ant (ja:アリ). How is this nonsense? How is this vandalism? How is this trolling? I'm not sure why the Japanese was removed - it improved the entry. Nfitz (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It was removed because of the poor grammar and spelling. Per CIR, users on EN wiki are expected to contribute in proper English. I mean, sure, sometimes, we make silly grammatical and spelling errors, but the main difference is that we know what the mistakes are when others point them out, or we catch our own mistakes. I'm not at all convinced that Seo has the English proficiency required to contribute constructively to the project, as Jesse elaborated above.

If you were told by at least two users that your edits are problematic and have been asked to rectify them, and you opt to outright ignore them and still continue editing disruptively anyway, that's an IDHT issue.

I'm also quite baffled that you can't seem to acknowledge that Seo's edits are mostly complete nonsense. I think Jesse did an excellent job elaborating why that's the case. The main concern here is that Seo is trolling the project with low quality additions (most of them were reverted for that reason), and ignoring the concerns of other issues. They are hence detrimental to the prosperity of the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Jesse said it was far more than poor grammar and spelling. I haven't seen any diffs that were complete nonsense (I initially thought "ant" was - but then I realised that is what Ari means in Japanese), and I certainly don't see diffs showing trolling - can you provide some. What I do see are false accusations by experienced editors, which is far greater sin than poor grammar and bad spelling. And unlike 서덕민, I don't even see a quiet acceptance of that, or any indication of change! Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How is "ant" relevant? That section is for the sourced etymologies of the given name "Ari". The fact that it is a word in Japanese, among hundreds of languages, is irrelevant if that is not the etymology of the given name in that language as the article is solely about the given name. That etymology was not provided. You also did not respond to the obvious repeated unhelpful edits at Karen I added yesterday. You seem to be extending beyond the usual benefit of the doubt to claim that "Mari is a Korean name" (it's not) and that the Japanese name is derived from the word for ant (unlikely, and unsourced, which all the others are) while not extending that assumption of good faith to Sk8er Prince who has said that 1) they are not editing regularly in competent English and 2) they are not responding to repeated requests to amend their behavior. Those are the two plain facts of the matter. Calling these false accusations is blatant lack of assumption of good faith, and on the verge of a personal attack. JesseRafe (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How is lion relevant - you didn't remove that? I did go through the ten Karen edits, and it all seemed pretty innocuous to me. A diff of what is of particular concern to you would help. Much of the edits can be summed up with this diff - which is neither vandalism or trolling - or much at all. Where are the diffs that support the allegations of vandalism and trolling? Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between the "lion" description, and the (likely) erroneous ant entry.

Compare the following:

Ari is a common masculine given name in Hebrew (אריה). It means lion.

The Female given name japanese form ant.

The Hebrew entry is clear and concise. It was very obviously not written by Seo. Seo's entry, on the other hand, is complete nonsense. It's grammatically wrong, and it makes no sense. And it's also unsourced. That makes it twice as problematic. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Then improve the grammar and add add a reference. Or point out the error. But I don't see anything particularly wrong with that edit, that some reference would support. List of Korean given names has said for along time that Ari is a feminine name that means "beloved" (아리) so it's certainly used as a Korean name. And I also see it in various lists of Japanese girls names, such as this one. Though if this discussion is correct, it doesn't mean "ant" - but it's clear that some people are saying this. So how is it 'complete nonsense'? They improved the content, and others should continue the task - not delete partially correct information that was added, but poorly formatted. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the elaboration, Jesse. To respond to Nfitz, this diff here is yet another example of nonsense.

Oshimaida: demon.

What *kind* of demon? Am I supposed to get anything out of that nonsensical description? Elaboration is necessary.

I think you may have too much faith on Seo - and there was no "quiet acceptance" from their part and there are no false accusations. Failure to communicate is an IDHT issue. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that. It's hard to AGF to IDHT users. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm just looking for the evidence of trolling and vandalism and nonsense - which are serious claims. All I see is bad editing - though a clear attempt to improve the articles. Does it matter what type of demon? Knowing nothing of the subject, the edit actually helps me know than an Oshimaida is some kind of dæmon, without having to research that (though further down the article there's some more information about that). Is the formatting lousy - yes. Did it make the article more understandable - yes. Is it vandalism - no. Is it trolling - no. Is it nonsense - no. Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself - if it's bad editing, then how are they "clear attempts" to improve the articles? Seo's edits aren't improvements - they're downgrades. Just stating that Oshimaida is a demon is pointless if the description isn't expanded for readers to actualy learn what they are. That makes it nonsense, due to the poor formatting. But hey, at least we could agree on one thing - that Seo's edits are not of high quality. That's one of the main issues here. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So you want more diffs? Here you go.

This was classified as "garbled English" by Bonadea. What in the heck is a "formal-unisex name"? That's nonsense.

There's also this diff here. Only in Korea is a female name surprisingly. Once again, it was poorly written. And where's the reliable source to verify that claim? And "surprisingly" is unencyclopedic in tone. This isn't a novel - we're not supposed to use adjectives in articles. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't heard the term unisex name before - but it exists, and that article mentions formal names - so how is it nonsense? Could it be written better - yes. Is it vandalism, trolling, or nonsense - no. But not providing a source (unless it's some kind of edit-war, and I don't see that) is not a serious issue - add a tag, or a source, or delete it with a note. My comment above, notes how the Ari edits improved the article - surely having more information, with grammar/spelling issues that someone else can fix, is better than nothing. Articles don't have to be perfect. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, unisex names exist, but "formal unisex name" is probably a calque from Korean, as it has no meaning in English. When you say that article mentions formal names you presumably refer to the fact that the infobox in Karen (name) said "formal=unisex" – but that was added by this user, editing as an IP, about a month ago. They have also been messing up a number of other things in the article, such as saying that the Farsi pronunciation of the name "Karen" is US English [3], [4]. So no, that phrase really was mangled English. ("formal name" can have a meaning, but that's a completely different matter.) This shouldn't turn into a content discussion, but there is absolutely no doubt that the user does have severe CIR issues; they are almost certainly editing in good faith, but they have to start listening and changing their behaviour. --bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

When, User:Bonadea I said "that article" I was referring to Unisex name which differentiates between formal names and nicknames - not a term I'd use, but some do. Nfitz (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's a legit Korean name, I expect the OP was pointing it out for those who don't read hangeul. Blackmane (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, Google Translate throws back "Seok Deok Min", which seems to me like a legitimate Korean name. —v^_^v ^{Make your position clear!} 00:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've twice warned this user and undone dozens of their edits (often the same repeated content) and agree with Sk8erPrince's categorization of them being largely nonsense or/and poorly written, and also of little important significance or an honest attempt at improving the encyclopedia. Their recent edits at Ari (name) strike me as closer to test edits than one with a hundred contributions. I also see no issue in Romanizing the username for the purposes of this discussion for simplicity, same as any Cyrillic or Hebrew or whatever username to make typing easier for most editors who wish to participate in the conversation, I don't think Sk8erPrince was trying to make an issue out of the their username and further discussion on that aspect is beyond the point of the discussion on their frequent disruptive editing. JesseRafe (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jesse. I hope something is done about Seo's disruptive behavior. If no action is taken, that basically means we're okay with their disruptive behavior, which compromises the quality of the project. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: 서덕민 anthroponymy topic ban

I propose that Seo be topic banned from all name-related articles. This includes given names and surnames. If they were willing to communicate in the first place, there wouldn't be any need to bring this issue here at all. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support: As proposer. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: False accusations and exaggerations abound here. The few diffs provided seem innocuous, and it would be better to expand and correctly format what is being added, rather than deleting. Or explaining why it's deleted. There seems to be evidence that 서덕민 is reading edit comments and adjusting accordingly. Not sure why we can't simply for simplicity's sake, use their username, than a translation of part of it. Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced info can be reverted per WP:BURDEN. If we cannot verify the newly added information with a reliable source, we would proceed to remove them. Almost every single one of Seo's edits are unsourced, which violates our verifiability guideline. Also, I'm referring the user as Seo because I can't type Korean. Having to copy and paste their username every time is tiresome, and I'd really rather not be bothered with that. And Jesse and I *did* explain why Seo's edits were reverted in our edit summaries. On the flip side, Seo has failed to respond to our warnings and continued to edit disruptively in accordance to *their* own liking. I'm starting to think that you and I aren't even analyzing the same case, Nfitz. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Having read Sk8’s posts I am not convinced we are dealing with a pernicious troll here. I think we have a user who might be a good contributor, if they accepted a little guidance. This editor is clearly willing to contribute in good faith, they just need some correction. On a separate not we should wait on tbans, or really any bans, until we see a response from this editor. Right now the project is in no danger. _{I have read all of Sk8’s responses in this thread and understood them. Another lengthy reply is not likely to change the fact that this proposal is premature.}—AdamF in MO (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• I am convinced that this is a good-faith editor and not a troll, but their command of English seems to be really poor, to the point where it is often not even possible to rewrite their additions because it's hard to even guess what they mean. They have never posted to an article talk or user talk page. Their additions are unsourced; a lack of sources is an issue in many name articles so I don't blame them for doing what they see others do, but they have been repeatedly warned about it. Since they also add incorrect information, such as this (marking a Farsi pronunciation as "US"), as well as multiple instances of adding text that comes across as random scribbling, they are currently a time sink who does endanger a tiny part of the project. They also keep drawing their own conclusions about names being the same just because they look similar ([5], [6]), and that is often quite wrong – and even if they should on occasion be correct, how can anybody know, with no sources? However, since they are only interested in name related articles, TBanning them from there is a bit harsh. Could an uninvolved administrator give them a strong final warning (they already have a couple of final warnings) about adding original research/unsourced info, and about communicating? --bonadea contributions talk 11:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Having read Sk8’s posts and having experience with this editor's tendency to use too many words and WP:BLUDGEON arguments I am unconvinced that a topic ban is appropriate. In any event...right now the project is in no danger ATM. Lightburst (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Found a suspicious account

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

---

Hello, this new account ClarityRandom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be adding a load of unsourced old nonsense to articles related to feminism.

For instance:

• This is not what social reproduction means (it sort of means society is doomed to repeat it's failures across the generations).

• This is not what source criticism is about. Source criticism is the academic term for evaluating reliable sources.

• First edit was a large one, adding and changing much sourced commentary, and finished by adding this, "while organisations such as Woman's Place UK organise to defend the principles of socialist and marxist feminism and womens sex based rights that are threatened by transgender politics and identity politics." It was added without an inline citation in the middle of a sourced statement about a 1960s feminist group.

They've made 140 edits so far, mostly around a handful of of articles. This set of edits for instance doesn't seem to add any resources and is sort of promotional. It adds to the lead a statement promoting one of the "best known living social historians" naming them "Tilly". Sadly, it seems that Tilly passed away last year.

I'm not sure what to do. There's too many edits for me to simply go around reverting them all on subjects which I am not learned. I can't get a sense of vandalism or actual bad faith, but there's definitely a bit of unsourced and dubious stuff in the main space and promotional editing. If this is not urgent enough or off topic for this page, please direct me to the appropriate venue.. ~ R.T.G 20:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The ANI notification has been posted to User talk:ClarityRandom Shenme (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User:RTG I am Clarity Random I have an MSc and PhD in history and political economy. If you dont like my edits go onto the page and ask for citations and/or clarifications.

social reproduction is a key concept in marxist feminism - see these by leading marxist feminist theorists:

I teach historical methods, (and have in the past taught on marxist feminist theory) - but I dont keep track of which historians died and when.

I suggest you go and learn more about the subjects you are trying to talk about here. When you have an understanding of them go to the articles you think need citations, and request them.

Also if you are claiming 'promotional' posts please specify what you think is being promoted, as niothing I have posted is promotional nor intended to be so (Womans place as an organisation was listed alongside other socialist feminist organisations in the marxist feminism article, so I expect you are complaining about those other editors too?) ClarityRandom (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @ClarityRandom:. There are a number of issues with your edits.
• Okay, with your edit on source criticism. Source criticism is what Wikipedia calls "determining reliable sources". It is not "the method" to apply, but instead, methods are applied to source criticism. The source you have now added, criticising various ancient historiographers source criticism, does not specifically reject the idea of source criticism, but the methods applied to such criticism. Source criticism is not defined by a particular method, except in each individual circumstance.
• As for your edit to Social reproduction, you haven't read WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:CITE. Further, "social reproduction" is a branch of "economic reproduction". What you are trying to apply to "social reproduction" is another branch individually.
• As for the edit to Marxist feminism, the bit I mentioned. There are two sentences related to a reference on "Radical Women". These sentences are referenced. You've added a quick statement in the middle of the first of those sentences, about a completely different womens group. You've also added a whole string of other edits all the way up the page in places where information appears referenced, but not added any other resources. If I said, that's okay, you have all those books and all the other edits were wrong, you just happened to be reading your whole library that evening and noticed the whole of Wikipedia was overdue a change...? Was that what you were trying to tell me?
• Wikipedia is not interested in whether you are a professor or not. ~ R.T.G 20:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarity, I am sorry if I sound harsh in these last sentences, but you are probably not a practising lecturer specialising in the historical method field. Neither am I, and what I mean to say is, we don't need to be. Reading stuff like this can take some effort, but if you can read and understand stuff, you can do it. There is no need to claim to be a doctor of history to discuss how an article is structured. ~ R.T.G 19:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• What is this doing at ANI? Where is the previous discussion before coming here? What's with "unsourced old nonsense"? Where is the prior warning/discussion about adding unsourced info to articles? What does "suspicious" mean here? Why assume new editors arrive fully aware of our policy on sourcing information? Why did you not advise CR that you posted this thread? I have lots of questions, but they're all for RTG, not CR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious here means, "possible SPA adding unsourced incorrect information to articles". I was hoping to get a response if this was the appropriate venue before posting the notification. This regards over a hundred edits so it felt a bit grand for me to be challenging, possibly 140 edits without asking about it, sorry. No intention to bite. @Floquenbeam:. ~ R.T.G 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• How on earth did this make it to AN/I? @RTG: chill, seriously! ClarityRandom looks very much like a new, inexperienced good-faith editor with a subject-specific area of interest. That's totally fine, and actually the kind of contributor I welcome. I've cleaned up the mess you made on their talk page (please use the preview button, or at least check your edits). ClarityRandom would do well to read some of the welcome links you posted, however - they seem like an editor with a lot to contribute, and learning to make their contributions compatible with our policies and guidelines would lead to fewer misunderstandings like this! I'm a bit bored of seeing new good-faith editors bought to AN/I with absolutely zero attempt to actually reach out and help them correct their behaviour. It's shitty of us to gatekeep so aggressively. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 10:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't mean to be aggressive at all. I posted here mainly hoping to be pointed to the correct noticeboard as I wasn't sure. I am not as concerned with the editor as with the edits themselves. There was definitely some inaccuracy going on. The editor has made clear what I suspected, they would intend to treat a dispute as a matter of authority rather than study. I should have "warned" them first, but I felt with so many edits, it would be more aggressive to just dive into the muddle and start arguing about the nature of authority when a third opinion on the content would have been so much more likely to bring us all to a cooperative approach on the first step. Okay, okay... now what about the content? ~ R.T.G 12:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

References

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

Anthony22 again

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

---

Anthony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic banned on 9 Setember 2109.

"Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia. They may add information which is supported by a citation from a reliable source, and may delete information currently in an article if they think it is incorrect, inaccurate, or not properly sourced, but must immediately follow up any such edit with an explanation for the deletion on the article talk page."

See Special:Permalink/914804289#Formal proposal 1 and User talk:Anthony22#You are now subject to a topic ban.

He was warned about violating his topic ban by several editors and has been blocked twice for it, the latest on 11 October 2019

The following edits appear to be continued violations after the most recent block:

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

That last one[13] and Anthony22's response when criticized for it[14] makes me think that at the very least Anthony22 should be given crystal clear instructions with no wiggle room or possibility of misinterpretation. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Every time this poor guy gets dragged onto here comes up I regret supporting that topic ban. User:NinjaRobotPirate among others warned us that the ban would be difficult to interpret and I feel like an idiot for not listening to them. As far as the merits go, I definitely understand why it was reported here. I can see both sides of it -- if you fatally wound someone on Tuesday but they don't die until Friday, were they assassinated on Tuesday or Friday? It could be a content dispute or it could fall into the rough outer boundary of the area covered by the topic ban (grammar/style). I can't say that it's a no-brainer. 2601:144:200:92E0:942A:E85F:CD4:78F3 (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If I shoot someone on a Tuesday, and get arrested for it right after, but the victim doesn't die until Friday, was he killed on Tuesday, or on Friday? If he was killed on Tuesday, then he will have died three days after he was killed. If he was killed on Friday, then a killing will have occurred three days after the killer was arrested for it. If "the killing" were considered to be a multi-day event starting on Tuesday and concluding on Friday, then a killing will have occurred on Wednesday and Thursday, despite nobody shooting anybody, and nobody dying, during those two days. Is there no answer to this riddle? – Levivich 05:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking of "sudden-death overtime" and feel Anthony22 has quite lost. Shenme (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Lev: Not killed. Attacked on Tuesday, died on Friday, possibly from injuries sustained in the attack. Only with coarser time resolution could it be said "he was killed last week". Not related to the law, of course. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Given his topic ban he should have asked on the talk page. Just look at all of the editors who have given him advice, none of which he has followed. He has shown zero understanding of why he was topic banned and why he keeps getting blocks for violating his topic ban. I myself gave him this advice:

"My advice to you is to stop acting as if you are free to violate your topic ban if the edits are good (you aren't), stop standing with your toes over the line you are not allowed to cross, and in general start behaving in such a way that if anyone reports you at ANI for violating your topic ban, there is zero debate as to whether or not you violated it, but instead there is a 100% unanimous consensus that the person who reported the violation is crazy and deserves a WP:BOOMERANG for wasting ANI's time."

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Remember the original complaints that led to the topic ban? Low quality edits. Alas, a "only make high quality edits" topic ban is not workable. Let's look at the first edit in the above list:[15]

Anthony22 wrote in the edit summary "As I said before, I have never seen the name spelled "Maxene" until now." It took me less than a minute to find that spelling used by Rolling Stone[16] and The New York Times[17] Oh, wait! I didn't have to bother searching. That NYT reference is right after her name in the infobox. Clearly Anthony22 didn't bother looking. Getting the name spelled right is what we are talking about when we say "high quality editing". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I read the wording of the topic ban and reviewed the diffs provided. It is clear to me that the topic ban has been violated repeatedly. Since the last block was for one week, I have blocked this editor for two weeks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I recall somebody saying the wording of the TBAN was likely to prove problematic because it was overly and unnecessarily complicated. Oh wait...that was me. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Edit warring to keep personal attacks in my talk page archives

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

---

Yesterday User:JG66 made a few personal attacks on my talk page. No big deal, it happens. I removed them, they restored them. I archived the section hoping that would put an end to it. But now JG66 is edit warring at User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_8 to put them back in, making more attacks in the edit summaries in the process. I'd rather they not be there since I removed them, as I believe is my right on my user talk. Is this acceptable? I'd like some outside opinions, please. - MrOllie (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• @JG66 and MrOllie: - MrOllie is entitled to delete comments (whether accurate or not, positive or negative) from his user talk page as specified in WP:REMOVED, other than the few exceptions there which these edits do not appear to be part of. If the edits were relevant to an ANI discussion they can always be found in the page's history and given as diffs. Deletion is taken as indication by the user that they are aware of the comments. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixing ping Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

User: JG66 came to my defence after intimidation from MrOllie when he hastily removed over 120 of my edits citing that I was spamming. I have tried to get a response from from MrOllie on three occasions to discuss this in a calm manner. He has not responded, instead he archived the matter. My weakness is that I am an inexperienced Editor but I have tried to explain to MrOllie that my motives are genuine. Other Editors have also come to my defence, so I think MrOllie should stop being the victim here and understand what Editors far more experienced than I are saying about this matter in a legitimate and correct way. I do not think JG66 was acting in any other way than decent, correct and fair. Another helpful editor User: Rlendog has re-instated over 50 of the deletions which has restored my faith in the decency of Wiki Editors.Muso805 (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Sure [Nosebagbear], understood. The user seems overly sensitive to criticism, and I don't believe any editor who's at all comfortable in their own skin and able to view their contributions outside of the self would take anything I said in my posts as personal criticism. He treated an editor (Muso805) who has shown extraordinary good faith throughout this – and who admitted from the start that they were quite inexperienced here – despicably. I showed a stubbornness of my own in repeatedly adding the comments that the user wanted excised from their archived version of the discussion (but really, is the second of those comments a personal attack? It's addressing behaviour.)
• Yes, my edits to that talk page archive will stop. But I hope their behaviour comes under the spotlight here sometime soon, especially if they continue to treat new(ish) editors in that way and just shut up shop, close down all discussion – sulk, basically – when the editor seeks some sort of explanation. JG66 (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have a problem, take it to ANI once you have plenty of clear evidence. If you leave the editor a warning and they remove it, that affirms they have received the warning. If they ban you from their talk page, that's a really solid reason to take them to ANI next time there's an issue. (I can't discuss it with them at their talk page so I have to bring it here.) Now I'm going to look at the underlying complaint and see if anybody needs to change what they are doing. Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• A partial list of things that shouldn't be taken as personal criticism: 'digging your heels in through what appears to be immaturity', 'Stop being so pompous', 'it's probably because you were being pompous', 'your incompetent editing', 'not got the maturity or humility'. - MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mass additions and removals of references

• All Time Top 1000 Albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Muso805 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Muso805 and MrOllie: I advise both editors to stop performing mass edits that are disputed. Instead, get a decision on whether All Time Top 1000 Albums is a notable subject. You can do this via WP:AFD. Next, you should go to WP:RSN and determine whether this is a reliable source for the proposed uses in Wikipedia. Once that's done you can proceed with adding it as a reference where needed, or removing it. Additionally, Muso805, you appear to be a single purpose account for generating publicity about this topic. Please declare any connection you have to the subject because your behavior appears to demonstrate a detemination to create links to this page. Jehochman ^Talk 12:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• The book is almost certainly notable. The author is notable, there are a number of Google Books references to it, and even a quick search found this article and this article in the Guardian and Independent of the time, as well as the BBC News reference that is already there. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Black Kite about the notability of this book. But Jehochman, sorry, I think your characterisation of Muso805 as "a single purpose account for generating publicity about this topic" may be a little "non-neutral". It seems to me that this new editor has just seen this book and thinks it's a useful source. They might be criticized for adding only some entries and not all, but that's something quite different. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• I am glad the book is notable. However, is it the right source to use? Why add just this one single source to a zillion articles? Why not focus on improving articles generally. Need to use this source here and there? That's fine. Look through the user's edit history, it looks like a determined link building campaign. That doesn't mean it is, but the behavior is indistinguishable from a link building campaign. I'd like the user to just say clearly "yes" or "no" if they have a connection to the subject. I'd like the user to explain why they are so interested in adding references to this book, rather than broadly improving the articles. Jehochman ^Talk 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• I see your point, but I can't imagine that adding links to an out-of-print book that was published 19 years ago (and by its very nature is now 19 years out of date), and that can be purchased 2nd hand on Amazon for less than £1, is going to be the subject of an SEO campaign. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• A perfectly reasonable question. But I really don't think we should make somewhat disconcerting assumptions before we have an answer. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC) p.s. but you might be on to a real winner there with All Time Top Zillion Albums.

This is the second attempt. My first reply must show my ignorance because I cannot find the lengthy reply I just sent to user:Jehochman after receiving an email from him. First off I am not Larkin. I have never met him. I am not paid by anybody. I am retired and happen to be a Muso nutcase. Yes a self confessed Muso nut. I have all 4 editions of the Larkin All Time Top 1000 Albums books (along with many other Best Of Albums Books). Over here in the UK Larkin's book is the Bible, often quoted on BBC radio 6music and BBC 5 Live. It is much higher regarded than the Rolling Stone 500 Albums Book. Larkin's book was taken from polling Muso's whereas the Rolling Stone book and 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die are just opinions taken from writers and critics. The 3rd Edition of larkin's book states on the front cover 'Over 200,000 votes from the fans, the experts and the critics'. My reason for adding 140 references was not to spam (I have no intention of adding the other 860 albums because they are not of interest to me). The ones I added are my personal favourites and all have Wiki entries and many are neglected classics that are deserving of having an additional reference to Larkin's book. These albums mostly have reference to the Rolling Stone book or All Music Guide and there seems to be a strong USA Bias. My real intent is to get a UK balance as it seems unfair otherwise. Likewise albums such as Gene Clark's No Other and Moby Grape's 1st Album are cult classics and are in Larkin's book and I think it right and proper they be added to get the balance right. I think because Larkin's book represents the Muso fans it has more credibility than any of the other books and deserves at least being shoulder to shoulder with the others - and even though the 3rd Edition was in 2000 there are so many albums that have grown in stature -- like Nick Drake, Buffalo Springfield and Gram Parsons. Finally the book cover image used on the All Time Top 1000 Albums is woefully out of date. This is the 1st Guinness Edition published in 1994 -- my edits were all taken from the 3rd and most recent edition in 2000 published by Virgin Books (there was also a pocket edition as well). If there is an editor who sees this could they put the correct cover in the entry please?

I won't be doing any more edits - this whole experience has made me sick to my stomach. MrOllie's actions have really been upsetting and I have been so grateful to user:JG66 and user:Rlendog and user:Martinevans123 -- their advice, support and decency have been a blessing, and Rlendog's many reinserted edits of mine have been most welcome. I never received any reply from MrOllie and no longer expect to - perhaps he realises he was hasty and unfair. I won't go near putting any edits back in in case MrOllie appears again! As a very inexperienced Editor there is huge intimidation felt from all you vastly experienced Wiki editors. I know that what I did was genuine, and know that for sure after the comments from the three users I just mentioned. Furthermore there are dozens of references to Larkin's books and his Encyclopedia series on Wiki -- going back many years and nothing whatsoever to do with me! I won't be doing any more edits in the foreseeable future. MrOllies accusations have really knocked me back.Muso805 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• All Time Top 1000 Albums is not just notable, it is the "right source". In the 2008 book The Rock Canon: Canonical Values in the Reception of Rock Albums, author Carys Wyn Jones sources Larkin's work (and others') repeatedly. Jones' book discusses popular and critically acclaimed rock albums generally, but focuses on ten "canonical" works in particular. When outlining the criteria for this rock canon, Jones highlights the "test of time" and acknowledges that the history of rock criticism covers mere decades, compared to centuries for the classical music canon and 2000 years for the literary canon. In taking this point further, it's Larkin that Jones cites as a guide: "The mechanism by which the ten albums featured in this book have ascended to being regarded as 'great' albums is reflected in Colin Larkin's description of Astral Weeks in the All-Time Top 1,000 Albums: 'Quoted, recommended and worshipped by the critics for over 30 years [etc.]'"
• Among the best-album lists and polls Jones cites, as listed in his book's appendix, are all three editions of All Time Top 1000 Albums (1994, 1998, 2000); only the NME is afforded the same, multiple entries (for polls published in 1974, 1985, 1993 and 2003). The other publications that appear there, with just one best-albums list each, are: Paul Gambaccini Presents the Top 100 Albums, Mojo, The Guardian, Q magazine, Rolling Stone, VH1 and The Observer. (Q also has a "Greatest Stars of the 20th Century" list included.)
• From my experience of working on music articles here, that makes All Time Top 1000 Albums an important reference. Jones' The Rock Canon is one of the very few books I've come across that are about the many books and publications devoted to establishing "best" albums, and he appears to view Larkin's book(s) as a key indicator of long-term critical reception. Which puts it head and shoulders above AllMusic, for instance. JG66 (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

And this is why we have an editor retention issue. A new editor is treated with shocking discourtesy and the thread here is about JG66's behavior along with a side dish of an admin suggesting that the poor guy has a COI. I'd leave, too. Shame on MrOllie and Jehochman. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

To clarify: User:Muso805 is the new account, not JG66 (who's been here for 7 years). To add my voice to the discussion, I agree with Spike that we should ease up on Muso805. I think it is quite understandable if an editor has one book (or any other source) out and is using it to go through a variety articles, using said book to work on our project. "Is it the right source"? Since when is there a "right source"? Unless someone can show that it is unreliable for some reason - it is acceptable and allowed. — Ched (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC) (edit to include other sources too.)

• Can I ask what is going on with this now? It's been a day and a half at least since Jehochman posed their questions, all of which have been answered. I confess I have no experience, knowledge or interest when it comes to how this noticeboard operates; quite frankly, it's like some macabre adult dress-up and it gives me the creeps. It's more than obvious to anyone with an ounce of empathy and compassion that this episode has been very upsetting for Muso805. So, is he "in the clear"? Or more to the point: why is he being kept waiting for the verdict (for want of a better word)? And anyone, I suggest, with a pretty basic knowledge of popular and critical reception given to pop music would recognise the Colin Larkin book as a top-quality source. Per Ched's comment, when has there ever been a right source? This entire episode, from the user's 100+ reverts to what's transpired on this page seems to be a demonstration of assuming bad faith at every turn. Muso805 has been branded a nuisance editor, which he is not – Wikipedia would be nothing without the contributions of individuals who are passionate about certain subjects – and the Larkin book has been branded not "right" enough. The only good faith shown in this AN/I has been towards the user who filed the damn report, in that their suspicions about Muso805 and Colin Larkin's book have been so indulged. JG66 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• "... some macabre adult dress-up"? nah..... that was only for last night. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record while I watch this debate with just a slight amount of anger towards MrOllie for his actions - I thumbed through the 3rd Edition of All Time Top 1000 Albums at the 860 albums I had no intention of adding references for, and discovered a further 117 references to this book that had nothing to do with me and were added by other editors a long time ago. Perhaps MrOllie would like to check them out and dish out some further deletes?Muso805 (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

And thank you Martinevans123 for adding some humour to this nonsense!Muso805 (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the editor who originally opened this thread should now provide a further response. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@MrOllie: You made edits at over 100 articles that weren't required and will continue to be undone, unless you've got the good grace to self-revert. But where are you now, when your participation is actually appropriate? JG66 (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not an expert on music topics, but if people who know the field think this source is good, it's fine to use it. I am satisfied with the explanations provided. To the editor who was put on the spot, at least we have gotten to the bottom of this matter and now you can go out and edit and you have this discussion as confirmation that your behavior is acceptable. Jehochman ^Talk 12:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. And the behavior of the original opener was entirely correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Jehochman, if you're not an expert on music topics that's fair enough, but why wasn't this discussion driven by a question, to the filer, as to what grounds there were for thinking the source might not be good? And I'm sorry but I don't think your response to Muso805 is at all sufficient. "At least we have gotten to the bottom of this matter", etc, is lame and patronising, given what's taken place, and his behaviour was always acceptable. This episode is all about another user inventing a problem and then refusing to do the right thing and see it through. It astonishes me how good Muso805's been about this. "... at least now you can go out and edit and you have this discussion as confirmation that your behavior is acceptable" – please ...

MrOllie should be made to apologise publicly to Muso805 and admit to his bad-faith edits. MrOllie should be warned (or more) about their unacceptable behaviour; they should undo all the remaining reverts; and they should be topic-banned from all music-related articles. WP:BOOMERANG, WP:NEWBIES, WP:GOODFAITH, WP:COMPETENCE. JG66 (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User:MrOllie, do you really have nothing to say in this matter at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to be engaged in any conversation JG66 is participating in going forward, thanks. If someone who wasn't involved in the content dispute has a question for me I'll answer, but otherwise no further pings here, please. - MrOllie (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Was I involved in the content dispute? My question is "don't you think you owe Muso805 some kind of apology?" There's no need to ping you if you actually turn up? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie I was involved in the content dispute as it was my block deletion you instigated! Yet you never replied to any of my repeated requests for decent sensible dialogue and instead archived the text. So what you seem to be saying in your last post is that "if someone who wasn't involved in the content dispute has a question for me I'll answer". Hmmmmm. I think people will make up their own minds on that one, but I hope they read this entire transcript first. And thanks to the decent support I have received from music lovers and non music lovers, I will replace the remaining edits myself - there is no need for you ever to be heard of again on this matter, you have already caused me enough stress this week.Muso805 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Connection between Muso805 and the book's author

@Jehochman:, looks like you were right the first time. Yesterday User:Colin Larkin asked a question and then User:Muso805 thanks the users for answering his question. - MrOllie (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat by joewendt

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

---

joewendt (talk · contribs) has posted a legal threat on his talk page, seemingly over having been accused of having a conflict of interest. Wendt admits in that message to being chair of the Florida Reform Party, which means he is also this candidate for president. His edits have largely surrounded past Reform presidential candidate and competing 2020 presidential candidate Rocky De La Fuente. He has continued to edit since being told about our legal threat policy without withdrawing the threat. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

No on explicitly asked for it to be removed --Joewendt talk) 13:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Consider yourself so asked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've enabled talk page access. They did not make any threats after being notified of the policy, no one asked them to remove the previous threat, and judging by their last edit they might have been poised to retract it. No other comment on the block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict with diffs, but then he was already blocked so I didn't reinstate it and moved on. The above is incorrect, I advised him twice this morning to remove his threat himself. And he chose to continue to ignore sound advice and WP policies. JesseRafe (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, noted, and might I suggest a note on the user talk instead next time. I'm still not seeing a basis for a TPA revoke. Of course if the next thing they do is set about ranting and threatening instead of retracting the threat, that's a different matter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I did put the note on his talk page too and he instead said everyone who disagreed with him had a conflict of interest and demanded an apology (for being told not to make legal threats!). I don't think having TPA will make a big difference, but do think your guess is a good one. JesseRafe (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not realize that I blocked them without talk page access, this was not my intention.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Legal threat was removed: Special:Diff/923746629 ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Relevant for any following this page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joewendt. Going to RPP for RDLF article too, as he's now making accounts as fast as I can add them to the SPI.

And this now has been confirmed, and the user cu-reblocked--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Deleted page recreated

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

---

Saeid Shahi was CSD'ed yesterday as G11. It is back today. I'm not sure exactly what happened as there are multiple recent moves in the history. MB 16:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Anybody wants to have a look whether Iman.farzam needs an indefinite block as vandalism-only account? This is not so obvious to me but I am afraid they are net negative for our project in any case.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

What's up with this edit[18]? did we actually have a wrong name, birthrate, etc? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

This is why I suggested to block as vandalism-only account. This is clearly a different person.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Now an IP has put the deleted page back. MB 17:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Deleted, ip blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You creation-protected the talk page but not the article Ymblanter. I assume that was not your intention. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, switched the protection. Today is clearly not my day.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Today is clearly not my day", I hereby propose November 1st as Official Ymblanter Day -- a special day when we can all celibrate the many good works and positive attributes of Ymblanter. (The Official Guy Macon Millisecond was last month...) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I found this edit by Iman.farzam while checking something else. Seems like a pure vandalism-only account; blocked as such, and all edits reverted. Graham87 15:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Victor Salvini

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

---

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

I think this user is here to Right Great Wrongs. Or actually Wrong Great Rights, by promoting far-right narratives. Edit #2 removes references to the far right from 2018 Chemnitz protests: [19]. Promotes the fascist = socialist far-right trope: [20], Antifa as an organization [21], unlink right-wing using "nowiki" in mainspace [22], change (sourced) "liberal" to "left-wing" on HuffPo article [23] etc.

I noticed this user because of edits to Paul Joseph Watson, climate change denial and especially climate change skepticism.

The user has received BLP and American Politics DS alerts. Guy (help!) 16:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

239 edits, most of are not really useful. I guess I would indefblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering about a talk-only restriction for a while until he's learned how Wikipedia works? Guy (help!) 16:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I guess we’re here now. The Chemnitz edit was because the article implied everyone who went to the protests was far right, which was wrong, I did not remove references to the far right entirely, but I made it so it wasn’t implied that everyone there was far right. I gave up with the fascism and socialism correlation here a while ago (which by the way, calling something meant to expose the far right a “far right trope” is kind of ridiculous). Regarding HuffPost, please read this: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/huffington-post/ . I personally take offense to being called far right, and do not see how these edits are worthy of punishment. —Victor Salvini (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Media Bias/Fact Check as anything other than amateur hour, please read this. Grandpallama (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Article has been taken note of for future occasions —Victor Salvini (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I encountered VS a few times, mostly when they tried to soften material about far-right political groups or introduce the socialism = fascism trope into articles. I think they're likely WP:NOTHERE especially considering how likely it is that their username is a portmanteau of Victor Orban and Matteo Salvini. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh hell. I hadn't noticed that. Sorry, but that convinces me that nothere is correct. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I just got done reading WP:NOTTHERE and failed to find myself in violation of any of its listed variations. I believe I fall under the part about “expressing unpopular opinions” in the segment of what is not NOTTHERE. If I have violated any of the listed variants of NOTTHERE that I do not recall please tell me. —Victor Salvini (talk)

It's not your opinions that make us think you are WP:NOTHERE it's that you appear to be here to WP:RGW by trying to adjust Wikipedia to suggest that fascism is a leftist phenomenon (it's not) and to provide ideological cover for far-right political figures such as the two whose names form your own user name. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Persistent unsourced edits from User:ImSonyR9

ImSonyR9 (talk · contribs) keeps adding unsourced information to Biman Bangladesh Airlines, in one case not supported by the companion source [24] and in other case re-adding an unsourced note [25] by claiming my edits were disruptive [26]. The user is well aware of the verifiability policy as they had several warnings regarding this. Maybe raising their behaviour and getting input from uninvolved editors here will settle the matter once and for all.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: Before making complain check all necessary correctness of your complain. As ([27]) this detail was never added by me. Even if I add any details, I always do so with proper sources. But it's you who doesn't know calculation. Earlier Biman had 23 destinations but recently Biman started operation to Medinah, which became it's 24th destination. But you always doing some nuisance to revert that. Even you have reverted an edit which I did with proper source. - SonyR.

Yes, you did it. You changed the number of destinations from 23 to 24 [28] in the infobox. And the additon of a source for the confirmation of the new destination does not support the total number of destinations. In other words, the "24" in the infobox is supported nowhere in the article, even after adding a reference. Either you do not understand WP:VERIFY or you don't want to.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jetstreamer: This seems nitpicking. It's sourced that they served 23 routes, the addition of a new route is a valid update to the article. The update should be articulated and sourced in the body and the infobox should be merely reflecting that, but you know what they're trying to do here and it's an easily fixed issue. I don't think this is particularly disruptive conduct in need of admin intervention. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

"Even if I add any details, I always do so with proper sources", claims ImSonyR9 from a few days ago, but this diff from today would show otherwise. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Chuckstreet

Involved users:

Chuckstreet (talk · contribs) AnUnnamedUser (talk · contribs) Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs)

Involved pages:

Nocturnes (Debussy) List of compositions by Franz Liszt List of compositions by Maurice Ravel List of compositions by Claude Debussy List of compositions by Johannes Brahms

So this started yesterday when I found that Chuckstreet had added bold to level 2 headers, indented paragraphs, and made 3 lines between paragraphs. I decided to revert it because it was an WP:MOS violation. He shortly reverted the edit here, saying that because the MoS did not explicitly forbid it, it was justifiable. I found the talk page and found that he was already in a dispute about style. The dispute could not be resolved on the talk page, so I took it to the dispute resolution board. The request for resolution was closed because there was no compromise: either follow the MoS or don't. I had attempted to resolve the conflict on the talk page, but he decided to revert my comments on the talk page because they were "irrelevant."

In the lists of compositions articles, I removed bold from the lead because it did not bold the entire title, which means that there was an MOS:BEATLES violation. He called me a vandal, reverting the edits. See 1, 2, 3, and 4. Also see Chuckstreet's talk page for his lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy (in particular civility, MoS, and what vandalism is and is not) and various personal attacks.

Gerda Arendt is another user who attempted to communicate with Chuckstreet.

I would like this dispute to be resolved. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@AnUnnamedUser: Make sure you notify people when you post about them to AN/I, I have notified the users involved. CodeLyoko^talk 00:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Ignore me, I'm a big dumb. CodeLyoko^talk 01:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@CodeLyoko: see Chuckstreet's talk page, I did notify but he deleted my notice. He still calls me a vandal. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 00:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, My bad! My eyes must be going as I didn't see it in the page history! CodeLyoko^talk 01:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Reading what the user put on his talk page, this seems to me like a WP:OWN type of deal, as the MOS is very clear on section titles. It seems that Chuckstreet thinks that he does not have to follow the MOS and that anyone who edits the pages otherwise are wrong or vandals/disruptive editors.In any case, the pages should be the way that AnUnnamedUser put it, the MOS is pretty clear. CodeLyoko^talk 01:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Chuckstreet has kept up the personal attacks, so I've blocked him 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I saw the ANI notice late at night, and planned to ignore it. I replied on my talk before I saw the block, in case of interest. My view: Chuckstreet is a rather new editor who did incredibly good things such Debussy's works (now - before), a uniform sfn referencing for Clara Schumann, and major expansion of the Nocturnes (now - before). Chuckstreet and I were in peaceful conversations about the formatting, when AUU came in, reverted, went first to dispute resolution and then here, both prematurely. Where did AGF go? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I am the DRN volunteer who closed the DRN request. It was filed by User:AnUnnamedUser and said that there was a formatting dispute. I asked what the dispute was, and was told that User:Chuckstreet wanted to bold the level 2 headings, to insert extra lines, and to indent paragraphs. They said that the basic issue was that User:Chuckstreet wanted to do formatting that was not described in the MOS, because it was not forbidden to do the extra formatting (e.g., bolding the level 2 headings). User:Theroadislong (not listed as a party above) disagreed with making exceptions to the MOS (that is, agreed with AAU and disagreed with Chuckstreet). I closed the DRN thread for two related reasons. First, my interpretation is that the MOS is meant to be the guide to formatting, not a starting point for formatting. Second, DRN is for content issues that can be resolved by compromise. This appeared to be a yes-no type of issue that cannot be resolved by compromise. (On content issues, if one user wants to insert a paragraph and one wants to exclude it, a compromise is to shorten the paragraph. A yes-no question is better decided by Third Opinion or Request for Comments.) I also said that one of the editors had been insulting other editors. I also cautioned User:Chuckstreet about referring to edits with which they disagreed (such as reverting their format changes) as vandalism, saying that if you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. I see no evidence that Genseric's followers have visited. Perhaps User:Gerda Arendt would have preferred that I be more diplomatic, or that I not mention in my close of the DRN thread that conduct disputes can go to WP:ANI. Perhaps Gerda can persuade Chuckstreet to accept consensus when he comes off block. That might be the best possible result. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I am ready to continue the discussion which was interrupted by noticeboard discussions and a block. Was a minor dispute about formatting headers the way that in former times was the normal way really worth it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Gerda Arendt - Thank you. Please be sure that he understands that he shouldn't refer to other editors as weirdos, or to editors with whom he disagrees in good faith as vandals. He should be unblocked by now. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior

After banning me from his talk page[29], Zefr is giving me the silent treatment everywhere since more than a month (articles talk pages[30], WT:MED, dispute resolution[31], the latter concluding that he "obviously does not intend to participate"[32]). This has reached a ridiculous point where he consistently replies only to other editors, always above my comments, as to clearly signal he ignores them[33]. This editor clearly holds a WP:GRUDGE towards me. Besides the silent treatment, here are other non-exhaustive examples of his behavior:

• Abusive warnings issuing, my talk page is littered with them, choosing more aggressive versions (eg, uw-disruptive3 than 2): [34]
• Assumes bad faith: an "intention to mislead the user"[35]
• Personal attacks and misuse of policies (WP:CIRNOT) (emphasis mine): "This is an example of your reckless, impulsive editing behavior and misunderstanding of what the sources say. In writng for Wikipedia scientific content, competence is required, WP:CIR, and you appear incompetent to assess scientific sources."[36] ; "You are obsessive in edit numbers and non-encyclopedic details."[37]
• Mischaracterizing me by repeatedly making false accusations of WP:OR and WP:DE to discredit me and bait me (WP:POVRAILROAD):
  • "Unfounded? Any Wikipedia editor can review your history of disruptive and misleading editing, clearly laid out above among several other editors, including your edit warring and WP:DE over the last two years"[38].
  • "editor is WP:MWOT and WP:DE"[39].
  • "the removed paragraph was based on Signimu's WP:SYNTH"[40].
• Accusation of POV-pushing: "All you are doing is trying to insert your opinion - multiple times, while not gaining any support for this conjecture on the talk page."[41].
• Wikihounding before being called off[42]. Also happened to another user[43].

It's not the only instance Zefr behaved like that, he shows a consistently uncivil and uncollaborative behavior towards editors he considers of inferior rank. He reverts new editors' major contributions by giving nonsense reasons such as "unencyclopedic" or "bad grammar"[44][45] when he could WP:PRESERVE and fix as WP:CIRNOT reminds, but he argues politely to editors with similar or more edits count than him when they call him out[46], often moving the goalposts then as to avoid justifying his initial excessive reasons. He did the same with me[47][48][49]. This looks a bit WP:TENDENTIOUS.

He disregards not only all my messages, but also other editors consensus[50], both local[51][52][53][54], and previous community consensus on similar issues[55][56][57].

Zefr will probably attack me with WP:MWOT[58]. Easy when he repeatedly use the R but doesn't participate in the D part of WP:BRD, forcing me to do all the discussion work. I tried to appease the situation so many times I can't count and won't link all diffs, his responses were either silence or more aggressivity, see this telling example: [59][60]. I have read WP:DE since Zefr often recommended it to me, and his actions check a lot of the marks. All these show Zefr displays uncivil behaviors incompatible with collaborative work that is disruptive, and since it's not the first time[61] and that he disregards community consensus that his interpretation of editing guidelines is excessive[62][63][64], is likely to continue to be. I open this request as I have repeatedly asked him to stop the whole month (last request: [65]), and he didn't. --Signimu (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• I chose one of the threads linked above, at Talk:Intermittent fasting. What I saw was highly respected editors with a long track record in dealing with MEDRS issues, such as Jytdog, broadly supporting the position that Zefr had taken. Now I am not an uncritical supporter of the way that WP:MEDRS is interpreted (I have disagreed with Jytdog in the past), but the more I see of the constant stream of attempts to add unreliable, fringe, POV-pushing material to Wikipedia, the more I sympathize with those editors who battle against it (and it is a battle – too wearing often for me). There comes a point in all long-running disputes when the best course of action is Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It seems to me a legitimate course of action on Zefr's part (although it could have been explained better). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That's unfair, Jytdog discussions was more than a year ago, he introduced me to WP:MEDRS. Since then, I got a Cure Award[66]. This request has nothing to do with content dispute or fringe. Content dispute is not an excuse for uncivil behavior and personal attacks, else WP:CIVILITY would never have any practical application. On Intermittent fasting, the issue is being settled by other editors anyway, this request has nothing to do with it, except as a blatant example of silent treatment, found also elsewhere since he's doing that everywhere to me. Finally, I reworked the whole entry, and provided both positive and negative material, so I wonder what POV do you think I have then (and added authoritative sources such as AHA, NHS, New Zealand's Ministry of Health - that's what I do in most of my contributions). Peter coxhead, you did here a bold attempt at defending someone you respect by attacking me personally further without any proof. Or you simply believed Zefr writing at face value, which further proves his attempts at discrediting me are harmful. As usual, a lack of diff is a red light for unsubstantiated personal attacks (else please show where I WP:FRINGEd ever). And please don't mention Jytdog, whom I highly respect and had pleasure to work with[67], he never behaved as unprofessionally as Zefr does with me. --Signimu (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Look, following this request, Zefr started Wikihounding me again and is trying to enforce WP:MEDRS on non medical content despite community consensus[68][69]. He never edited before me, I started there yesterday. Does that look ok to you? --Signimu (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: in what way did I attack you personally, as you wrote above? I followed up one of the difs you yourself gave, and stated my reaction to it. Then I used a somewhat light-hearted user essay to support the idea that sometimes it's better not to engage in long-running discussions that go round and round. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

By implying I add "unreliable, fringe, POV-pushing material to Wikipedia". That's maybe not what you intended to mean, I hold no hard feelings, but I needed to clarify. About WP:STICK I agree, but here that's not the point. Apart from systematically fleeing articles where Zefr comes by, I can't avoid how he behaves towards me (see Sirtuin for a recent example). And that would still not address the fact he constantly tries to discredit me. --Signimu (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy to clarify that I did not mean to imply that you added such material to Wikipedia, but rather to say that I do understand why editors that battle against such additions, as Zefr does valiantly, may prefer to disengage at times. (Which I will do now.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Side-note: I like the phys.org quote on your userpage, thanks for the discovery --Signimu (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeated inappropriate removal of RFD tags bordering on edit warring

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

---

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

Australian Football International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is repeatedly removing AFD tags on this page inappropriately, the AFD itself ([here]) was only opened today {1/11/2019). In [[70]] and the preceeding three edits, I restored the tags while they kept removing them. I stopped to avoid violating WP:3RR, but they didn't and I notified them as such on their talk page. I had also previously sent them notes about inappropriately removing the AFD tags as well as the WP:COI they appear to have in relation to this page. They did not respond and simply continued trying to remove the AFD tags. I finally brought it here because I did not see where else to go from there. I should also note that a bot has restored the AFD tags as I was writing this Hb1290 (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Has created a number of articles, each less notable than the last, but all designed to promote their organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.71.154 (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thisnuser was also engaged in a slow edit war at Major League Footy although to be fair Internationalfooty'ds edits consisted of removing content repeatedly inserted by an IP that was first unsourced, and then cied to an archived source that does not support the statements made. I have issued a "Final warning' about disruptive ediiting to Internationalfooty on User talk:Internationalfooty. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Editor ignoring verify policy

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

---

This editor continues to add unsourced info to award sections of articles detailing musical artists. I have asked them several times in edit summaries as well as on their talk page to please source their edits. Despite this they have yet to engage and continue to add unsourced info as can be seen most recently here, here, here, here & here for example (this is just today). Robvanvee 12:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The first example is easily verified by clicking through the Awards list, which is sourced. I haven't bothered with the rest, but if your first example isn't a problem, maybe re-think your complaint. WilyD 12:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying but I gave 6 examples and to be fair you only looked at one. If 3 of my 6 examples were not a problem, you would probably be correct in saying so. I'd be grateful if you would give me the benefit of the doubt by hearing me out and going through my examples (I removed the first and do not see the added info sourced in the others). If I'm wrong about this and I have missed the sources in the article, I'll happily accept my mistake and let it go. Robvanvee 13:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I've looked through 3 of the others, and I sure don't see any sourcing for them. Agree this is an issue, though someone who knows the topic better than me may want to take a look through and figure out exactly what's what here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Bot like edits from User:BigDwiki

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

---

User:BigDwiki has been making automated edits at a rate where it is impossible to check whether each edit is valid, for example there were about 90 edits made with the timestamp 22:04, 1 November 2019, a rate of well over one edit per second. These edits were made with Huggle, but in the last few days several editors have pointed out that the usage of another semi-automated tool, AWB, were problematic, but the response has been to say that it is bugs in the tools that caused the problems, rather than the editor's refusal to take responsibility for edits. I would suggest that all access to such powerful tools be revoked from this editor unless and until we get a convincing acknowledgement that all edits are the responsibilty of the editor making them. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The edits in question are merely welcoming new users who have made their first edit. Are you saying that placing the welcome template on user talk pages using Huggle is disruptive? Per WP:MEATBOT, "Note that merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.". You are saying that the quick edits are "impossible to check whether each edit is valid", how can adding a welcome template to a user take page who has made his first constructive edit be invalid? As for the AWB edits, I acknowledge that there are some issues which I have been participating with the editors that have raised concerns in attempting to resolve. There WAS a bug in AWB that incorrectly suggested tags for disambiguation pages which is still in discussion. I'm not sure what the motivation here is since I stopped using AWB and started using Huggle to merely welcome users, you seem to find fault in that as well? -BigDwiki ^talk 22:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is with your refusal to check your edits, or to take responsibility for them. Any bug in AWB is irrelevant, because you should not be accepting its results blindly, and the problem with your welcome messages has been pointed out by User:Meters. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: are you checking to ensure the first edit(s) was constructive prior to leaving the template? Welcoming vandals and thanking editors for nonconstructive edits isn't helpful to anyone. Even the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee highlights the basic need to check the new editor's contributions prior to welcoming them.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that is a requirement for adding a welcome template. I am only adding welcome templates to the talk pages of users that have no talk page created...so therefore they have not been previously warned for vandalism. If they are a vandal that has been previously warned, they won't get a welcome from me. Now, if another users finds the vandalism and reverts it and adds the vandalism template alongside my welcome template, I don't see the wrong in that. I'm not stopping other users from warning them of vandalism. -BigDwiki ^talk 18:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Quotes from Wikipedia:Welcoming committee:

1. "Always check their edits first"
2. "Don't overdo it - use the welcoming system with discretion. "

BigDwiki's rate of welcoming suggests that they haven't read, or are ignoring, this advice.

And from {{Welcome}} documentation:

"You must watch the user talk page you add this to!"

It is difficult to imagine that BigDwiki has checked that the edits of each of the IPs being welcomed so fast are actually constructive edits, and I wonder whether they are adding all those talk pages to their watchlist. PamD 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the goal is to boost his edit count? He's updated it twice in the last couple of days. In any case, I see that at least six different editors have cautioned him on use of the tool in the last week. We all make mistakes, but there seems to a be reluctance to take the suggestions seriously in this case. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, looks like it. Is this editor actually here to improve the encyclopedia? PamD 23:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that this user has a history of wikihounding me. -BigDwiki ^talk 18:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Such accusations will be taken seriously if they come with evidence, usually in the form of diffs. Please supply such evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example of an IP welcomed since this ANI discussion started: has recently made 3 edits, two crude vandalism and one reverting one of those. If welcomed at all, this IP should have had one of the "problem IP editor" welcomes. Rather than welcoming this IP, a better use of editor time would have been to check their edits and roll back the unreverted one (as I've just done). PamD 23:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

While I don't think this user is WP:NOTHERE, like what PamD is trying to imply, but I do feel like this user should have his AWB privileges revoked and be topic banned from welcoming IP's for a bit. CodeLyoko^talk 23:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Do note that there are established, respected users who advocate automatically welcoming every new user and IP who edits, so such actions are not without support. In any case I do not see them as disruptive, nor as justifying a topic ban. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

True, a topic ban is probably too soon, my bad. But I do still feel like this editor does need to watch his AWB usage and be reminded that any edits made by them through AWS is the users responsibility. CodeLyoko^talk 00:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I would support removal of AWB access. While going through CAT:STUBS, I had to revert a large number of edits made by them which all added {{orphan}} and {{stub}} tags to disambiguation pages (where they obviously aren't applicable). Looking at their talk page, the exact issue had been pointed to them by PamD multiple times -- and indeed on most pages, they were performing the same mistake a second time. Also there are a lot of one-line stubs to which {{underlinked}} has been inappropriately added (example). It seems clear from the talk page conversations that they are not willing to check all edits made via AWB. SD0001 (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note that this has been a long-term problem. See User talk:BigDwiki/Archives#AWB edits1 from (7 years, 8 months, 30 days ago and User talk:BigDwiki/Archives#AWB edits2 from 2 months, 18 days ago. I think AWB access should be removed and the person should be warned not to make any rapid edits. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, AWB access removal is a must here. I also agree they should be warned that if they continue to make rapid edits without checking their work and fixing any identified problems within a reasonably short time of being informed of them that they will be blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Thryduulf. And also on the point made above regarding WP:EDITCOUNTITIS: 18,138 to articlespace...16, 227 with AWB. While the user is NOTNOTHERE, they are too fast, too furious with the tool. Not sure a Tban is necessary: this discussion should suffice as an indication of community expectations, and I'm sure they won't just begin—for example—performing another mass-edit using another tool. ——SN54129 13:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• OK, NOTNOTHERE, I was exaggerating in suggesting otherwise above ... but it does look as if their priority has been quantity rather than quality of edits. PamD 14:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• No worries PamD! I think you sum up the issue succintly. ——SN54129 16:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Don't be so sure, Serial Number 54129. The editor has just gone off on another welcoming spree with Huggle, with another 90 edits having the timestamp 17:17, 2 November 2019. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Phil Bridger: many thanks for that. So, my immedate reaction began "what the actual", and we can leave that there; but when I said above that I'm sure they won't just begin—for example—performing another mass-edit using another tool, that's literally what they've gone and done?! Well. That's one way of changing minds. I'd support a topic ban, from semi-automated tools (or those that can message, perhaps), now; they've not only ignored this discussion for the last 24 hours, but just blindly carried on with the same behaviour as landed them here in the first place. Indeed, PamD is beginning to appear the most prescient of all of us in this discussion... ——SN54129 17:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. There is absolutely zero consensus that using Huggle to welcome users is even remotely against any policy. The welcoming committee page has its place, but I didn't say I was part of that committee and I don't know of many other users that would watch user talk pages after welcoming users. In fact, some of the welcome templates show users how to leave messages on the talk pages of the welcomer. It seems that some users here have an ax to grind over my (since stopped) AWB edits and are trying to leverage that over Huggle usage now. What's next...a proposed topic ban over the use of Twinkle to add the templates?. Phil Bridger, you need to be very sure that you are well-grounded in policy before attempting to stir up users here, as your statement "The editor has just gone off on another welcoming spree with Huggle" not only has zero policy violations cited, it's actually an approved use of the tool. Your even mentioning that here signals bad faith assumtions. I don't have the time to go digging through thousands of pages of user's edits to find needles in the haystack of questionable edits to copy and paste here, unlike some users. I'd rather use my time to build an encyclopedia than find fault in other users' actions and go running to ANI. -BigDwiki ^talk 18:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

If your idea of "building an encyclopedia" is to welcome IPs who are vandailising, then we could probably do with a little less of that particular brand of assistance. And, as for bad faith assumtions, that very nicely summarises your (diffless) assertion that U:Ohnoitsjamie has a history of wikihounding me. ——SN54129 18:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Here we go again. You are purposefully stating thing that I never said. I NEVER said that it was my intent to welcome vandals. Why are you attempting to tell other users that it is? -BigDwiki ^talk 18:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Here we do not go again. I am stating, baldly, that your carelessness with automated tools has already been established to be sloppy, and this discussion is to ascertain whether it is becoming disruptive. And a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to the issue is probably your worse enemy right now. But feel free to continue. ——SN54129 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, BigDwiki, what I'm gathering the issue is with what you're doing is that -whether you mean to or not- you're welcoming vandals and disruptive editors to Wikipedia, which, using common sense, is a bad thing. While I would argue that a topic ban might be a little overboard, you have to at least realise that continuing an action which is currently under debate at ANI simply can't end well? -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 18:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that this discussion isn't rooted in any policy. I've cited policy that my actions are specifically exempt from a violation. Some users may not like them, but perhaps they should propose a policy change then? While it's possible that some of the users that I welcome may have committed vandalism, if I welcomed a user, they would have had a blank talk page which means that none of the other users had caught the vandalism. How am I expected to fight vandalism concurrently with welcoming new users when other users aren't fighting the vandalism to start with? -BigDwiki ^talk 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant; you are the one that is supposed to be checking if they have/haven't vandalised - perhaps you could even revert it and be a bigger help in that case! Besides, if you're making nearly 100 edits in a single minute, don't you believe that some of those pages were not caught yet because the vandals had made the disruptive edits seconds prior? -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 18:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) The issue is that you are performing these edits blindly without checking whether they are appropriate in each case. Right at the top of WP:Huggle it says, "Warning: You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Huggle. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or even being blocked from editing." It's impossible to check such things at the rate of 90 per minute. And can you point to any instance where you have actually helped build this encyclopedia rather than throw templates around? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In your own statement, you quote "You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies", so you are implying that a policy was violated. What policy was violated then? It's my position that no policy was violated and that all edits were squarely within policy. -BigDwiki ^talk 18:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Some things are such obvious common sense, such as that we should not welcome vandals, that they don't need to be written down anywhere. You have not taken the care to ensure that you are not welcoming vandals. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a particularly big deal, but I'll just note that I recently went to an IP's talk page to give them a vandalism warning for their first and only edit, and thought it was a bit odd that they already had a 'Welcome' template from BigDwiki - you got there before me obviously, but you hadn't checked the edit, which was adding a link to a random facebook page to an article. I think perhaps if you just agreed that it would be better if you checked the edits before putting the welcome template, we could all move on? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed!Let's do that! -Yeetcetera _{@me bro} 18:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I can get behind that: a categorical assurance from BigDwiki that they will check the validity of every IP contribution before placing a welcome message would go far in assuaging the concerns raised here. Of course, if they fail to adhere to their commitment, and its noticed, then I suppose we are back here sometime in the future with a broken promise as Exhibit A. ——SN54129 18:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• BigDwiki's responses here are alarmingly disingenuous and combative. The issue is very obviously not that he is using Huggle to welcome users, the issue is that he's editing in a bot-like manner without screening his edits, and encouraging users without determining whether those users should be encouraged. He's made it an impossible task to reasonably audit his edits, but the first random example I clicked on was this, where he welcomed a linkspammer who is promoting a blog, and that was after this thread was opened. Rapid editing is not inherently a violation of WP:MEATBOT, sure, but that's not the point of MEATBOT. It does most certainly become a violation when you're not able and willing to make your rapid edits responsibly, and, from what I'm seeing, he's not, nor could he possibly claim to be doing so. He's not "paying attention to the edits you make", as is specified by the bot policy. @BigDwiki: Due to the fact that you are using extended privileges to violate BOTPOL, and do not appear to be open to the resolution of complaints regarding either Huggle or AWB, I have revoked your AWB and Rollback permissions. Note that if I observe any continued bot-like editing, you will be blocked indefinitely. Contrary to what you say, I don't think you're "using your time to build an encyclopedia", and very much question whether you're here to do so. If you honestly think this is productively contributing to an academic project, then this is a competence issue. This is not necessarily the only resolution that I think is needed, and I would endorse a TBAN from automated or semi-automated editing as well. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel like. I'm out of here. Enough is enough. -BigDwiki ^talk 19:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that continuing this under a new account will be treated as sockpuppetry under WP:SCRUTINY. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that shut the fuck up. -BigDwiki ^talk 19:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Vandalism from Alaska IPs and registered user

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

---

I'm seeing the same style of vandalism from Blockaveli and the IPs listed below from Fairbanks, Alaska. A typical bit of vandalism is the insertion of variations on the name Savian Quint.[71][72][73][74] Can we get a block on this disruption? Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• 69.161.7.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 63.140.76.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 66.230.100.188 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Blocks issued. Thanks for your report. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Possible Harassment and Very Uncivil

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

---

I have gotten the same message on my talk page twice. "Congratulations, Fishhead2100, you have won the asshole of the year award! You have won this award by being rude to other users! In order to claim your award you must call 1-800-Asshole (1-800-277-4653)! Once again, congratulations for your win!" That's what was posted. They called me rude, but it is hypocritical since that's very rude in itself. It came from two IP addresses in Atlantic Canada. I have removed it both times.

• 2605:b100:b1c:92e6:0:16:e38:5701 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Says it is from Halifax, Nova Scotia which is the first time it was posted.
• 2605:b100:b1c:92e6:0:16:e38:5701 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Says it is from Moncton, New Brunswick which is the second time it was posted.

Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• I was parking today and this other guy, who I think had his eye on the same space, gave a rude gesture. I did not make a police report. I ignored him. EEng 09:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, fine advice, but the same person is going on vandalism sprees. I did a short range block on 2605:b100:b00::/40, which is where the disruption is coming from. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  Goddamn it that was MY parking spot, EEng. I had my blinker on and everything. Parking space thief! – Levivich 16:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Hundreds of edits by blocked user from Sweden: Danieleb82

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

---

Danieleb82 was indeffed in May 2018 for disruption in music articles – see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Danieleb82/Archive. By now, after creating so many socks and using IPs for block evasion, Danieleb82 is effectively site-banned.

In the past few months, I've seen Danieleb82 make hundreds of edits using IPs from Sweden. Examples of disruption include genre warring[75][76][77] and edit-warring a redirect into a non-notable song article.[78][79][80][81][82]

The involved IPs come from multiple domains. I'm writing here to see if anyone has an idea that would diminish the disruption from this person. Involved IPs listed below. Several rangeblocks? Binksternet (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• 77.218.242.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.244.141 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.244.180 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.244.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.246.149 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.247.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.249.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.249.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.250.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.251.153 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.252.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.252.170 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.252.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.253.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.253.74 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.253.140 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.254.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.254.69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.254.79 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.254.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 77.218.255.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 80.217.203.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.32.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.36.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.37.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.38.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.39.70 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.41.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.43.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.45.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.46.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.46.250 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 83.185.47.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.195.217.119 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 151.177.184.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A00:801:301:D438:4CAF:4A54:B7C3:3C6B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

CubaHavana2018

• CubaHavana2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alfred-Maurice de Zayas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Despite being warned against addition of unsourced content, disruptive editing and possible conflicts of interest, CubaHavana2018 has continued editing without responding to this issues in the article of Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, an article which has been tagged for relying too much on primary sources and for having a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject (October 2016). CubaHavana2018 has edited only in de Zayas' article article for almost nine months; this, along with its username, suggests a single purpose account. CubaHavana2018 has only engaged in talk pages twice ([83][84]), both times solely disputing the reliability of UN Watch. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Being an WP:SPA is not against policy, though it may cause a higher level of scrutiny. De Zayas does appear to have scholarly credentials. A neutral article on this man ought to be possible. I suggest that User:Jamez42 might open a discussion on the article talk page and list some of the items that are in disagreement. If you believe there is unsourced information present, try to give the details. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 190.22.0.0/16

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

---

• Special:Contributions/190.22.0.0/16

This IP range has been disruptive one various cartoon and children's shows for over a month. User_talk:190.22.101.16 and User_talk:190.22.1.133 have multiple warnings. The earliest edit I can quickly identify is from 4 July 2019 in which the IP added a category they often add on other pages.

Collateral damage looks to be low. This entire range appears to be used by 1 person since October 5 (exception is Special:Contributions/190.22.55.250). In the past there were more non-cartoon edits.

Requesting a short block (3 days? 1 week?) on the range. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Range blocked for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock needed, or protection for Sporty Spice

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

---

Somebody using the range Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B114:62D8:0:0:0:0/64 has been trying to erase the daughter from the biography of Melanie C. The birth of the girl is cited to the BBC, and was widely reported elsewhere. Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

/64 range blocked for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• 2600:1007:b10b:888:6c84:c452:29bc:d04d (talk) is now making the same edits. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:GaritoSo

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

---

GaritoSo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disrupting the Miss USA 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article for a bit of time now. Their edits consist of repeatedly doing the same action which they have been warned about (they continued to do this after the final warning) and goes against policy. Their edits violate WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, by adding information to the "Contestants" section before it actually happens. Just a few of the examples are this, this, and this. They seem to have no interest in discussing their edits, and have ignored all warnings given. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Aman.kumar.goel

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

---

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Draft:Muhammad and the Hindu scriptures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Aman.kumar.goel has given me this message about my pastly deleted article topic User:Lazy-restless/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) and my recent draft Draft:Muhammad and the Hindu scriptures,

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Apparently you are trying hard for last 6 years to promote a blatant hoax on Wikipedia that Muhammad was well predicted in Hindu scriptures and should be already accepted as the prophet.

Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and you are frequently finding ways to promote these same recently created debunked theories. I would recommend you to find another subject to edit.

I think it sounds like a threat to me, So I am informing it to ANI.--- Lazy-restless 00:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lazy-restless: Posting an {{Ds/alert}} template on your page is not a threat, as it states in the template itself. What, exactly, are you asking for here at ANI? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Note, Aman was not notified of this discussion. I have done so here. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there any allowance in wikipedia about warning any editor not to edit on any topic?. Lazy-restless 01:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lazy-restless:, there are so-called Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions. These are imposed by the ArbCom (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee) and allow administrators to take initiative in topics with historically out-of-hand conflicts. Users may politely warn others of the sanctions and notify them if they do not appear to be aware of them. Failure to comply with them, even after being told, can result in being blocked from editing. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The apparent "threat" is Apparently you are trying hard for last 6 years to promote a blatant hoax on Wikipedia that Muhammad was well predicted in Hindu scriptures and should be already accepted as the prophet. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and you are frequently finding ways to promote these same recently created debunked theories. I would recommend you to find another subject to edit. "Blatant hoax, debunked theories" = spreading false information, the tone sounds like the editor is accusing Lazy-restless of doing this intentionally, no WP:AGF. Plus "find another subject to edit" is basically saying "go away, you're not welcome here, go find something else to do". Probably just a civility violation from Aman, though it's not big. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it was appropriate for Aman.kumar.goel to combine these two messages, since it's kind of hard to take the "standard message, not saying there's anything wrong with your contributions" line seriously when it's bundled with the "stop promoting a hoax" message. Also not exactly civil/assuming good faith. As for whether Lazy-restless's contributions are, in fact, hoax/debunked/etc., I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the topic area (though looking at their draft, I'm seeing what looks like a whole lot of synthesis) creffett (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree. The DS notification is intentionally not supposed to be a threat. Yes many take it that way, but it this is how it is. An editor therefore should not be combining a DS notification with a threat like that. That said, I don't think there's anything we can do here other than ask Aman.kumar.goel not to do it again. Lazy-restless, you received a DS notification and are now aware of the regime so are liable for sanction under it, as anyone else who is aware of the DS regime for that area. If none of your editing is the kind of thing which would justify sanction then you have nothing to worry. Whether or not this is the case is beside the point of the notification. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User:FlightTime is constantly reverting edits of other users...

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

---

...despite having been previously blocked for edit warring and the other users explaining their edits.

He tried to appeal his block but was denied: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/922578891

And got into an revert war on November 1 with an anonymous user over an edit on Rage Against The Machine he claimed was unsourced, just check the band's page history.

I didn't want to take this to Edit Warring board as it's past a day now. Kay girl 97 (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)  Comment: And so FlightTime need be punished for a non-3RR edit war over a day ago? We use preventative sanctions, not punitive ones. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 05:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

User WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Micronation spammer(s?) are back on the Croatia–Serbia border dispute article, the vandalism this round started off with an edit by newly registered user FactFixer1000 Special:Contributions/FactFixer1000 who has vandalised two geography articles as well as the mentioned article, not that many edits yet but clearly WP:NOTHERE and should be indeffed. If you have any other questions of me please ping (also, should I just have gone to AIV?). SportingFlyer T·C 03:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

FactFixer1000 looks like a sock of SwedenAviator to me. If anyone else obsessed with obscure micronations shows up, I'd suggest reporting them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwedenAviator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks to everyone who helped. SportingFlyer T·C 06:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

IP adding unsourced information, then claiming to be retired admin

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

---

Need some help on how to proceed with this. 173.3.61.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added unsourced information to John Matuszak[85]. When I reverted and asked them to provide a source, they initially told me via edit summary to provide one myself and/or tag the information[86], then when I later noted that they were edit-warring they threatened to report me for edit-warring if I reverted them again[87]. I messaged Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League asking for additional eyes on the situation from editors there, but since then this IP has claimed to be a retired admin[88]. I of course can neither confirm nor deny that they're speaking truthfully. If they are, then I find it dubious that they're editing while logged-out now (I'm not sure what policy has to say about that), and if they're not, then they're obviously lying about their status, and either way, it feels like they're a lot more interested in intimidating myself and perhaps other editors to get their own way then they are in editing in good-faith. I'd appreciate any feedback as to how I should be handling the situation at this point. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

173.3.61.190 had posted sources on their talk page, so I consider this a content dispute at this point if those sources are not considered sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't find their claiming to be a retired admin to be a concern? DonIago (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe they are, or maybe they aren't. That has nothing to do with the dispute. Do the sources they provided check out? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't come here because of the sourcing issue, I came here because I wasn't sure that it was kosher for an IP to be claiming to be a retired admin in an apparent effort to intimidate other editors. With regards to the content situation, as the IP has provided sources, I'm happy to look into them (soon) and do their work for them in the interests of improving the project, if the sources do check out. DonIago (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't know about their claim, though it is clear that they are not new. That said, if they are indeed a retired admin, their snarky demeanor does not speak well of them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Snarky response, sure. However, there's also WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead of reverting, but that requires some knowledge of basic football sources.—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes to snarky. Since I do 97% of my editing on a smartphone, I am always skeptical when somebody says they cannot do things right on a smartphone. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I find references to be a pain on the phone, and would just leave the URL in the edit summary.—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Unlike Cullen328, I do find it a major pain to use a smartphone especially referencing. But if you can provide a ref in an edit summary, I can't see any good reason why you can't just paste the URL onto the page. Yes you do have to locate the text but that's often only a small amount of effort especially when editing a short section, and most mobile browsers have a find function to help. It doesn't have to be formatted, it doesn't even need a [ ], but at least a bare ref someone can hopefully later fix. With a URL in an edit summary, there's a very good chance when someone notices the info is unsourced they're just going to either delete it, tag it or find a reference themselves without noticing someone provided a URL in an edit summary since how many people bother to do that?

If you're involved in an active edit war, things are a little different, still while I assume you spent some time finding the ref, pasting a URL in an edit summary suggests that you're mostly expecting someone else to do even the most basic work. Not to mention that again, it's possible that the other person in the edit war may not do anything add the ref either so again your URL in edit summary is liable to go to waste. (And of course if you're reverting a long time later, it might be quite reasonable that the person doesn't want fix it, not to mention they could also find it difficult to add references from a mobile device.)

Anyway, anyone providing refs also needs to actually make sure the ref supports all challenged content which the IP doesn't seem to have done.

I think we can be glad that the person is a "retired" admin, by which I hope they mean they're never going to be an admin ever again. Snarkiness aside and the earlier mentioned issues aside, it's concerning when an experienced editor thinks that This is REALLY basic stuff. None of it is in doubt. It doesn't need citations"

Putting aside disputes over Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue; whether, when and how some American footballer came to sign with the Raiders, whether they helped the Raiders to win 2 Super Bowls and which 2 Super Bowls, whether they spent the entirety of the 1982 season on injured reserve, are clearly things that I suspect even most American football fans will have no definite idea about. This is far from basic info that it can be remotely claimed doesn't require citations. (Which doesn't of course mean it needs to be removed just because there are no inline citations. But if it is removed, the way to challenge that would be to provide citations rather than act as if being a retired admin means you don't have to follow our normal sourcing requirements.)

Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Being a retired admin doesn't mean I don't have to follow sourcing "requirements"; being a WIKIPEDIAN means I don't have to follow any requirements at all. It's not a BLP, and it's not vandalism. (In fact, it's not even my content. I was reading the article and thought it odd that his career info ended abruptly at 1975. Looking at the history it looked like the relevant content was accidentally removed last year while someone was reverting vandalism. So I put it back so the article would make sense again.) Doniago was in the midst of reverting other users elsewhere and got me confused with someone he could intimidate through edit warring and warning templates. Tough shit. I'm allowed to edit anonymously, as long as I'm not a sockpuppet or something. Yes, I used to be an active admin here - I don't have to prove it. I am not required to reveal personal information by connecting my public IP address with that username. And yes, I'm a dick. I'm retired, so I can do that. But I have no reason to lie. I only mentioned it after the fact, as friendly advice. Doniago, if you think your many mistakes here - both your behavior and your lack of policy understanding - won't follow you to a future RfA, you've got another think coming. It could have stayed on my talk page, but you wanted so badly to get your way that you posted here as well. So enjoy. 173.3.61.190 (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• There are two possibilities. The first is that the IP is not a "retired admin". If so, they are making a false claim. The second is they are a retired admin, in which case their conduct is unacceptable. I've blocked the IP for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts and assistance with this matter. I greatly appreciate it. I think this can be closed? DonIago (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Harassment, bullying, persistent vandalism by Editor SergeWoodzing.

• SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toglenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Disc jockey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Urgent request to intervene and resolve the behavior of User:SergeWoodzing. He I posted an excellent photo of a DJ on the Disc jocky page which he keeps reverting for no valid reason. Talking about it on the Talk Page, has been useless. His arguments are ridiculous. His obvious reason is he wants me off of the page so he can post his own extremely poor photos and is constantly harassing, bullying, and reverting my photo to suit his own agenda which is to be in control of the page so he can post his own very poor and blurry photos. Please Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 09:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Toglenn, see WP:BOOMERANG. I would self-revert this one immediately, apologise to all editors you have insulted and go back to the article talk page, before any more people have a chance to see this. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I am asking administrators to look at this where there is disregard of several fundamental Wikipedia guidelines. The photo, and promotional sources, keep getting added without discussion being given a chance. If a reliable source could be added to the image caption, that might solve part of the problem, but not the user's tactics. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The OP is a professional glamour photographer, who in this discussion on the talk page for our article on Blond hair, declared that he often replaces images in articles with his own work, without even evaluating the quality of the image he is replacing. I have attempted to explain to him before that this could be interpreted as a form of self-promotion. The OP has a long contribution history, and obviously some of the images they have donated are valuable, but this habit of inserting their own glamour shots into articles, and reinstating them after others object without gaining a consensus, is problematic. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It actually feels to me more that the OP is trying to push their photo that they took rather than there being a need to replace the photo. I know AGF, but it's getting hard especially when they make deliberately misleading edits like this one. Canterbury Tail talk 12:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This is another recent example of the OP reinstating one of their images into an article after another editor objected to it, without engaging on the talk page. What would others say to a TBan from, at the very least, reinstating their own work into an article after another editor objects to it, without first gaining a talk page consensus? GirthSummit _(blether) 12:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would support a TBan from adding images directly to an article – they can upload them to Commons and then post to the article talk page proposing that uninvolved editors have a look and decide whether it is useful. Failing that, I support Girth Summit's suggestion for a more limited TBan. --bonadea contributions talk 12:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• All things being equal, in this particular case, ironically Toglem's image is better (a full-frontal, brightly lit portrait rather than a three-quarter, slightly blurry image of the top of a head); I say nothing as to the seemliness of editors fighting to restore a picture of a male in a male dominated profession on a page with nine images and only one of them a woman. Incidentally, those who know me will vouch for my views on COI/PAID editing. Goodday to ye. ——SN54129 12:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Quite, it is better than what was there. I can see the argument that one still must gain consensus for one's changes, but on the other hand, the "it's promotional" and dismissing the work as "glamour shots" rings a little hollow. How would this be different from Gage Skidmore, whose quality work both increased his personal profile as a photographer, and improves the many, many articles where his work is used? Zaathras (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe some of his pictures are better than what is currently in some articles – maybe not. That is really not the point, though. The point is that nobody gets to be sole arbiter of what is a good photo, and going through articles and removing existing images in order to add his own without even looking at the existing pictures is unacceptable. If Toglenn uploads photos to Commons and then suggests on talk pages that they be added, that will presumably benefit the encyclopedia in many cases, and it will remove the glamour shot issue; that is, if there should be a consensus to include sexist images that are mere eye candy then that would be the consensus, but it's not going to be the call of one individual with a COI. --bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I second that I also think Toglenn's pictures are of better photographic quality, so he's not making up the argument. Nothing says in the policies that Wikipedia should use high quality pictures, but arguably low quality picture may not be good for an encyclopedia that wants to look professional. About asking on talk pages first, that seems contrary to WP:BOLD. IMO nothing wrong in adding his pictures to raise the quality, but if this gets disputed, he shouldn't revert back (but reverts shouldn't be on the sole reason that he changed a picture either, eg, the DJ picture was reverted back[89] because Toglenn wrote in the edit summary that he deleted the picture, instead of replacing it, was such a revert really necessary?). --Signimu (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That COI editors should post edit requests on article talk pages rather than esit articles directly is normal procedure, outlined in the COI guideline. To my mind, tha is more relevant than WP:BOLD here. It is also common practice to limit the editing rights of editors who have been disruptive, even if they do edit in good faith. If some of his images are so superior, neutral editors will not hesitate to add them to the articles in question – so why should this be an issue? --bonadea contributions talk 15:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Talk:Disc jockey, Toglenn seems to ignore WP:CONSENSUS in favor of edit warring in order to place his own image in the article. That he insists it be the lead image and include a url to his client’s booking agency makes me suspect a WP:COI. (PS: I have no issue with the photo in question being added to the “Gallery” section of the article, sans the url to her agency site). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The editor is also spamming his photos on AVN Award for Male Performer of the Year (which definitely isn't to do with promoting women in a male-dominated business as some above are strangely arguing). As the editor appears to be here to promote his photos, I think at least a topic ban from adding photos is appropriate.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem isn't that this user contributes photos to Wikipedia or adds them to articles, so if there's going to be a sanction here it shouldn't be on simply adding images. Requiring an evaluation of the existing images is essential, though. Another one I saw that I would consider problematic is at celebrity, replacing an image of Andy Warhol, who was both a celebrity and helped to define elements of what a celebrity is (and is covered in the article), with a photo of a few current movie stars (who are not covered in the article). I would think a careful consideration of the content would lead Glenn to think twice before replacing, and maybe adding his image further down if anywhere (or else to use the talk page first). Or maybe it's as simple as saying he must find consensus to add an image if it's been removed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the quality of the images isn't the problem. The bull-in-a-china-shop aggressive behavior is. I agree with others suggestion that a TBan from adding images directly to an article would be useful. Toglenn could then get acquainted with the practice of working with other editors by posting suggestions to Talk pages proposing images he has uploaded to Commons. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Using the talk page to request edits isn't particularly effective most of the time, and I think a tban on any adding of his own images would be a net negative for the project. After all, he adds an awful lot of images to articles without incident, and especially, adding an image where there was none seems entirely controversial the vast majority of the time. What about a requirement that (a) any replacement of an image must be accompanied by an edit summary explaining why it's an improvement (to ensure it's thought through), and (b) once his image is removed, it shouldn't be restored without finding consensus on the talk page first. Then, if problems continue, we can revisit. I see no reason to jump to a tban on adding images before trying something else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I agree with your assessment, and what you've outlined is pretty similar to what I suggested above (a tban from reinstating his own images if they have been removed by another editor acting in good faith). I'll draft a formal proposal below. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I admire your optimism here. The deceptiveness here where they never stated that the image they wanted to use was theirs, the false edit summaries [90], [91], [92] saying add when it's really replace, and everything above. Much COI in their edits. And nothing from them saying they understand the issues being raised about their editing and focus on promoting their images (and by extension, promoting their business). Ravensfire (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

More self-promotion. It seems there's a bigger problem of self-promotion here than just using the English Wikipedia for it. Glenn Francis/User:Toglenn has added the same "disk jockey" photo to a remarkable number of "Disk jockey" articles on different Wikipedias and other Wikimedia projects, according to the list on the image page — fifty projects, I make it. (And is it likely that this is the only one of his own photos that he has used in this way, and included a link to his highly promotional Facebook page www.PacificProDigital.com with? No, I don't have enough AGF for that.) Not sure what we can do about this, if anything, but no Wikimedia projects are for promotion. Would a Commons admin like to take a look? Bishonen | talk 19:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC).

Interesting. I don't know if I've seen that come up before. I mean, sure, I've seen people add an image to a handful of other wikis, but sheesh. I don't know if we have a good mechanism for this. I mean, Commons doesn't have any more control over what happens on, say, eswiki, than eswiki has here. It would certainly be a hassle to go around and leave messages for each language. If it were some obscure topic and this were the first image on commons of that topic, I would be a little more sympathetic, but that DJ image... it's not like we're lacking images of DJs. What I do know is that there's considerably leeway on Commons for photographers to include, on the file description page, a link to a photography website, commercial or not. After all, we want professional photographers to donate images to Commons and it's not like they're adding the link directly to Wikipedia pages. There's also leeway to use the photographer's name in the filename, and to specify particular attribution language. I don't think there's any appetite to change any of that (and I wouldn't support it myself -- it's generally pretty harmless as long as it stays on that file page), but this is something else. I'll post about this on the commons VP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've posted about this on the Commons Village Pump as well as the stewards' noticeboard on Meta. It seems useful to get their perspective, being the ones who most often deal with cross-project matters. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Blond#Main Photo Change Proposal is long, but illustrates the apparent mindset of the user. Even if I thought his pictures were in general useful (and I admit that I don't, personally – glamour photos have a very limited use since they don't illustrate what normal people actually look like and in many cases they cater blatantly to the male gaze, in a way that makes me rather uncomfortable) the way it appears that he works as quickly as he can to get as many of his pictures as possible into Wikimedia projects, without any thought about whether each individual image is actually suitable or any attempt to write relevant captions, is not really what encyclopedia work is about, to my mind. There is another issue there regarding non-English Wikipedia versions – what kind of global diversity can be expected from one individual photographer who claims to be working in one small part of one specific country? In what way does it aid other language projects to be bombarded with pictures filtered through a Californian lens? Again, I'm not in any way trying to stop the user from uploading photos or suggesting that they be added to articles. I just want there to be actual consensus among non-COI editors that each image adds something to the article in question. --bonadea contributions talk 20:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Toglenn - If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. User:SergeWoodzing is an established editor with a clean block log. User:SergeWoodzing is not a vandal and does not engage in vandalism. Genseric was a vandal. I strongly suspect that you do not have a plausible content issue, because you have resorted to a personal attack. Calling edits vandalism when there is a content dispute is a personal attack, and tends to indicate that you don't have a case. I recommend a short block to make the point that yelling vandalism is not a good way to "win" a content dispute, let alone a spam dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Wrt "self promotion", Bishonen queries that the the image page "included a link to his highly promotional Facebook page www.PacificProDigital.com with? No, I don't have enough AGF for that." They ask " Not sure what we can do about this, if anything, but no Wikimedia projects are for promotion. Would a Commons admin like to take a look?" Perhaps you want to ask admin "Poco a poco" aka Diego Delso (creator of 614 featured pictures), every one of who's images (e.g. this one) contain "DD" in the filename and a prominent link to their own "delso.photo" website as an attribution requirement. Or perhaps ask "Diliff" aka David Illif (creator of 306 featured pictures), every one of who's images (e.g. this one) contains Diliff in the filename and a request that "Attribution of this image to the author (DAVID ILIFF) is also required". Or perhaps ask "Charlesjsharp" (creator of 188 featured pictures), every one of who's images (e.g. this one) contains a link to www.sharpphotography.co.uk. I could go on and on. These are all longstanding Wikipedians, Commoners and photographers who are fully engaged with local Wikimedia chapters and on making Wikipedia better. Their excellent photographs help make Wikipedia not suck. They get to promote themselves more than you do with your writing. Enough with the outrage and frank jealousy. -- Colin°^Talk 15:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• (Notified of this discussion via c:COM:VP.) In the instant case, SergeWoodzing is simply wrong about image use policies, regardless of whether the suggested image is basically objectively better in nearly every way, which it is. That they are obstinately and condescendingly wrong doesn't help anything. I've only engaged in the talk page for a few hours, and I'm already frustrated by whatever the non-POV-but-rather-simply-wrong version of WP:SEALIONING is that's going on there. That no one in this discussion has addressed the extent to which the other user is obstinately and condescendingly wrong is concerning in regard to what extent this is just a pile on without those opining taking the time to investigate the current situation.
  Besides that, you cannot fault someone for specifying the terms of attribution for an image, when the entire regime we have set up (including the license under which Wikipedia itself is published under) encourages content creators to specify the mode of attribution. Feel free to propose that Commons only allow public domain or CC0 images, but it ain't gonna happen.
  We ought give OP a warning and a link to VAN, but we ought not encourage people to use crappy blurry flip-phone images in our articles on the basis that they don't understand our policy and practices regarding image use. GMG^talk 23:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal - TBan

Toglenn is prohibited from reinstating any image that he has created himself if it has been removed by any editor acting in good faith. Furthermore, he is reminded that he is expected to evaluate existing imagery prior to replacing it, and any edit he makes that replaces an existing image is required to have an edit summary that briefly explains why his image is an improvement.

• Support as proposer. I don't want to prevent Toglenn from providing images of subjects where we have none, or from contributing his work and expertise to improve articles which may have poor-quality imagery. I do however think that replacing imagery without evaluating it is disruptive and needs to stop, and he needs to recognise that if others disagree about his work being an improvement, then he is expected to discuss it with them. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support the narrow TBAN on Toglenn reinstating his own images if they've been removed by another editor in good faith. While I don't buy the "I receive no benefit" argument; (millions of people use Wikipedia, and some of them are going to more closely examine the photo credits), Toglenn has contributed a number of high quality photos that certainly benefit the project. The narrow TBAN as proposed by Girth Summit should address the issue of Toglenn edit-warring over their inclusion.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Asssuming the admin applying the restriction explains the problematic behavior to the user and recommends steps to correct it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I did a super quick glance through the images uploaded on Commons, and I question if this is strong enough. He seems to be replacing decent images with his fairly often. I'd like to see him also prohibited from replacing existing images with his own. Ravensfire (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Ravensfire, I'm hoping that the requirement that he evaluate the images prior to replacing them, and provide an explanatory edit summary, would have some effect in this direction. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Irresponsible handling of photos. Accuses others of vandalism often when he disagrees, even going so far as to add the pp-vandalism tag to a non-protected page (pretending to be an admin) in an edit war. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 17:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello AnUnnamedUser I don't know what a pp-vandalism tag is. I have never pretended to be anyone other than myself.Glenn Francis (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support as a good solution to the problem. Toglenn, please avoid any behavior that can be construed as overly self-promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, reluctantly, as I would very much have preferred a TBan on adding images to articles. But this is the next best thing. --bonadea contributions talk 18:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Below, the user mentions the people who would benefit from having good photos of them instead of them on Wikipedia instead of bad ones which is rather telling. Wikipedia articles are not for the benefit of the subject, and once again this user believes his opinion of what is a good photo is automatically more valid than other editors' (also seen in some of his other posts below). The rants below make me lean towards preferring an indef.--bonadea contributions talk 06:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- Personally, I feel the user shouldn't be allowed to replace existing images at all, but rather propose it on the talk page. I get the helping encyclopedia while also helping themself bit, but they've been disruptive doing it. At the very least, they ought to be required to disclose their COI when replacing, if not also while adding where there is none. And what happens if they resort to adding without removing to get around it; we do have pages saturated with images and galleries simply because editors seem to add everything they like that is remotely related even absent any self-promotional motives. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I've done a spot check of about a dozen images added to a page. In more than half of the cases, it's an unambiguous improvement (either replacing a low quality image of adding an image where there was none). In most of the others it was debatable (for example, an older photo of a singer singing with a current photo of a singer posing). I have no problem with someone evaluating the two photos and deciding that the latter is better. In one of the cases among those I spot-checked, there was again an incident of edit warring. These results just reaffirm that the problem is behavioral with regard to the editing process, which would be resolved by the proposal here. Disallowing replacing low quality images with higher quality ones, even when they're borderline, would be a clear net negative. Let's try to address the behavioral issue and see if that solves it, then revisit if there are ongoing issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• And, of course, Support as written per my comments in the section above. Oppose broader tbans at this time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support, and since this subthread is probably now more widely read than the main thread above, could people (especially any Commons admins) please also note my post above? There seems to be more systematic self-promotion on Wikimedia projects here than meets the eye on the English Wikipedia alone. Bishonen | talk 19:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC).
• Support, and also what Bish says. There is a ton of self-promotion going on here, across the wikis. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support due to disruptive editing, but without ruling out the need for a short or long block of User:Toglenn for personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support, I've come across this behaviour from this user before, and it is unacceptable. Like Ravensfire, though, I'd prefer if he was also prohibited from replacing existing images with his own under any circumstances. -- Begoon 19:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. All that this proposal does is to expect this editor to follow best practice that all editors should follow, but it seems that it is necessary to spell it out explicitly here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support I've seen this type of singleminded addition of a one user's photos before (from other editors). While some of the additions or replacements may actually be improvements, the underlying goal is not the improvement of the encyclopedia but simply to add the user's pictures. This leads to problems with indiscriminate additions/replacements that actually harm the encyclopedia . Meters (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN - also: Per WP:SPA, WP:SPAM, and in our WP:COI guideline we have WP:SELFPROMOTE. I think all this adds up to an indef (not infinite if the user want's to do more than spam his pics and link/redirect to his facebook page) block. I looked at the pictures on commons (I'll pick Alan Thicke as an example rather than one of the porn actresses) and one after another it's links to so many of our projects. Thicke alone has a link to 10 different pages on EN wiki. One link is to an article sandbox and a couple to Signpost articles, but the even without those couple links we have a HUGE spam problem with many, many pictures. The thing is however, I don't see specific rules pertaining to a person's facebook (or other) page which may be a loophole he can crawl through. Either way, we have a problem - and Commons has a problem. IMO? SPA SPAM block, but I think at this point that needs to be a community decision. — Ched (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• If you're interested in doing more research, see: His uploads — Ched (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, and also further issues, per Ched; it seems fairly clear to me that this user is attempting to use Wikipedia to promote themselves and their work. I feel like we should try to use photos that are as free as possible, and his photos require a style of attribution that is clearly self-promotional.--Jorm (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - The self-promotion here is glaringly obvious and it should be stopped. –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support whatever sanctions deemed appropriate by the community. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment As proposer, I put forward a suggestion that I believed was the minimum necessary to stop disruption. Numerous experienced editors above seem to be of the opinion that further investigation and/or sanctions may be necessary - I want to note that I am in not opposed to an extension of the sanctions I've suggested, should others agree that my proposal is insufficient. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yup. I !voted on the proposal on the table, but that's not to say I wouldn't support harsher remedies. Meters (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic ban or sanctions are way overkill from what seems to be one dispute on one article. Editors such as User:LuckyLouie are making a category error by claiming that the photographer of an image added to Wikipedia has self-promotion, advertising, COI or SPA issues. Some people write text on Wikipedia and some people take photos for Wikipedia. There are different practices wrt filenaming and getting your modest credentials and personal links on a file description page, but those are just the way it is. I would expect a photographer to single-purposely add/replace their own images on articles just as I would expect a writer to add/replace their own text on articles. Move along folks, this is a storm in a teacup.

Wrt the Disc jockey article. I agree that the great photo taken and added by User:Toglenn is far better than what we had before, and that the current leading photo is frankly a piece of shit. Folks: your jealousy of a talented photographer is making Wikipedia worse. -- Colin°^Talk 13:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE here’s why: When I started using Wikipedia, around 2008 or so, whenever I looked up a person all I would see were really bad photos of them. I said to myself. Wow, I can’t believe this, I can help. I have great photos of them. I’m going to do this person a big favor and post a really good photo of them.

That’s it. When I come across a bad photo of someone I simply add or replace with a good one. I don’t replace good photos – no reason to. That’s all I do. And it makes me feel good that I did this for them, even though they never know who did it.

All this talk about self-promotion is baffling to me – It is nonsense. IT IS NOT REALITY. Reality is that it takes time and effort to this and I receive absolutely NO benefit what-so-ever. Financially and time wise – it’s a total loss. Wikipedia says “don’t expect to be rewarded” – and I don’t. I know that from the beginning but I accept it.

Although I know and it’s a loss, I do it only for the purpose of improving the Photo content of Wikipedia up to the high standards of the Text content. I love Wikipedia because I’m really into truth and facts and Wikipedia is one of the few places to get that – and I’m proud to present high Quality Hi-Quality images for that purpose.

Although I do not expect any rewards, the last thing I expected is to be banned. Anyone who supports this proposed ban on me would be making a very bad and uninformed decision for Wikipedia and to the people who would benefit from having good photos of them instead of them on Wikipedia instead of bad ones. Glenn Francis (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Toglenn, the proposal is a TBAN from reinstating any image, and your post doesn't address this. What about the edit warring over photos? – Levivich 02:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I just want to add that I applaud ——SN54129 12:52, and Zaathras

They are they are the ones who made informed comments and brought up the point that I’m no different than Gage Skidmore (and also David Shankbone) who are also professional photographers who post photos on Wikipedia. This brings up the point that if I’m to be banned for putting up photos, then so should they. Taking up the whole issue of Self-promotion – why does this only apply to me and not to everyone who post regularly on Wikipedia? Why is that not self promotion?

I’m surprised at all the people who said Support who know nothing about me, my work, and my contributions to Wikipedia.

The only two I’ve ever even heard of is Girth Summit and SergeWoodzing. In 12 years of posting photos, I’ve only had one conflict, and that was with SergeWoodzing. I guess I’m being singled out because I decided to ask an administrator for help instead of engaging in an edit war.

Hi Levivich, In 12 years of posting, I've never been in an edit war until SergeWoodzing reverted my post. I decided that rather than enter edit war, I would aks an administrator for help in resolving. I guess that's why I've been singled out. If I'm not addressing the correct issue, I would like to know what I need to be addressing - I think it's important to know so that I can. Thanks!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs)

Well. No one else sets up their contributions to require that their name is included in the contribution. That's pretty self-promoting. --Jorm (talk) 03:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jorn, Thanks for your question. I'm a Press Photographer. We include our names with our photos. It's standard procedure and required in most cases. It's identifying information that is important to include. If that's an issue on Wikipedia, I will exclude that. It makes absolutely no difference to me. When you say no one else does, that's because they are not professional press photographers. David Shankbone, Gage Skidmore, and myself are the only Professional celebrity Press photographers who contribute to Wikipedia. They also include their names as part of the file name. If you see a professional looking photo of a person on Wikipedia that wasn't by one of us three, they were most likely placed there by a bot that got them from Flickr - or worse - YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs)

The filename is irrelevant; I'm referring to the attribution license, in which you require every usage to include your name.--Jorm (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jorm- Oh. 12 years ago when I first started contributing, I was having lots of problems getting my photos approved because they were professional looking and so they wouldn't approve them. (I guess I was the first Professional celebrity Photographer - and still only 1 of 3). After proving that I was legit, an Administrator named H. Martin offered to make this attribution license banner for me. He said having this will resolve the problem of always having to submit photos to OTRS. And he was right. I’ve never had to since. I really don’t understand why you think this is self-promotion. All it says is exactly what the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs)

Putting aside the other issues for a moment, just a quick comment to say the real name thing is both not a problem and extremely common. After all, he could just change his username to match his real name. There are reusers out there who also, for whatever reason, prefer to credit a real name. Guess they find it more legit or matches some style guide. Meh. Not that that should dictate what we do here - I'm just clarifying that it is common. A website is less common. In general there's considerable leeway for what one requests re: attribution language. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I first ran into Glenn's self-promotion at the Bebe Rexha biography where he edit-warred his obviously altered and enhanced image of stiff-as-a-doll Rexha into the article, removing a much more attractive action shot of Rexha performing.[93] Misleading edit summaries were used here, too.[94] Glenn attacked another editor, calling them a "delusional troll" at Talk:Bebe_Rexha#Infobox_image_revisited. This disruption has gone on long enough. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• In 12 years of posting photos, I’ve only had one conflict, and that was with SergeWoodzing. diff gnu57 04:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a no-brainer. Deb (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Binksternet’s comment about Bebe Rexha: One of the primary reasons professional photographers don’t post to Wikipedia (besides giving away our photos for free) is having to put up with BS that sometimes goes along with it. In this case someone didn’t like my photo of Bebe Rexha and so he decided that she must have been heavily photoshopped and didn’t look anything like her. Although photos are very subjective, there is this thing know as truth and facts (there’s also a thing known as good makeup, lighting, and photography). This wasn’t an edit war it was a viewer making outrageously false accusations, and based on his false accusations didn’t want it used. To resolved this, I just used another photo of her.Glenn Francis (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Toglenn, that is self-serving bullshit, and I think you know it. If you want to upload photos and offer them to the community in the way you seem to think you are doing, then you can do it via the Talk page and allow others to decide. That is normal practice for people referencing their own content on Wikipedia (per WP:COI). Images are somewhat different to, e.g., references to one's own book, but not that different. What you are doing, by your own admission, is inserting your images into articles without regard to the images that are already there. That's not "BS" or people not liking your images, you cannot possibly be a neutral evaluator of your own work. It's WP:OWNership behaviour. Calling this out is fully consistent with our gratitude for your provision of high quality photos. You need to understand: you are not the arbiter here. I've dealt with many people submitting photos via OTRS, most approach it with some humility. The closest we've come to your level of aggressive response to pushback was with user:David Shankbone, and he got pretty much the same response: Thank you for helping, but don't presume that you get a right of veto. Guy (help!) 09:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I showed the falsehood of your statement that you have had "only one conflict" in 12 years. I assert that your photo was altered because it looks fake and because it lists "Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)" as the software platform in the EXIF metadata.[95] You waffled about that aspect – "there is this thing know as truth and facts" – without explicitly denying that you retouched (enhanced, "Photoshopped") the photograph. I also pointed out that you engaged in a personal attack against a good-faith editor from Rochester, New York, who you called "Drama Queen", "good riddance to you" and "delusional troll".[96] You didn't "resolved" the problem, you just put another of your photos into the article. Taken as a whole, your insistence on using your images is promotional, and a serious behavioral problem. Binksternet (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've been flagged down as a dual enwiki and Commons admin to this thread; right now it probably doesn't need me in those roles.
  As a photographer, I generally support the inclusion of well-lit high-quality photographs over lower-quality ones. If a photographer is willing to release their work under a free license, then we should accept it openly. If there is genuinely disruption, then we can deal with it – the proposal here is, in my view, an overreaction to minor incidents that could be dealt with case by case. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: Guy, etc, FYI, photographers on Commons, and other Commoners who acquire images from third parties, restore historical images, etc, routinely insert their own photos/uploads onto Wikipedia pages and other sister projects. This is absolutely normal and usually helpful. It also very much is not the Wikipedia manner for editors to use the talk page to request others include their content.... because our own content is generally the words we add to any article when we aren't plagiarising or quoting. You seem to be trying to apply COI and referencing guidelines to content, which just isn't appropriate. Content is content whether words or images. If someone takes a great photo and uploads it for free and adds it to Wikipedia, that is no difference to someone spending their free time to write or expand a great article using their own words. Clearly we expect editors here to improve the articles (again, whether text or image) and to seek consensus if there is a dispute (whether text or image). Where we might get into COI with text, where the subject of an article tries to edit for flattery, we might also get for images where the subject of the photo wants their image to represent a topic.

Wrt attribution/promotion, inserting one's real name, user name or initials into a file path is also quite normal and practised by many highly awarded Wikipedians. The attribution template on this photographer's file description page is also extremely normal, modest and perfectly in keeping with best practice for CC licensing. I get that Wikipedian writers have a lower profile wrt attribution: the URL isn't Archaea-by-Tim-Vickers and you aren't singled-out on the talk page for contributions or links to your blog. Just deal with that and get over yourselves.

I see someone above writing " Per WP:SPA, WP:SPAM, and in our WP:COI guideline we have WP:SELFPROMOTE." despite the fact that none of those guidelines are relevant here. Please: a photographer's photo content is not more COI/SELFPROMOTE than a Wikipedian's original text content. If there are issues wrt edit warring and not improving the project wrt the content being added, then by all means discuss how they should be better handled or apply sanctions if discussion fails. But enough with the OMG the photographer's own name is in the file name, what a self promoting wanker we have here!!! attitude. -- Colin°^Talk 13:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin, to be clear, the edit warring and insulting other editors are why we are here. If he had not accused another editor of bullying, harassment and vandalism, simply for disagreeing with the use of one of his pictures, we would not be having this conversation. As for the promo concerns, I think that has been exacerbated by his admission that he routinely replaces existing photographs across multiple wikis with his own work without even checking the image he is replacing. I can see why people are concerned with that approach to editing, even if the attribution statement is quite standard. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Girth Summit edit warring on a single article on one occasion never got anyone topic banned. Wrt "without checking" I think really we need more than foolish words but actual examples of where this photographer has removed/replaced/down-shifted photographs that were clearly better than his, and edit warred to retain his inferior photo. I'm certainly not seeing that (quite the opposite) wrt Disc jockey. I see a lot of people making quite ignorant comments failing to equate the two kinds of content and making obviously jealous comments wrt the promotion that all image makers on Wiki are entitled do. At the moment, people are suggesting we topic ban someone and the only evidence given is one case where they actually improved the article with a great image and got beaten into a submission by editors replacing it with crap images instead. I accept that they (along with others) edit warred on this one case, but that is only sufficient for a user-talk page warning, not a topic ban. Please give me a long list of diffs where the problematic behaviour being "topic banned" has actually occurred on en:wp. -- Colin°^Talk 14:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with about 2/3 of what Colin said. There's a lot of nonsense here that seems premised on incorrect ideas about e.g. websites on file pages, whether or not someone can include their real name in the attribution language (??), using real names in filenames, what constitutes a COI, etc. I think the analogy to article text is interesting. Presumably a professor, who is trained to write on scholarly topics, who gets a meager amount of service credit for writing Wikipedia articles, is not going to have all of their edits scrutinized for COI and special restrictions placed upon them for mentioning their university position on their userpage. It's not a perfect analogy, but an interesting one, IMO. But Colin, the thing here -- and the reason I supported -- is because there are behavioral issues. I would just want Glenn to follow the practices basically everyone else does when it comes to adding photos to pages (regardless of whether they're one's own images): ensure it's an improvement, and find consensus if it's challenged. I sincerely hope that this sanction, since it will surely pass, doesn't have a chilling effect on Glenn's (or some other photographer's) contributions here, because it has indeed gone off the rails a bit (welcome to AN/I...). The "jealous" bit is just going to distract people from the rest of your comment, though, Colin; I'd strike that FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites can you cite diffs for a routine pattern of behaviour where this photographer has clearly overwritten images with worse ones of their own. Forget what they may have said about "without checking". Surely, for a topic ban, we need a consistent long-running pattern of warring and making Wikipedia worse, with diffs. The disc jockey article is an embarrassingly bad example and sure he got wound up about it, but he wasn't the one edit warring to put rubbish pictures into the article! While the numerical !votes above might indicate a topic ban is expected, I would expect any closing admin to actually rise above mere vote counting and expect basic standards of evidence of longstanding behavioural issues, evidence that parties have tried and failed on multiple occasions, etc, etc. I see one article, one edit war, and several people other than the one in the dock are making Wikipedia worse by their edit warring with him.

I don't think the professor-service-credit analogy is helpful, other than a professor may be a subject-expert and thus knows what they are writing about more than the average Wikipedian looking at sources. A professional photographer will have the talent, gear and access in order to create images that normal Wikipedians and their iPhones will not. Photographers and illustrators are entitled to real/username credit in their filenames, and when you click on their content, you go to a page that tells you about how they want to be credited if the work is re-used, and how to contact them if you want different licence terms. Wikipedian editors are not entitled to that: they get their contributions buried in the history. Wikipedia text is collaboratively written; Commons images are not (generally) collaboratively taken/made. This is just how it is. I think the idea that a photographer consistently adding great professional-level photographs to articles is a WP:SPA just about the most embarrassingly funny thing I have read here for some time. I agree the "jealous" bit is likely to make some folk here uncomfortable. Doesn't make it less true and they should examine their motives carefully. -- Colin°^Talk 15:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If this were a tban on adding images (which I explicitly opposed), we would want to see a long-running pattern of warring and making Wikipedia worse. That pattern doesn't exist. As I've said repeatedly, it's clear this user's photographers are a great addition to Wikipedia. This is about a behavioral issue, and that's what the sanction seeks to address. As someone else said, it's basically just writing down what we expect of everyone anyway (don't edit war, and make sure it's an improvement). That said, maybe it's worth opening a warning proposal... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1RR restriction on all edits and WP:CIVILITY "only warning". I support Girth's proposal, and I would also support going further, based on my review of edits over the last six months. I think the 1RR restriction should be expanded to include all edits. I think an "only warning" (meaning, a final warning, except I think it would also the first warning, so "only" warning) to abide by WP:CIVILITY is merited. Many of Toglenn's edits were to BLPs, but they did not appear to have been notified of discretionary sanctions, so I have notified them.
  • I agree with much of what Colin writes. Toglenn's editing is not SPA, COI, or SPAM.
  • However, I think some of the edits are WP:PROMO–not necessarily of Toglenn and his photography business, but of the subjects of his photographs. For example, at Disc jockey, replacing the prior image with his image. His image is not an image of a disc jockey disc jockeying, but of a disc jockey posing for a publicity photograph, with her name prominently shown in the photograph. This would be appropriate for the article about that disc jockey; however, it is not appropriate for the article Disc jockey. A picture of a particular DJ with their name prominently emblazoned, on the article Disc jockey, is basically an advertisement for that DJ.
  • Reviewing some of the edits over the last six months or so turned up concerning behavior that seems to be getting worse as time goes on:
    • May – Natalie Alyn Lind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Replaced prior image with his image (IMO not an improvement), then reinstates it, and again (note, no accusations against the editor he was in a content dispute with, IJBall).
    • June - Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Replaced prior image with his image, which, for the record, I think was an obvious improvement, but then reinstate after revert with HTML comment Please do not change Britney Spears 2013 (Straighten Crop).jpg as main photo without a consensus of editors on the talk page., which is not how WP:BRD works, and then reinstates it again and again, the last time with edit summary "reversed constant disruptive and vandalistic edits by user:Alienatedney". Then, he accused the other editor of being a vandal on the talk page. (Note the other editor is banned as a sock, but that's besides the point.)
    • Also June – possibly WP:BLP-violating insults in edit summaries at Ryan Seacrest (... leave this kind of crap for [name of living person].) and Model (person) (... leave this kind of garbage to [name of living person] and [their employer].)
    • Aug – Incivility at Talk:Taylor Swift#Image in the infobox and on the main page: photoshopped? (diff): I’m sick of seeing these delusional disruptive rantings of User:Genericusername57. He’s a fraud. He registered his name about a month after I posted Taylor’s photo and hasn’t made even one contribution other than to come here to disrupt this article with his lies and spiteful agenda. His so-called ‘proof’ is total B.S. ... Don’t be fooled by gnu57‘s nonsense and whose only purpose of being on Wikipedia is to disrupt this Article. He should banned indefinitely per WP:CBAN
    • Also Aug – Ryan Seacrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): deletion, revert (edit summary: ... Take your Schadenfreude disorder elsewhere.)
    • Sep – Sofía Vergara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): deletion (edit summary: ... Take that garbage elsewhere.), revert, revert (edit summary: Removed inappropiate slanderous posting by disruptive editor: WmLawson‎). Then he accused WmLawson of disruption and slander on the talk page. Note: these reverts removed content sourced to People magazine, CNN and USA Today.
    • Also Sep – Incivility at Talk:Bebe Rexha#Infobox image revisited: here (To the Drama Queen who had never heard of Bebe Rexha ... good riddance to you!), here (@Binksternet – Your ‘judgment’ is seriously flawed ... If Bebe were to read what 'Drama Queen' said about her appearance she would have every right to !#$%^&*.), and here (@Binksternet ... You’re like the person who believes the Earth is flat against irrefutable evidence otherwise.), and maybe this isn't uncivil, but it's not collegial.
    • Oct – Disc jockey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Replaced prior image with his image, then 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 4RR.
    • Nov – Incivility at Talk:Disc jockey#New photo relevant?: A monkey could take a better picture than this ... You are obviously trying to B.S. your way into posting your crap out-of-focus photo (posted, then partly self-reverted); ... that would make him a liar, wouldn't it? ... I knew he had some kind of hidden agenda by his constant bullying and harassing techniques ... This kind of attitude and behavior is known as HYPOCRISY ...He believes he's privileged and above the rules. Anyway, I've reported his conduct to the Administrators notice board. I hope he gets banned so others can safely post photos without having to worry about being bullied and harassed. (posted, then self-reverted)
  • Multiple editors have addressed these issues on Toglenn's talk page, both with templates and personalized messages, e.g. here, here, here, and here. These have been deleted, so we know they've been read.
  • Whatever we think of the images and text at issue, this is not the way to handle content disputes. The warnings from multiple editors have not caused a change in behavior–indeed it seems to be getting worse–so I think a sanction is necessary to prevent further disruption. – Levivich 16:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support although I agree with Colin that adding images is just like adding text, and it's normal that the author puts the credentials (after all, we have the option to license under CCBY), the mass addition to 50 other WP languages and the unwarranted personal attack of "vandalism" (in addition to not seek consensus) seems really problematic. I appreciate the editor's work, but it can't be forced upon the encyclopedia if challenged. --Signimu (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support (warning preferred). But only if this is expressed in terms of over-riding opposition from others by re-adding images. I'd still welcome their efforts in general, and if they are indeed the best image available, then we should choose it. But that needs to be decideable, if questioned, by discussion through talk: etc. and a case made as to why particular images are best. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Warning

Toglenn has never been subject to a sanction before, has never been blocked, and steadily contributes a lot of high-quality photos to Wikipedia. There are a few clear behavioral issues here which the tban above seeks to address. On reflection, however, this might be premature. I went through the last few years of talk page messages, and although there are a couple disputes (mostly over things other than photos, I should say), I don't see so much as one formal edit warring warning.

Perhaps if Toglenn simply acknowledges that it's important to ensure an image is an improvement before adding it, and that if material is removed he should not repeatedly reinstate it without finding consensus (being basic rules all of us follow), then we can call this a formal warning and hope we don't find ourselves back here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support (first choice) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support reasonable compromise. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support (first choice) Yes, some inappropriate behavior, but let's please try hard not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Paul August ☎ 16:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This seems reasonable on its face, but from reading his comments, it appears Toglenn feels he's done nothing wrong, doesn't recognize that edit warring and personal attacks are against policy, and doesn't seem to understand how consensus works. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support in addition to other sanctions (e.g., for civility) or as a second choice (e.g., for edit warring), per my comments in the previous proposal. – Levivich 16:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Thank you Levivich for the kind of analysis/research that should be performed when considering sanctions, rather than ignorant rants about self-promoting SPAs above. I make no apologies for that insult because I see a bunch of experienced self-entitled bullies attack a good-faith contributor who is so inexperienced at talk/forum discussions, he can't even get the indentation right (look at the contribs -- you guys spend more time yaking on this page in a day than this guy as done ever). One thing missing from the analysis, however, is the warring by others. For example, on Britney Spears, Alienatedney reverted four times and their first revert did not explain why. Simply "undo". That's just rude. These photos don't just take themselves, and although the edit represents a minute of work, the photo might have taken hours of donated time. Levivich mentions an HTML comment he added, but he may have picked this up from Taylor Swift, which had a similar comment before Toglenn added his image. My guess is that Toglenn is unaware that some articles are hotbeds of edit warring over lead images and he may step into this war and thus step on the toes of some hotheads with settled ideas. Also he should appreciate that articles such as Disc jockey could be illustrated with any number of images and it may be less obvious to others that his choice is superior.

However, since this AN/I was raised by Toglenn, I think it would be most unfair if a warning was not also given to User:SergeWoodzing for edit warring at Disc jockey and making spurious arguments (we don't require Chef is illustrated by a celebrity chef, for example). Lastly, all the people who made comments like "Glenn, would you still be fighting for this particular photo if it wasn't one you took and uploaded yourself" should go and replace "photo" with "this text you wrote" and whack themselves with a wet trout for ridiculous bullying over a contributor adding their own content, content that may have taken hours of work. -- Colin°^Talk 18:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin, hi - I've been mulling over your comment for a few hours now, and feel I have to reply. Would you be prepared to be specific about who you are accusing of being a self-entitled bully? As the proposer of the above section, I can't shake the feeling that I am included in that criticism; yet at the same time, I feel that I have made my best efforts to act professionally and courteously when dealing with someone who, in my judgment, does not extend that same consideration to those who disagree with them. If you are going to make comments like that, which you describe yourself as insults, would you be prepared to be clear about who you are directing them at? Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 22:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Girth, your comments have been quite measured in comparison to some that I am criticising. I'm sure they know who they are. I do think you have failed to examine the other parties involved in the edit warring and their portion of blame. I think you and others have also failed to consider the relative inexperience of this editor wrt Wikipedia discussions and policies. What AN/I (on Wiki and Commons) often fails with is the "angry customer" situation. Toglenn came to AN/I as an angry customer: he'd gone to some effort to take this photo, process it, upload it to Commons and noticed that the Disc jockey article didn't have a lead image. He added his and then some **** kept deleting it. So he came here asking for help. While the experienced folk here, with Wiki:talk contrib histories that go into tens of pages long know not to call someone else a vandal or troll, he really is a relative newbie when you look at the contribs. Failure to deal with an "angry customer" is where folk concentrate on tone or naughty words used, and fail to try to understand. The first response he gets here is someone basically telling him he's been a fool and should **** off and apologise. Then we got lots of people who clearly haven't the first clue about photographers on Wikipedia taking moral judgement against the photographer for promoting himself. So he's not just a fool but an asshole too. Queue more "ban the self-promoting asshole" comments, which just encourage more "ban the self-promoting asshole" comments, and before long we get folk now proposing he can't add images to Wikipedia any more. The actual degree of disruption/warring involved is really very minor indeed. I've been on Wiki for a long time, and know lots of editors with clean block logs who cause more disruption before breakfast than this guy has in his whole editing history. If you really sit back and look at the Disc jockey situation, you might consider that he really did have a reason to come to AN/I and at the most, both editors should have been warned about edit warring and the other guy educated about image sourcing nonsense he was using as a justification for his warring. -- Colin°^Talk 14:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to state that I have read all the comments written here and have gotten the message loud and clear. The mistakes I made will not happen ever again. I have decided that I personally will not upload my photos to the pages. I have an assistant that can do that - My assistant has also read these comments and understands the issues. This I will do volentarily, and gladly because it will relieve me of the stress of doing it myself. No need to issue formal warnings or anything else. All rules wil be followed. The problem is solved, and I am quite happy about my decision to leave this chore to my assistant.  : Thank you all!Glenn Francis (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you describe the instructions you will give to your assistant so that further mistakes will not be made? Otherwise this could just be a shifting of responsibility to another account directed by yourself, which is a violation of WP:MEAT. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware of the paid-contribution disclosure requirement in the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use that applies for English Wikipedia. Also note that conflict of interest concerns remain if someone under your direction or is associated with you uploads your photos. isaacl (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment User has repetitively displayed behavior in multiple conflicts, apparently not gaining experience in dispute resolution with any of them. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 20:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet My assistant is my girlfriend. I do not pay her. If there are any special requirements about a girlfriend uploading photos, please let me know and I'll comply. Instructions are simple: just upload the photo to commons, then place into article according to rules. Refrain from discussions and do not argue with anyone. Any problems, just walk away. She's a smart cookie, very friendly and pleasant - you'll like her.Glenn Francis (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this should be the end of the matter. Please we have seen enough of Wikipedians trying desperately to include article-text or reference or article-subject-concerning matters into photography as though that was different to writing. I think we see that Glenn accepts he has got personally worked-up about reverts by other editors (reverts that nobody here seems to be at all concerned about) and has chosen a method to add some distance. Every single one of the hundreds of thousands of NASA photos on Wikipedia contain a "promotional" link back to NASA. Every single one of the thousands of superb Google Art Project scans of famous art works contains a "promotional" link back to GAP. Text editors are mere minions and our credit is miserly. A photo is worth a thousands words, as they say. Move along. -- Colin°^Talk 22:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose as not strong enough for an editor who started this with an over-the-top allegation that a content dispute was vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Let met get this straight? Someone went to AN/I with an "over-the-top allegation" and you think therefore they should have some arbitrary punishment as a result? Like nobody ever went to AN/I with an "over-the-top allegation" and walked away.

The accused was User:SergeWoodzing who was indeed edit warring at Disc Jockey. Let's remember that Toglenn added a great photo to the lead of an article that did not have a lead photo. So, he improved Wikipedia. SergeWoodzing removed the photo, meaning the article no longer had a lead image. If a IP had done that, we'd have called it vandalism. He made Wikipedia worse. His argument "that photo of an unknown person with a caption alleging unsourced info does not belong there" has so many fundamental flaws and ignorance about the sourcing requirements for images. When the image was restored, SergeWoodzing posted to the talk page and immediately removed the lead image without waiting for agreement or working towards consensus -- he was edit warring plain and simple. Once again the article had no lead image. If an IP had removed the lead image from an article twice in succession, he'd not just be called a vandal but would likely now be blocked. Again Serge makes the ignorant criticism about "caption of info that was unsourced". This got the response "Why in God's name are we having a debate about reliable sources, on whether a person in a picture with giant pink letters saying "DJ Bad Ash", is a person named DJ Bad Ash?" from User:GreenMeansGo. In the argument that followed, Serge then claimed "It is not impossible for a person to pose falsely as a disc jockey". At this point, if this had been an IP, folk would be asking them to stop trolling. Looking at the other edits made, I see they have a particular issue with making spurious citation requirements for female DJs, but not the male DJs. So, really, if we examine Serge's edits in a neutral manner, we may indeed conclude it is a fair assessment that they engaged in vandalism, edit warring and trolling. I think actually they honestly believe they are making WP better but have some really strange ideas about the sourcing requirements for images, and possibly an issue with female DJs.

Wrt sourcing for images: we adopt an AGF approach if a photographer takes a photo of someone/something and make a claim (filename, file description, caption) that it is indeed the someone/something they claim it to be. Serge would only have needed to do a google image search to confirm what "Bad Ash" looked like. For example, Serge, if someone takes a photo of a flower or mushroom or insect and claims it to be a particular species or variety, we do generally accept that unless someone has a good argument that the claim is unlikely or offers a different description. Very few of our images and captions have any kind of citation/reference that the image really is what the caption says it is. We don't get our images from a professional stock agency. -- Colin°^Talk 08:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin, I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. Serge is not guilty of vandalism, and you should retract that. You don't agree with his arguments, which is fine. I don't agree with your opinion that the photo was an improvement, which is also fine - we can disagree without accusing each other of vandalism, which is the problem here - Toglenn repeatedly reinstating their pictures at multiple venues without gaining consensus to do so, and making wild accusations of vandalism against people who disagree with them. Please don't let's start carrying those accusations on here. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Girth, please take the care to read what I wrote. I did not accuse them of vandalism. I am arguing that a reasonable neutral person examining just the edits and talk page comments could indeed come to the conclusion that he was vandalising the article (repeatedly removing the lead image on spurious grounds), trolling on the talk page, and had a problem with female DJs. I am responding to someone voting that this user must be punished for making "over-the-top allegation" of vandalism. It is, you know, possible to accept another's opinions are "reasonable" without actually agreeing with them. What is a fact is that Serge repeatedly made the article worse and did so by edit warring. Most edit warring situations have two or more guilty parties -- it is quite hard to edit war on one's own. Most of the examples listed above by Levivich, if you actually care to examine them, involve other editors edit warring, reverting without edit-summary, and being unreasonable. -- Colin°^Talk 14:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Users mistakenly call things vandalism all the time. It's not a good thing, but it's very easy to just think of it interchangeably with "bad edit" or "edit that hurts Wikipedia" until that gets beaten out of one's head. If warned and done repeatedly, sometimes it'll earn a block or a tban for battleground behavior. It's rare that we see as a first warning (for edit warring, calling something vandalism, etc.) a formal indefinite sanction (on a user who has already more or less agreed to the guidelines set forth in this thread). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Colin°^Talk 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per ROPE etc. I'm not familiar with the "large numbers of high class photos provided", but happy to accept that, and that it's a net positive. But from examples given here, it's not universal. And those are a problem, when they're being added against the efforts of other editors. DJ Ash in particular (sorry, that's not a good illustrative image)

It's well recognised that we have a problem with the self-promotion of images, often dreadful ones. We also have many cases where there is a surfeit of images, but a lack of good ones. In which case, we have to discuss which to use, often by first putting forward some criteria on how we're going to select. "It's my own image" should never be part of that. If a photographer can say, "We had a lack of images showing this aspect, so I went and took one", then that's great. Even if they can objectively claim, "My one is just technically better". But they should be able to pitch their image and have it chosen by consensus, because it really works better, not just keep shoving it back. If Glenn can accept that much, I don't think anything more is needed here, at least as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Topic ban on adding his own photos on any article here; he can propose an addition on the talk page of the article, but can't add them himself

• Support a topic ban on adding his own photos on any article here: he can propose an addition on the talk page of the article, but can't add them himself. And the main reason for that is that I don't agree with the claims by some here that his images are high quality, they're not, instead they're heavily, and crudely, photoshopped, with colours excessively saturated and sloppy sharpening (especially of hair) and softening (some parts of female faces softened, other parts not) in an attempt to hide the fact that most of them are blurry and badly lit (heck, from a technical standpoint even I could do better than that...), so the only use for them I see is in cases where no other pictures of the subject in question are available. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support at the very least. But it's likely moot now anyway since he's going to have his girlfriend do the work. Aside from an editor here and there attempting to whitewash and make excuses for the behavior issues, I still think we're looking at a "tip of the iceberg" problem here. We frown on professional writers coming in and doing paid editing, but I guess sliding a business card in with every picture is not a problem for some folks. — Ched (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no need, as shown by any evidence here, to go this far. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - ??? We have a user who routinely uploads high-quality images (more than 1000 of them) and puts them into articles. The vast majority of the time, it's a straightforward improvement and uncontroversial. Gets into some editwarring and a nasty disagreement. User has never received an edit warring warning, has never received a block, never received a sanction. We have two proposals which issue a warning or apply a formal tban on the problematic behavior. During those discussions he more or less agrees to abide by the rules set forth. ...and then comes the harshest proposal which just hurts Wikipedia? This is why ANI stinks sometimes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is going beyond ridiculous. Topic banning a photographer from adding photographs is akin to topic banning a writer from adding any article text. The evidence is that the vast majority of photographs are added without problem and are warmly received. In the few cases of trouble, other editors are equally to fault. Certainly the example that raised this (Disc jockey) does not support such a ban, and is more suggestive that User:SergeWoodzing should be examined wrt sanctions. As noted, the photographer has volunteered to let a friend do the Wikipedia editing, so really this whole topic should be closed to stop yet more ridiculous topic ban suggestions sprouting. I agree with Rhododendrites, this stinks. -- Colin°^Talk 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oposse Like I said above let's PLEASE try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or perhaps how about: let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. Paul August ☎ 14:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 2600:6C44:5D00:F72::/64 (socking)

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

---

• Special:Contributions/2600:6C44:5D00:F72::/64
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Starbucks6789
• Sturgwis12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This range is likely being used by the same user as Starbucks6789. The IP geolocates to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. Note Sturgwis12 is a sockpuppet of Starbucks6789 and the SPI archives shows an IP that geolocates from a similar area.

On August 25, I reverted an edit by Sturgis12 ([97]) and on October 21 an IPv6 from this range undid my revert ([98]).

The IP range edits almost exclusively on reality shows, just like the sockmaster.

If this belongs on SPI instead of here, let me know. SPI is usually overburdened and IP reports take a while to get to. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, you should file the SPI. There are no cases in a backlog. Take a look.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Will do. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Persistent hoaxing from Fontana IP range

Somebody using IPs from Fontana, California, has been inserting hoaxes into film articles for the last four months. Take a look: there's nothing but hoaxes from the range Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1220:C4C3:0:0:0:0/52, usually involving famous film people assigned false credits. Can we get a lengthy rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2605:e000:1220:c09b::/64 blocked for 3 months. It looks like it's been going on for a while under various IP ranges, including Special:Contributions/2600:1700:4450:3010::/64, which was previously blocked for six months. I'll try to keep an eye on a few of the articles and do wider range blocks if necessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! You rock. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

SPAM using edit summary

I request that the visibility of the edit summary of this edit in Talk:Google be changed to hidden as it seems to be promotional SPAM. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Done. Guy (help!) 09:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Tumbleman

Can someone experienced in Tumbleman LTA socks please ping me. Thanks. Guy (help!) 09:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You forgot to say The Tumbleman. He likes to be called that. EEng 11:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Dinotrux Article has same false/uncited information being repeatedly added by anonymous users (AGAIN)

Same situation as over a month ago - an anonymous user constantly adds uncited information about an upcoming season to Dinotrux. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dinotrux&type=revision&diff=924287762&oldid=923359613 A mod protected it awhile back from anonymous users, but literally the day the protection expired, the person added the info back. They will not pay attention to citation-needed templates and are ignoring the talk pages. Requesting protection of page again, and possibly IP ban (if that's possible, not sure how that works here) -Ishmayl (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have filed a request for page protection over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If you need this or other pages protected in the future, that's the place to go! --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I wasn't aware! --Ishmayl (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

IP Range vandalism

Hello, I don't know where to post this, but there is a obvious pattern of IPs making similar disruptive edits, most using the summary "I Well Edited The Files", and often replacing words (curse or otherwise) with **** and many related to Eminem. Should a range block be used? I'm sure there are others than these four:

• 2A02:1811:5380:CB00:F1BD:1BCD:FD31:7B73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A02:1811:5380:CB00:B4A0:58BD:4C3D:A89B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A02:1811:5380:CB00:4D17:FDA4:D29F:4AA8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A02:1811:5380:CB00:8513:5B8:459B:A4C3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) JesseRafe (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Blocked the /64 range for 1 week for disruptive editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Quenreerer

Please see the edit history at Jermaine Whitehead and User talk:Quenreerer#Jermaine Whitehead. User keeps reverting obvious spelling and grammar corrections and mass reverting my edits to the page without discussion or reason because they don't like some content dispute parts. They are now accusing me of pushing some sort of agenda, so if anyone else wants to take a look at this it would be appreciated. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, could a CU look into Avis2k14 (talk · contribs) who just posted an attack on Quenreerer's talk page as the user's first edit. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

To elaborate: Quenreerer added content to the Jermaine Whitehead page. I cleaned it up to conform with Wikipedia policy. These included grammar fixes, removal of excess URL code, removal of undue weight from the lead, and moved a stand-alone section to a more relevant part of the article. Quenreerer reverted my edit, stating the content was sourced and since the team was not involved in the incident it should not be included in that section (?). Since the user contested a small aspect of my edit, I made a series of smaller edits and explained each one in the edit summary so the user could understand what I was doing: [99], [100], [101], [102]. I then added to the user's addition with content found in the reference. The user then reverted all of my edits (except for the removal of content from the lead) with the explanation "sourced content. removed lead due to undue weight, but the controversy happened. it's all over the news." I posted on Quenreerer's talk page to try to resolve the situation, and an uninvolved editor then reverted Quenreerer's edit, stating "Per Eagles247, it's directly related to his tenure with the Browns". Whitehead was released by the Browns at this time, so I updated the article to reflect his release with a citation. Quenreerer then reverted to their version again, wiping out the new information as well. Over the next 25 minutes, Quenreerer slowly and manually restored pieces of my edits and responded on their talk page accusing me of POV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The user is now aggressively accusing an IP editor of being an illegitimate sockpuppet on the article talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup. I have already explained why I was posting there (saw the article mentioned here, so responded on the talk page [103]). Evidently Quenreerer doesn't think WP:AGF applies to IPs - or to anyone else whom he/she disagrees with, by the look of it. 86.143.228.144 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment it should be noted that this is not the first time this editor has attempted to unilaterally POV edit. Quenreerer was warned two days ago for trying to remove Greta Thunberg's honorific on two separate occasions and added added "Franchise Killer" to the infobox of Kathleen Kennedy (producer) just yesterday. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• It looks like an IP added the original vandalism to the Kathleen Kennedy page, but Quenreerer restored it along with their own edit in apparent confusion. (undid their own edit, added everything back in) Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Eagles247 thanks for the explanation. Striking it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: for what it's worth, Avis2k14 doesn't seem to be a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

University of Cambridge

Is the slow motion vandalism from the University of Cambridge IP 131.111.243.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) enough to justify a school block? There are a fair amount of good edits as well, so I can see a reasonable argument either way. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

From the limited clicking I did on their contributions, I don't think so. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casey Mongillo (2nd nomination)

This whole AfD really needs to be looked into as so far we have had an undoing of prior consensus rather than a WP:DRV, and WP:OUTING claims. [104] Would any admin be willing to step in here and make a call regarding potential disruptive behavior that has gone on? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have messaged the admin who undid the AfD result, and the nominator. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It was previously deleted what, three weeks ago? Either the second nom—so soon after the event—is disruptive, or WP:G4 applies, wouldn't it? Or am I missing something? I see an acusation of WP:OUTING in the history too; that might be worth admin-ray specs if nothing else. 17:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)——SN54129

Before you opened this, I had actually already sent some information to arbcom. I find some of the links extremely concerning, and given the outing concerns, I don't think ANI is the best place to discuss them. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine to back off, personally trout Roem and Jo-Jo for the out-of-process recreation, and move on. I don't want to be part of what I gather is happening with the nominator... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The actions regarding the nominator can be discussed elsewhere then, my concern is also the out of process AfD decision between two editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

While I don't want to bring off-site drama in here, I feel this is relevant enough to be also brought up here: the nominator is currently going on a highly offensive tirade on Twitter, celebrating his success in getting the page removed and flinging transphobic insults at the person under question. The given account is (Redacted), and here's an example of the content: (Redacted). The editor seems to be putting in a large number of AfD requests due to his personal grudges, which really doesn't seem okay. This appears to be a history of the person's online behaviour going back a number of years: (Redacted) (this is obviously a biased source, but it comes with copious amounts of screenshots and archive links, which seem to affirm the points the post is making). Ashela (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed a number of links to outside sources that violate WP:OUTING, and the general tone of this comment borders on WP:NPA/WP:HARASSMENT. Under no circumstances should you add any of those links again. ST47 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Well done Ashela, that's also WP:OUTING. ——SN54129 17:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah these things should be emailed to ARBCOM.... not discussed here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I declined a CSD on the re-created article yesterday because the original deleting admin had consented to re-creation and a new AfD. I wasn't aware of the disturbing aspects discussed above, although Sk8erprince seems a bit overly invested in the deletion discussions, nor do I have an opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This does help clear the air a bit regarding the admin actions, I apologize for not knowing in advance. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The article was not salted and as such it has been recreated. Now we have improvements in the article and a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Not sure I would ascribe sinister motives to the recreation. Lightburst (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I still think this should have gone through WP:DRV to avoid this chaos. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The only sinister motives I’d say exist lie with the nominator, but I’ve since emailed ARBCOM about that as per the generally-agreed-upon action to take. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. The nominator has been indeffed twice. And was just at ANI last week with WP:TENDENTIOUS disruptive complaints. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• The nominator had also been topic banned from deletion discussions in the past which might need to be reinstated if he isn't indeffed again. I admit that these developments are quite disturbing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sweet JEEEESUS he’s a piece of work. He’s also been caught sockpuppeting twice, and if I recall from the archives, Knowledge suggested a de-facto ban due to these evasions. To think this absolute messcould’ve all been avoided if they took your advice.
  Half-jokes aside, good lord this guy is just. Something else entirely. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Above editor just got blocked. Seemed extreme but what do I know. Lightburst (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think we should avoid such drama-laden phrases such as "sinister motives"; this is Wikipedia, not a Sax Rhomer. A more important aspect would seem to be the unilateral overturning of consensus. ——SN54129 18:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I know a few editors that are upset that this didn't go to WP:DRV like a normal process would. Two admin can not just overturn a decided consensus even if one of them closed the discussion in the first place. Revisiting a deletion's close is on WP:DRV, its why its there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• ...is it on DRV? Cos...I don’t see it on DRV. :V DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It never made it onto DRV. It was never deleted either or shown how it was restored. It's only now that I put in the oldcsd decline. It's extremely frustrating. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If that is true then the AfD needs to be procedurally deleted. IAR does not apply to consensus; process, as they say, can be important. ——SN54129 18:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• @AngusWOOF: I am unsure why you are so incensed by this process. You are dropping F bombs on the AfD and generally going crazy. An article can have four separate AfDs to get it deleteted. Seems reasonable that someone can recreate the article. Additionally, it is bad form to diminish the article as you have been doing. And slapping templates, and speedy deletes. Relax. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Lightburst, given that it's likely to stay now, I'm now just trying to get it into shape, fixing things like release date (2019 for NGE not 1997; Casey wasn't around to voice the original released dub, see [105]). I think it should still have the notability template until the second articles are put in, but it doesn't require a call for deletion, especially if the person is slated to have more major roles soon to easily meet WP:ENT. So I have edited my comments on that AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this relevant at all? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk8erPrince/Archive Dream Focus 18:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In a nutshell.... no, but it does say Sk8erPrince has used up all of his "2nd" chances. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Dream Focus: I think the socking is relevant. And so is the previous topic ban, and the repeated AfD's on VAs and the hit list of AfDs on the editor's user page are all relevant. All of it says the editor is WP:DISRUPTIVE. The editor's hit list is from 2017 because the editor has largely been blocked since that time. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't undertsand these comments that the decision on deletion should have gone through deletion review. That very process says to discuss the matter with the closing admin first and to try to resolve it that way. Indeed, many discussions there include questions as to why the matter wasn't discussed with the closing admin first. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That clearly does not mean that that admin can unilaterally overturn consensus though does it? No, no it does not. ——SN54129 18:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It means that the closing admin can reconsider whether consensus was assessed correctly. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Phil Bridger: Agree. Seems like I have encountered many admins who have acted similarly. If an article deserves to stay it will be reaffirmed here. And if it is not worthy it will be deleted. Seems like that is the aim of AfD. Lightburst (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Lightburst, this should have then been explained by the restoring admin on the article's talk page. That would be appreciated. Then there wouldn't need to be all those Deletion contested messages flying all over the place. I hope this can be done. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I tried to organize the talk page "Contested deletion" topics. Hope that's okay. If an admin can spot check that I'm not trashing the context, please help. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems that there are several issues arising from this discussion. One is whether the article in question should have been handled in this way, a second concerns the claims of outing, and a third is whether Sk8erPrince should be editing on Wikipedia. As far as the third issue is concerned I am shocked that anyone would have considered that the editor responsible for this could ever have been unblocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Shall we discuss a community indef block/ban here, or leave it up to ARBCOM? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to know what recent on-site issues I've been having, other than being warned to not out someone by Tony Ballioni the other day. Didn't someone already send Arbcom some stuff? Maybe let them handle it, if a case is truly warranted. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Being upset you failed as a voice actor, insulting people on your Twitter account and then trying to delete the articles of people you don't like, as well as trying to delete as many articles as possible for other voice actors do to possible jealously issues, seems a reason to stop you from sending voice actor articles to AFD constantly. The fact you were warned and sanctioned multiple times in the past for this exact same thing makes it likely someone will look into this. Dream Focus 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I've cited guidelines as valid reasons for deletion. Several articles that I nommed actually do end up getting deleted via protocol. A lot of your claims seems to be based on personal assumptions, with no evidence to back it up. I'm asking what recent on-site issues I have. Off-site issues seem to be irrelevant. I may have had sanctions and was even blocked before, but that's all in the past and all the restrictions have been successfully appealed. So.... do you have anything else to add, that actually has to do with my *recent* on-site conduct? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In terms of recent on-site conduct, it's only about 40 hours since your previous ANI case closed, where you were advised to listen to the feedback in other editors. During that discussion you made false accusation, exaggerations and WP:BITE a very new and inexperienced EFL editor, violating AGF, with too much WP:BLUD. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

First off, *I* initiated that ANI report. Secondly, there had been several attempts made at communication through warnings. JesseRafe and Bonadea both tried to communicate with the Korean user in question (Seo). Did we get a single response? None. Zero. Nil. Imagine editing Wikipedia, *completely* ignoring other users when they voice their concerns. That's WP:IDHT. You accuse me of "biting" the user in question even though other users have clearly highlighted that Seo has their own issues, that, if not addressed, is perceived as persistent disruptive editing. AGF is one thing, but it cannot possibly be extended to users that make absolutely *zero* attempt to communicate. I hope I've made my point very clear. Being new does not excuse a complete lack of communication. Just look at their talkpage - can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me that we *haven't* tried to sort things diplomatically before reporting to ANI? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you initiated that ANI report - which was entirely unnecessary and contained false accusations. You asked for examples of your recent onsite issues - this is an example of issues - and you were chastened for your actions by the closing admin. You don't need to re-litigate it - whether action should have been taken or not against User:서덕민 is not relevant in this dicussion. Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hilarious how you think "advising" someone is the same as "chastising" them. To quote Roem: As a side note, I advise the filer to avoid bludgeoning in future discussions and genuinely listen to the feedback of the other editors here. Doubly hilarious that you think that IDHT behavior does not need to be addressed when we've already tried to initiate conversation, but to no avail. Not to mention you use lame excuses like "they're new" and "undoubtedly editing in good faith" to defend them to hell. I'm absolutely done with how completely in denial you are. Give yourself a pat in the back for defending a mute user, why don't you? I'm so totally the bully for falsely accusing them for their blatant incompetence. But you're right - this report is about the Mongillo article as well as my "conduct" issues, so let's not derail it. You know what? I'm just so done. I just love how it's suddenly my fault when an admin doesn't follow standard protocol, and I am faulted for non-existent conduct issues. Just wow. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Nfitz: Full disclosure I also reported this editor to ANI last month and apparently my flawed report was dismissed out of hand. The question about whether the editor is disruptive has been answered over and over, through, blocks, topic bans, ANI warnings, AfD behavior etc. And yes the ANI I filed was regarding the AfD of another voice actor article. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Ooooh, where do I even begin with you? You seem to have a problem with me no matter what I do. What did I ever do to you? I can't remember a single instance where I was particularly rude towards you; not a single instance was even remotely near a personal attack. If I try to disagree respectfully, you accuse me of "bludgeoning". I bet if I had elected not to respond, you'd accuse me of "IDHT". There's just no winning when it comes to you, Lightshot. Just admit that your ANI report was primarily made to discredit the Delete camp (as well as me, the nominator) on the 3rd and final AFD of Ryan O'Donohue. It's like you're not even confident that the Keep camp would emerge victorious in the end without having to resort to such low blow tactics. As a matter of fact, your side *did* win. I gracefully conceded, since that's how it is with AFDs - discussions could go either way, and the result may not match with your stance.

Your so called report was, to put it bluntly, an utter joke. The timeline was all wrong, you did not verify whether or not my Tban was lifted, you made zero effort to try and communicate with me on my talkpage over any potential issues first. Honestly, I think you're salty that your lame proposal barely had any support, because I bet you'd be over the moon if my Tban was reinstated. I am really fed up with the way you've been treating me, so pardon my harsh tone. I did nothing to deserve this. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

My only concern is the project. But you are melting down. You have been tendentious and bludgeoning, that is the opinion of many. Now you are thrwoing around terms like Korean Fetish below. My ANI report was made to protect the project. And it got you to leave that particular AfD so that it could proceed without your interference. I suggest you start taking the advice of the many for the sake of the project. Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That is utterly laughable. "Protect the project"? You just wanted to pressure me into exiting that AFD; I would have stopped responding *regardless* of your F- report. Your report is exactly just that - utter rubbish. It was poorly pieced together, which was exactly why there was no consenus for it. Simple. As. That. Apparently, simply submitting counterarguments is the same as disruption. Brilliant. Nice logic. Give yourself a gold star. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Why do all of your problems continue to be AfD related? In light of everything that has happened in the last 40 hours maybe you should be topic banned from the process again. There has been little change regarding newcomers and the AfD problems since this revision: [106]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• the editor Topic banned twice I think we should propose another here. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be opposed to it, but want to wait for more editor input first. I do know that ANI isn't a place you want to be, if Sk8erPrince has been here numerous times then it will raise eyebrows eventually. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• What we really should have is a tban on entertainment related articles, for Prince until this is straightened out. We clearly can’t allow some one with editing for pernicious reasons. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't get why people keep insisting that my AFD behavior is problematic. I did not insult any of the participants, for starters. That's a very significant improvement compared to my past AFDs, where I was Tbanned twice for behaviorial problems and lack of civility. Contrary to what some of you may think, I am perfectly capable of adapting and learning from my mistakes. And I would like to believe that my conduct is generally okay on-site ever since all my restrictions have been lifted. Secondly, every time I start an AFD, I cite valid notability guidelines in my arguments. I would debate with the Keep camp respectfully. Nothing wrong with that. If you believe that I am nominating articles with "pernicious reasons", and it has to do with my off-site behavior, then why don't you let Arbcom handle it? None of you are allowed to out me on site, after all. Please, if there are any *recent* instances where I insulted Keep camp participants in my AFDs, I would like you to show us the diffs.

As a side note, the restoration of the Mongillo article was handled poorly, as Knowledge mentioned. I nommed the article for AFD2 in an attempt to get that mess sorted out. The 2nd AFD page looks quite messy as well, ranging from some users simply voting, while others criticized how Roem simply restored the article with barely any improvements and pretty much the same sources as opposed to getting it DRVed, and some of them even tried to suggest that the AFD was made with malicious intentions in mind. You can try to discredit me all you want, but it would not deter the new AFD at all. I would like Jo-Jo Eumerus's input on this, as he was the closing admin of the first AFD.

Anyway, I am tired of people always trying to pin the blame on me whenever things either don't go their way, or when I am somehow involved with those debacles. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Sk8erPrince I'm afraid the cat is out of the bag regarding your off Wiki conduct. Every AfD regarding LGBQ voice actors and actresses is going to be a focal point of discussion as a result of the bias. As for your on Wiki conduct, it has been pointed out above that you are at ANI regarding these AfDs, and still are bitey when it comes to newcomers. Now tell me... based on the information provided what would an uninvolved editor think? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I deny that I was "bitey" towards new users. Show me diffs where I was "bitey", or else that's an empty claim. Communication is vital regardless if you're a new user or an old user. No user is exempt from that. I am appalled that an IDHT new user (Seo) is being defended so much to the point where it looks as though I bullied them. That is unfair to me, because I expected them to respond to warnings, which they did not do.

As for being on ANI for AFDs, honestly, Lightburst's so called report was a low blow. Just because you present a case on ANI, that doesn't mean it necessarily has any kind of substance nor validity. So to answer your question: What are uninvolved editors going to think? It's anyone's guess.

Off-site conduct can be reviewed by Arbcom; they've been mentioned multiple times in this report, and some users seem to have already taken action regading that. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Do your really need diffs about you being bitey after the recent completed ANI thread above, where more than one user pointed out you were bitey. Here's a diff showing you biting. If making false accusation and warnings about trolling and vandalism isn't WP:BITE I don't know what is! Note in that discussion other users pointed out a history of making false accusations about vandalism. If after that discussion, you can claim hours later that you need diffs to show that you bite, then there's are WP:IDHT issues. Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, spare me. Take your Korean fetish elsewhere. I'm sick of it. Really, I am. I am tired of how I'm being faulted even when I try to be logical with valid reasoning. False accusations, false accusations; that's the only damn thing that seems to come out of your mouth. I'm done. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Nfitz's reply, you accusing them of having a "Korean fetish" isn't going to help your case though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm really, really, really fed up with all of this. When I try my best to act civil, I get accused of making "false accusations" and bullying, even with logic and *evidence* to support my claims. I guess some users would deliberately look the other way no matter what, even when *facts* are being presented. Also, Roem didn't even follow protocol for restoring the Mongillo article (which you agree on), and now he set up a proposal to get me Tbanned for simply responding and off site "conduct issues" that are beyond the scope of ANI. Simply outstanding! --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

In the the previous discussion you'd make accusations of vandalisms. I asked for diffs, and none were provided. You made accusations of trolling, I asked for diffs, and none were provided. You called contributions "complete nonsense", I asked for diffs, and what you provided were understandable, but poor English; one diff relating to etymology was a widely-held misapprehension - nonsense perhaps, but not "complete nonsense". There was no evidence to support your claims - which were WP:BITE. Nfitz (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I've been out during the day, so I've unfortunately only been able to see all that's transpired in the last 12 hours. To answer the initial concerns raised here, my request to Jo-Jo, and subsequent restoring of the article, were only due to the course outlined on the DRV page, which asks appealing editors to first go to the closing admin. It was certainly not my intention to cause any confusion in that sense; I took Jo-Jo's statement as functionally saying there was no consensus with the first AfD, and to see if it's tagged again in the future. This all said - I think the more concerning issues are those flagged by folks above regarding Sk8erPrince's conduct, especially as it relates to AfD. Whatever your thoughts on the Casey Mongillo article, I feel that's a more pressing concern for the state of these pages. I will be proposing a re-imposition of the topic ban, or a block, in a new section below. If there's any other questions regarding the restoring of the page though, please don't hesitate to ping me. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Historically, that line at DRV's been aimed mostly at speedy deletions, and only at technical problems when applied to deletion discussions (of the "Hey, you closed this AFD as 'keep' and deleted the article anyway" and "Ahem. Did you notice that the only person advocating deletion !voted fourteen times?" variety) - the specific wording at DRV is "mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding". There's precedent for a closing admin to reopen and relist a discussion on their own authority very shortly after a close, though it's rare; reversing oneself without comment on content grounds, nearly a week after closing a well-attended AFD, is unheard-of. —Cryptic 02:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • That's totally fair. I think the wording can be tightened up there to avoid that misunderstanding going forward. As mentioned, I took Jo-Jo's green light as accepting there had been no consensus in the first AfD, but I do agree it would've been better for a more definitive statement, or pushing this to DRV in the first instance. Edit: To add, I think the sense here is DRV is the route to go, and any messiness as a result of the untimely restore I apologize for. I'm not sure where that leaves the AfD as it currently stands, as there doesn't appear to be any current consensus on what to do with the article.Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sk8erPrince will, you be willing voluntarily Tban yourself from all voice acting related articles until ARBCOM comments? —AdamF in MO (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I could refrain from participating in any AFDs until Arbcom comments, yes. The violation of which would result in an immediate sanction. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I might've missed an example in the past few years, but I haven't seen ArbCom sanction a user purely based off off-site content. I know there's been cases regarding those kinds of issues, but--to memory--they've usually been handled more formally. Could very well be wrong there, it has been awhile since I was a clerk. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify my actions on this page a bit, Lord Roem did state that a source (TV Guide) which was mentioned but not explicitly discussed in detail during the prior AFD satisfied SIGCOV criteria. Had this argument been made in the AFD it may have changed the outcome of the discussion from "consensus to delete" to "no consensus", emphasis on "may" however. Thus their argument was IMO not sufficient to overturn the previous AFD wholesale, merely good enough to have another discussion either at deletion review or "restore it and see if someone else re-AFD's". They did say that they didn't want to go to deletion review, so it became the latter. In retrospect, I believe either a relist or a second AFD immediately would have been better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• That makes sense Jo-Jo Eumerus. Question, do you think you will also close the 2nd AfD, or will you leave to another? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I am reticent at closing more than one AFD on the same topic and given the controversy - and DRV-like nature of this second AFD - it probably wouldn't be appropriate in this case anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Fair point, and thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Sk8erPrince

It's been proposed above that Sk8erPrince be subject to a topic ban related to either entertainment or voice actor-related pages, but I think a look at AfD suggests re-imposing the deletion topic ban is better tailored. I'm setting this separate section to divide that conversation from the discussion of the AfD itself above. For context, an AfD-related topic ban which had been previously imposed by the community was lifted in September after the editor promised a change in behavior. Since then, there are examples of tendentious behavior, with the editor appearing to still view AfD as some kind of fight, with winners and losers: "I'm ready for round 2" "As a matter of fact, your side *did* win." This was precisely one of the issues the editor argued he had grown out of, mentioning at the start of his appeal in September that his old achievement board of deleted articles was old behavior he wouldn't repeat.

This, taken together with a tendency for uncivil behavior throughout their recent months of editing with needlessly rough edit summaries or comments, makes me feel another break from the AfD scene would be best for all involved.

These diffs were what I've just found in the last few minutes, but I'd like to hear thoughts from others. To be precise, I'm proposing reinstating the AfD/deletion topic ban. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Prince agreed to it above. So I think we have a tban in deletion related discussions in the can, so to speak. FWIW, I hope this isn’t what it seems and we can all return to making an encyclopedia. —AdamF in MO (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - You're basically proposing to reinstate the indefinite Tban because you used your admin tools to undelete an article which was fairly deleted using the AFD process, with literally *zero* consensus to overturn the result, because it wasn't done at DRV. Yes, discussing the issue with Jojo was a-okay, but the undeletion was out of order, as noted by some users above. My behavior wasn't at all saintly, but I was trying to clean up the mess you've created as a result of the misuse of your tools; so did AngusWOOF. If you disagree with the results, then you should have sent it to DRV. I tried to speedy delete the article with G4, since it was practically identical to the deleted revision, but to no avail. So did Angus. As such, I figured that my next option would be to renominate the article for deletion, to at least get something happening, because I am dissatisfied with how the article was recreated without a new consensus.

What even is the point of recreating the article with barely any new content? The same sources and roles are being analyzed again, and it's ridiculous. We already did that the first time around. And there are proper procedures in overturning a consensus, but you decided not to do that. Now you're suddenly suggesting that it's my fault that the article is being renommed for deletion. Incredible. Look, I don't mind staying off of AFDs for the time being, until this discussion ends, but think of how utterly outrageous this proposal is. Nothing would have happened if you had simply followed protocol and worked on making the article stronger and less susceptible to AFDs in your own sandbox. And to think that this done by all an admin, whose last known activity was *last month* (Oct 18) before resurfacing to "rescue" Mongillo's article. I don't know what else to say. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support This will be the third time for a topic ban. My momma said, "You choose the behavior you choose the consequence." The AfDs need a break and the editor has shown that he cannot stop. Lord Roem has done a great job of articulating the reasons why this is appropriate. I only hope the editor can learn to operate on the project without the disruptions. They have been serious disruptions. Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the bare minimum required and I would be inclined to support a more severe sanction. In the entire discussion above, Sk8erPrince is repeatedly displaying textbook examples of battleground mentality, with constant simmering hostility, and constant comments about "your side" and "winning". The promises of improved behavior issued a few months ago ring hollow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - the on and off wiki conduct has convinced me that regretfully Sk8erPrince just shouldn't edit the area of AfD's. The topic ban would be "AfD discussions broadly constructed", meaning participating in, and initiating. An exception for participation can be made for articles that Prince has created for rationale explanation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support self imposed topic ban until ARBCOM can weigh in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't see any current basis for a TBAN or site ban or any sort of ban. The comments throughout this thread about the fact that the editor was previously blocked or previously TBANned are not a basis for a TBAN now if there has been no new misconduct. Opening this second AfD after the previous one was closed as delete and then overturned by the closing admin is not misconduct. Maybe it should have been a DRV, but we don't ban users from AfD for using the wrong venue. It's a little alarming that so many SPAs have been pushing this thread in this direction, with their references to "off-wiki conduct" and worse, out of an apparent attempt to harass and silence an editor they disagree with. I'm not prepared to support any topic ban at this time. ST47 (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:SPA is a pretty heavy thing to say about other editors here without providing evidence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• To be clear, I'm not saying the editor should have a TBAN because they opened the AfD, but rather due to their tendentious and battleground behavior at AfD in general, and their behavior since the ban was lifted, a few examples of which are listed above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ST47 You missed the off wiki disturbing behavior, the fact that Sk8erprice has twice agreed to the Tban above, and use of the slur Korean Fetish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightburst (talk • contribs)

Slur User:Lightburst? It was aimed at me, but I don't know what it means - how is it a slur, it seemed innocuous - though a little odd, as I don't particularly edit Korean or anime articles. Are you suggesting that Sk8erPrince is racist against Koreans, and that this is a racist slur because the new user that they were biting may be Korean? Or is there something else going on, that I'm unaware of? Further up, and editor implied that Sk8erPrince was transphobic - is there diffs for this? Sk8erPrince - are you transphobic? Can you explain what that comment about transphobic comments is about? And what "Korean Fetish" means? Nfitz (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess what Lightburst means is that I made a personal attack against you through the usage of "Korean fetish". I made it on impulse, because I've really had it with how you described me as having hurled "false accusations" at Seo. As for "transphobia", in the absence of on site evidence, I choose to remain silent on the matter. If you think I'm transphobic, then provide diffs and prove it. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

But what does "Korean fetish" mean? There's something here I'm not grasping (out of my own ignorance) - you did hurl false accusations at that user - you are yet to provide a single diff to support your claims of "vandalism" or "trolling", and your claims of "complete nonsense" amounted to "poor grammar". As for the transphobia - I'm really not sure what to say about a tactic admission of being transphobic, in a discussion about an AFD about a trans actor. My gut reaction would be permanently ban those who act out of bigotry and prejudice - but I've never really seen this before; what does Wikipedia policy say about this ... after all, anyone can edit. Nfitz (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose- if Sk8erPrince is going to voluntarily stay clear there's no sense in official proceedings. I considered supporting because of the "Korean fetish" thing but since the target didn't see it as a personal attack I'm not going to call it one. As for the transphobia allegations, either provide diffs and let arbcom handle the matter- or drop it. Reyk roaming (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Independent of the actual AfD recreation process here, which seems to be getting muddled into the discussion, there's clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here with the more-than-occasional impulsive personal attack. This is just disruptive in general. I don't see how the civility issues have really improved since the incivility block and the "one final chance", so an indef honestly seems warranted as well. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now Primarily per ST47. The argument that battleground behaviour at AFD in general should merit a TBAN would be fairly compelling, except that several of the editors coming after Sk8erPrince in this case themselves appear to be guilty of the same, and giving them what they want is likely to make the problem worse, not better; I have also seen very little evidence that the "Korean fetish" and other such remarks were not the result of frustration at this ANI thread itself and the conduct of other users therein, and suspect that said may have been deliberate baiting. Encouraging such behaviour would be disastrous for the encyclopedia. Additionally, per NYB's comment at the top of the thread, the Casey Mongillo article was apparently recreated with the assumption that renomination at AFD was the proper procedure. (the original deleting admin had consented to re-creation and a new AfD -- note also that JJE's last words on the matter appear to be here.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support I find it odd we can't link to his official Twitter account and point out what he has said to prove a battleground mentality, or personal grudge as some have called it. You have someone who is a failed voice actor, who insults others on Twitter, and is clearly determined to delete as many voice actor articles as possible. Since past sanctions resulted in him simply sockpuppeting at least two accounts to get around them so he could keep doing what he was doing, and he simply refuses to change no matter how many times he is called out to do so, support permanent topic can on anything related to voice actors. If you haven't read what was said at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk8erPrince/Archive please look over it, he having a long history of this behavior. Dream Focus 10:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Didn't know past sockpuppetry matters when I ceased to sock ever since I got unblocked. And Twitter conduct has everything to do with my standing here, how? If you can't provide evidence that I have on site conduct issues, then don't say anything. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Dream Focus: official Twitter account I don't see a twitter account linked from Sk8erPrince's userpage, see WP:OUTING, and any real or imaginary twitter account has nothing to do with this discussion, see WP:OWH. failed voice actor is a personal attack which I would urge you to withdraw. ST47 (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Site Ban We have a failed voice actor editor here who is using their position as an editor to punish other VAs. They have had a persistent battleground mentality. One need only look up the subject of this deletion discussion on twitter and they can see all they need to see. This editor is not acting in good faith. —AdamF in MO (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Adamfinmo: failed voice actor is a personal attack which I would urge you to withdraw. ST47 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  All one needs to do is google search this user’s name and and you can see for yourself it’s only a personal attack if it isn’t true. This editor is currently having a meltdown on the internet. —AdamF in MO (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Adamfinmo, what they're doing off-wiki isn't terribly relevant unless you're accusing them of engaging in off-wiki harassment. Either way, "failed voice actor" is indeed a personal attack. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  They are harassing the subject of the article in this deletion discussion. I struck the “personal attack”, even though I still stand by it. Cheers. —AdamF in MO (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Editor adding unsourced or hoax content

HellsKitchen234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

HellsKitchen234 has about 100 live edits to this project, but as far as I can see has yet to cite one single source for any one of them. Unsourced edits have included pages on some supposed victims of the St. Brice's Day Massacre – Arfast Haemingsson, Hjorvarth Vandradsson, Saebbi Gormsson, Fridgeir Trandilsson and Ulf Valisson – and on the supposed Roman centurion Canus Fulcinius Vindex. I've not been able to find one single reliable source that mentions any one of these people. Nor can I find any reliable source to confirm that Shakespeare's "salary" was $266 (yes, really, $266, not a cent more!). I and others have tried asking the editor to stop adding unsourced material (1, 2), but without success or indeed response of any kind. The editor seems determined to prove him/herself to be WP:NOTHERE. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There are worries about WP:COMPETENCE here. HellsKitchen234 has picked up an enormous amount of talk page complaints in view of their short editing career. He/she should slow down and read the Five Pillars. In particular, any new articles should be created in a sandbox and other users asked for input before they go live.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have given this editor an indefinite block as not here to build the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. I was going to do that, then decided to come here for a second opinion. I believe this could now be closed – I'm still chuckling at the $266 salary, though. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, if you want a real laugh, take a look at their uploads to Commons. Their pencil drawings of the Danes supposedly killed 1000 years ago are "special", as Dana Carvey used to say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes indeed, I saw those! I haven't checked them all, but the portrait of Hjorvarth Vandradsson at least is taken without attribution from here (as was the article text). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

More disruptive editing and personal attacks by User:Tisquesusa

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

---

Tisquesusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again been adding links to deleted portals, and again made vicious personal attacks on me as I try to clean it up.

The portal linking templates ({{portal}}, {{portal bar}}, {{portal-inline}}) treat redlinks as an error, and tracks those errors in Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals and its subcats. I try to keep those cleanup categories clean.

Tisquesusa began this back in October, and when I tried to discuss it on his talkpage hew simply deleted my posts with insults in the edit summaries, and then posted a v nasty personal attack on me to a project talk page. For that he was blocked for three days: see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1020#Disrutive_editing_and_personal_attack_by_User:Tisquesusa.

Tisquesusa resumed this a few days ago. Initially I edited the pages to remove the redlinks, and left another note on Tisquesusa's talk page[107]. However, the addition of these links continued, so to save my time I took to simply reverting the edits in which he had added these links, with an edit summary explaining the revert: e.g. [108], [109], [110].

This afternoon I found that Tisquesusa had

1. reverted some of my edits witjout comment[111], [112], [113]
2. reverted another edit with a personal attack[114]
3. Posted three outrageous personal attacks on me at WT:WikiProject Palaeontology#Ban_request: [115], [116], [117].
   Several other editors urged Tisquesusa to calm down, but without success; one of them also got a barrage from Tisquesusa[118].

There is a pattern here of Tisquesusa refusing attempts at discussion, and then making personal attacks.

Please can someone a) make this stop, and b) revdel the personal attacks?

Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Minded to block for a week, will await other admins consensus or Tisquesusa's response. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks, Stifle. In his latest personal attacks, Tisquesusa accuses me twice of being on a killing spree.[119][120] In one of his October edits, Tisquesusa actually compared the removal of links to deleted portals with The Holocaust: revert remove portals, stop that shoah now.

So the extreme over-reaction doesn't seem to be a one-off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that it wasn't several editors trying to calm him down, It was just me. I've known the user for several years as we often edit the same topics and I have a cordial relationship with them. Tisquesusa isn't a bad person, and has contributed enormously to many articles, and most of the time makes constructive edits. While I understand that reverting constant portal re-adds is frustrating, undoing users mostly productive edits is also pretty frustrating to be on the recieving end of. Not that the personal insults and attacks are excusable in the slightest. I don't think he deserves a permanent ban and I don't think a week ban will resolve things either, as he went back to exactly the same pattern of behaviour after the previous 72hr ban. I think an interaction ban might be best. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, an interaction ban seems like an odd remedy to the conduct of an editor who edits tendentiously, repeatedly refuses attempts at discussion, and repeatedly makes appalling personal attacks.

An I-ban would prevent me from cleaning up his disruption. Note that on each occasion I have reverted his edits in full only after attempts at dialogue (through pings on fixes and messages on his talk) have failed to stop the disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:, Fair enough, I didn't understand how interaction bans work, my apologies. I think it's clear that he won't respond rationally to discussion on this topic, but simply banning him for a week won't fix the issue either, I'm not sure really what the best way of resolving this is Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia -- A topic ban might be closer to what you are looking for. Here's a relevant quote from the referenced page: The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. This person seems to have a strong issue with portals and the viciousness of the attacks on BrownHairedGirl (e.g. comparing her to a Nazi, unceasing edit warring) and a temporary block for a week or a few days hasn't had any effect as seen above. 107.77.202.63 (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) @Hemiauchenia, I agree that there seems to be no chance of a rational response, so the de minimis long-term remedy is simply a topic ban on adding Tisquesusa adding links to portals.

However, my immediate concern is that all of Tisquesusa's recent edits have been severe personal attacks on me. Regardless of the substantive issues, no editor should be subjected to that sort of abuse on Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I hadn't seen the full brunt of his personal attacks before, as they had been permawiped before I had the chance to see them. He is capable of rational discussion.Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, if you are right and Tisq is capable of rational discussion, then the sustained rejection of rational discussion in this case seems to be a conscious choice. There doesn't seem to be any basis for AGFing that this is an isolated outburst. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support a one week block for vicious personal attacks, and a topic ban from portals, broadly construed. Support an indefinite block if personal attacks on any editor resume. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as proposer. The cruelty shown to BrownHairedGirl as well as the extensive recent history of abuse makes a topic ban necessary. The fact that they are capable of rational discussion elsewhere but have chosen not to exercise this ability here means that the portals topic must just be a hot button. 107.77.202.63 (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban – referring to an editor's editing as "shoah" (the Hebrew word for The Holocaust) is an example of Godwin's law (at least it wasn't called "The Portalcaust"). These diffs from today (1, 2, 3, 4) show that disruption is ongoing and since prior warnings have not been heeded, I think a block is necessary to stop the disruption. I support the TBAN because, per others comments above, it seems this is an ongoing problem with regard to portals. – Levivich 19:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban – I have read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology#Ban_request and a 7-day-block seems surprisingly lenient. Oculi (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• That section should be removed and revdeleted per WP:NPA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support and topic ban This is not even a close call. The question is: are disruptions to the project ongoing? The answer is yes. Thank you Levivich for providing diffs. I support a one week block for vicious personal attacks. attacking BHG who is an admin is just asking for a block. Lightburst (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support block and topic ban. Tisquesusa has clearly lost all self-control in this area and trying to continually revert links to a consensus deleted portal is out of line. However, the personal attacks against BHG are on another level, and Tisquesusa needs some away-time to cool-off. Britishfinance (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 7 day block and indef Portals topic ban- Calling BHG "that creature" and "it", and all the sexist abuse, was bad enough even without the Holocaust ranting. It's clear that disagreements about deleting useless unattended portals brings out the worst in this editor, and his worst is unbelievably nasty. Reyk _YO! 19:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• I'd prefer a 3 week block, plus the TBAN - having read the personal attacks, I'd personally say a longer block than a week to demonstrate quite how seriously it must not occur again. Regardless of whether it's a week or three times that, it should be clear that we shouldn't be going through a bunch more escalation steps after this one. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• A block per WP:NOPUNISH is never supposed to be punitive and blocks are not supposed to be used to punish per WP:BLOCK. A block is simply to stop disruption. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support 7 day block and TBAN - This is per everything that has already been said. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1-week block and TBAN: Clear-cut scenario, and personal attacks on that level are just...wrong. ToThAc (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Just some feedback

Brownhaired girl is an excellent editor when it comes to explaining her stance on a deletion discussion. The issue is that she may unknowingly also target the editor rather than the content being discussed. Take this edit for example: [121] Moxy, as usual you are wrong on nearly every point., [122] As KK87 knows, [123] you and other portal fans have made that argument before. This isn't helpful to focus on what an editor knows or doesn't know nor is it helpful to say "as usual" when referring to another editor. So while yes User:Tisquesusa should be blocked for personal attacks, Brownhairedgirl also should watch how she debates. I haven't run into any other editor I debate with that makes these remarks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, what provoked Tisquesusa is that rather than simply remove the portal links, she reverted the entire edit containing the portal link, which included substantial editing not related to portals. It's not even like having red linked portals on the article even show up, BHG has spent months pretty much solely deleting portal links which don't even show up in articles. Not that this in any way excuses the awful personal attacks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand the frustration of the cleanup, but the history of that page is not great, and then persisting with delegating tasks to others isn't exactly collaborative or civil either. Agree that Tisq's comments were over the top though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I can think of many experienced admins who would have taken more aggressive action a lot faster with Tisquesusa than BHG – and that is without having spent any time cleaning up hundreds of portals on a portal-by-portal basis with several other Tisquesusa's encountered along the way, even from my short awareness of her work. Britishfinance (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

He's very clearly capable of reasonable and rational discussion, I can't understand or defend his behaviour over this, it's just madness. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is Tisquesusa's edit summary from as recently as 13 October 2019 in reverting El C's edit: not interested in this bullshit, do something useful. My talk page is meant for constructive interactions [124]. Maybe Tisquesusa is fine with topic editors, but not with admins? Britishfinance (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

... and El C's edit was a Personal attack (only) warning to Tisquesusa, noting Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Britishfinance (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cas Liber, please take another look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lopez_de_Bertodano_Formation&action=history

I fixed the links in July. Tisquesusa repeatedly reinstated them. The persisting with delegating tasks to others which Cas attributes to me is in fact what Tisquesusa has been engaged in by deliberately creating cleanup works for other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to engage with Knowledgekid87's attempt to sidetrack a discussion about vile personal attacks. If KK987 wants to raise those issues on my talk, we can discuss it there.

In response to Hemiauchenia: my usual approach when cleaning up Category:Portal templates with redlinked portals is to assume that this was a trivial error made in good faith by an editor who was unaware of the problem. So I fix the portal link(s), with an edit summary exlaining what I have done any why, and a ping to the editor concerned. Here are some recent examples of a format which i have used for months:

• remove deleted Portal:Louisiana. Use Portal:United States. @User:Jackwebb123, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Professional wrestling. @User:MPJ-DK, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Ethiopia. Use Portal:Africa. @User:Numberguy6, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Curaçao. use Portal:Caribbean. @User:Dsp13, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Jurassic. Please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Capital District. Use Portal:New York (state). @User:Numberguy6, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Albania. Use Portal:Europe. @User:Iaof2017, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Benin. Use Portal:Africa. @User:Ortizesp, please use only portals which actually exist
• remove deleted Portal:Gabon. Use Portal:Africa. @User:Dsp13, please use only portals which actually exist

About 1/4 of such edits get a thanks notification from the editor I pinged. Most such changes get no response, which is fine: the editor learns of an issue which they were unaware of, and tries to avoid it.

However, Tisquesusa is well aware of the issue, and has made it very clear that they are being intentionally disruptive. So with some of Tisquesusa's edits, I have taken the quicker path of simply reverting the whole edit. It would be folly to assume good faith when Tisquesusa is overtly on some sort of anger trip, and it would be a waste of my time to craft a unique pinged message to an editor who rejects all communication. So I take the easiest path for me, which is to revert.

I am surprised bythe assertion that this provoked Tisquesusa. I made many attempts to allert Tisquesusa to the issue with pinged explanatory edit summaries, as I tried several times to discuss the issue on his talk. Every one of those attempts was ignored; there were probably about two dozen in all. When an editor intentionally sets out to disrupt, I don't give them the same amount of my time as I give a good faith editor.

Note that Hemiauchenia misses the point when he says that these are links which don't even show up in articles. As you can see from the example as above, most such redlinks should be replaced with a link to the next most specific portal. So my aim is to improve links; that's why my AWB edits after MFDs have been doing, providing a live link instead of a dead link. Like any cleanup category, it's not a huge task if you keep on top of it, but if it builds a big backlog it can become too daunting to tackle. That's why I try to keep the cleanup categories clean. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I was being a bit dismissive when I was talking about your portal related editing, for which I apologise. What I was trying to convey is that the editing is all very much "under the hood" and a casual reader wouldn't notice Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked - topic ban needs confirming

• I have blocked Tisquesusa for a week, with a warning that a repetition of such an incident will probably result in an indefinite block. Would someone more au fait with the issue like to suggest a wording for a topic ban? Is it as simple as Portal-related edits, widely construed? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• @Black Kite: thanks for your actions. Do you feel able follow through with revdels of the PAs?

As to the scope of the topic ban, AFAICS Portal-related edits, widely construed would cover it adequately. In discussion above I had suggested that it be confined to portal links, but in hindsight that might not exclude the rants elsewhere. So I prefer your formulation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - I'll do the revdels and place the TB shortly. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

re DovidBenAvraham, by Pi314m: Not an orphan

We all know (or should know, if reading ANI) that the pleas for mercy by the (double) orphan who caused this condition is not accepted. DovidBenAvraham may be have led himself to trial, but I'd like to say the following as a plea on his behalf (and he did say sorry on my TALK page before/while ANI-ing me, to which, after he was directed to apologize, I wrote "accepted (publicly)"):

There definitely are double and triple standards in various areas:

• An ANI states "xxxx has been branded a nuisance editor, which he is not – Wikipedia would be nothing without the contributions of

individuals who are passionate about certain subjects."

• There are those who blindly remove the Honorific when an article begins "Rabbi (article_name)," even when the lack of the article's mentioning of his title makes the first sentence an appropriate place for the, by policy, only mention thereof.

Yes, the Batmobile's anti-wall-of-text defense device should be deployed as needed. The point of these lines is:

I was raised with the Jewish teaching that the world is run measure-for-measure. Dovid tried to have me blocked; now he's blocked. I may also, some day, be blocked. He's charged with being a time waster. Blocking with the left hand, when needed, needs to be balanced by unblocking with the right. Those who blocked him may gain time when they need it most, if they remove the block before 30 days (a life-and-.. time-Test) namely when . . . we all know to what I'm referring. To quote an oldie, 'Nuff said. Pi314m (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Is this meant to be decipherable? --JBL (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Marijuana is legal in about 1/2 of US states now. EEng 04:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  EEng, quick, someone update WP:DRUNK and add WP:WEED as a shortcut! SITH (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I felt like I was reading "Zen and the Art of ANI"? Something more precise would help here? sorry. Britishfinance (talk)

I believe that this is a request to unblock the indefinitely blocked editor User:DovidBenAvraham. Pi314m, please advise that editor to file an unblock request himself. As for marijuana, I am perfectly capable of having a toke and a shot of Bourbon, and still writing coherently. Others, not so much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As for the honorific, the correct formulation is "So and so is an American rabbi . . . ", not "Rabbi So and so is a . . . ". We do not use the honorific, we report on it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletions and dishonest behaviour

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

---

The editor Haukurth deleted a note I added to the Rig Veda article about Max Muller on November 2019‎ on the basis that 'we need a reference for claims in each article and we can't cite other Wikipedia articles.' I duly revised the addition to include a citation (Muller's own letters) and added my reasons in the talk page. This was also deleted anyway (by another user, Kautilya3) and Haukarth's response to me on the talk page ignored my comment to instead re-frame the issue to be more ambiguous, accuse me of 'cherry picking', and falsely claim that primary sources (i.e. Muller's letters) are not valid.

I believe Haukarth's conduct to be dishonest and stated that I believed so on the Talk Page (i.e. the reasons given for deleting my contribution were inconsistent, and he ignored my comment to instead make accusations and false claims). Other editors on the talk page have also behaved similarly with various accusations, false claims (including about using primary sources), and even hostility when given a secondary source (which they requested).

However, I have responded here about Haukurth as I have tried to resolve the dispute with him on his talk page - which included a clear explanation of why I believe he was being dishonest and an invitation to discuss and resolve - but he deleted my comment within minutes of it being posted, with the comment 'If you play nice and stop accusing me of dishonesty I will happily discuss this further with you.' Obviously I cannot discuss the issue if I cannot raise it with him, and so I believe this was also dishonest. Carlduff (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What a great life lesson for you: you've just discovered that repeatedly calling someone dishonest and then demanding they continue to interact with you almost never works. I predict that this insight will come in handy in the future in all kinds of situations, on-wiki and off. Thanks for sharing your personal growth with us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This is 100% not an ANI issue – it is a content issue that should be discussed no the article's Talk Page. From what I can see on the talk page, three established editors have a concern with your interpretation of Muller and the relevance to the Rigveda, which you yourself call "controversial". ANI is not the forum for this, and your assertions of "dishonesty" are unfounded and will be unhelpful in getting other editors to engage with your "controversial" suggestions. Britishfinance (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think my "life lesson" is that people are not as straight or direct as I would like. I have just learned that the issue likely to do with the edit possibly causing problems with anti-western groups and such, which (once mentioned to me) makes sense. I get that. The issue to me was simply the reliability of the translation. Anyway, thanks for the sarky comment. Carlduff (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't be a princess. You acted like a dick to someone, still haven't apologized, apparently are never going to apologize, and you whine about a snarky comment? Funny how "straight and direct" is so often a one-way street. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If I called Haukurth a dick and a princess in toxic comments like yours, do you think admin would be fine with that? Don't make things personal, and grow up. Carlduff (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It would have been nicer of me not to use the word 'cherry-picking'. I don't think I have anything else to add at the moment. Haukur (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Floquenbeam

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

---

User:Floquenbeam has responded to a (now resolved) dispute on this board (Deletions and dishonest behaviour) with aggression and personal insults to me such as "dick" and "princess". First toxic response:

'What a great life lesson for you: you've just discovered that repeatedly calling someone dishonest and then demanding they continue to interact with you almost never works. I predict that this insight will come in handy in the future in all kinds of situations, on-wiki and off. Thanks for sharing your personal growth with us. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)'

Second toxic response:

'Don't be a princess. You acted like a dick to someone, still haven't apologized, apparently are never going to apologize, and you whine about a snarky comment? Funny how "straight and direct" is so often a one-way street. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)'

Whatever anyone's personal feelings about me (I do not know this user) I do not think this behaviour is remotely appropriate. Attempted to resolve with user on their talk page, but question was deleted with comment about eggshells and hammers. Carlduff (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You really must have acted in a rather silly fashion to engender that response. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 21:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

So what exactly did I do? And how does this constitute an appropriate response? Carlduff (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

According to what you wrote in your OP here, you repeatedly called somebody dishonest and then demanded they continue to interact with you. This almost never works, btw. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 21:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't be a princess. You acted like a dick to someone, still haven't apologized, apparently are never going to apologize, and you whine about a snarky comment? Funny how "straight and direct" is so often a one-way street - as Floq so eloquently put it. Guy (help!) 21:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

How does this apply to civility and standards of conduct you are supposed to adhere to? Carlduff (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. And I don't play one on TV. But if I were, I'd probably close this discussion sooner rather than later, saying that users should, in fact, be more polite to one another, and refrain from calling each other names, but also that sometimes it can be very frustrating around here, and there is a limit to anyone's patience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Assuming, arguendo that Floq's telling you off was unacceptable, what admin action are you asking for here? Reyk _YO! 21:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Reporting Arjayay

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

---

Arjayay is opressing me but not wanting to allow me to write the truth about Javid Javid anywhere on this wikipedia even tho i am being very encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB10:5DA:8400:1498:36D5:7213:C828 (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: or any other admin, you may also wish to block 2A01:CB10:5DA:8400::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) per WP:/64. theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, done by Bishonen--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup, one week. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC).

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

@Ymblanter: I think you should also block 51.148.9.33 as it is the same person. He/she made the same change in the infobox concerning Sajid Javid's birthplace:

• 51.148.9.33 birth_place = Londonistan, Pakistan
• 2a01:cb10:5da:8400:1498:36d5:7213:c828 birth_place = Londonistan, Pakistan

Toddy1 (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but it has not edited since July, possibly the vandal moved to a different range.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Persistent misuse of minor edits and refusing to discuss

Davidsmith2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently marking all edits as minor and refusing to discuss objections to their doing so. I have brought this up on their talk page here, here and here. A quick glance at their edit history shows that essentially all of their edits are marked as minor and not explained. None of the edits is actually minor but major examples include, this, this and this. I have tried on many occasions to address this and have sent the formal explanation as to what constitutes a minor edit. I reverted changes with which I disagreed and have been reverted with the explanation that my reverts are 'vandalism'. Oddly this is the only edit the editor has made which was explained with anything other than 'minor'. The edits are not terrible but they need to be explained and abuse of the minor edit mark needs to stop. I would propose a short ban or a topic ban preventing marking edits as minor when they're not.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I left the user a message. I also fully protected Si King for 24 hours to stop you two from edit warring and to force discussion on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. From my POV, I would be happy for this section to be closed as dealt with.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Reporting user: NEDOCHAN

The user is persistently removing my edits to several pages; Si King, Jamie Oliver & Hairy Bikers, to name a few. User: NEDOCHAN has displayed the same behaviour against several other Wikipedia users. The user seems to have a vendetta against me and my work. It can't be all my work doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards. Nobody else has complained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsmith2014 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davidsmith2014: As noted above, NEDOCHAN raises legitimate concerns about your editing. Regarding your edits at Si King, I suggest you start a discussion there about the material you want to add, with an eye toward building consensus for adding it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks and hyperbolic rants from user Salamandra85

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

---

Salamandra85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been editing Me Too movement in a way that has caused other editors to warn them and this user to post some... intense responses on their talk page: Insisting other wikipedia pages can be used as sources, Accusing others of "censorship" for reverting their unsourced OR, and posting a huge "STOP" graphic and bizarre wikilawyering in response to warnings. Among other things.

Just now, they stated that my request that they edit with a calm, neutral and encyclopedic voice is "act[ing] like [accused rapist and sexual harasser] Harvey Weinstein".[126] As I recently did some cleanup on the article this person is so upset about, and reverted their problematic edits, I would appreciate some additional admins stepping in here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks in that post. The long text at the top of their talkpage is a little worrying. Bishonen | talk 10:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC).

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

Program synthesis

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

---

There is this IP hopper that visits Program synthesis to add unsourced content. Would a range block be feasible in this case? CLCStudent (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:RPP could be more effective, especially if the IP hopper is skilled? Britishfinance (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked the range 2601:184:4081:1CBE:0:0:0:0/64 for 31 hours. There's no skill, or probably even deliberate IP-hopping, involved. Just one of those /64s. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC).

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

Accusations, Attacks, and Disrespectful Dispute Resolution Activity by 2001:569:7C07:2600:34C3:F496:71FB:7EC3

2001:569:7C07:2600:34C3:F496:71FB:7EC3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

1. This user has not sought respectful edit dispute resolution with me, and instead have persistently made changes to my talk page [here] and reverted my edits on my own talk page [here], when I already told them that I have moved our discussion, more aptly, to the Lee Jae-yoon talk page [here].

I have also included that their "edits are welcome but please observe propriety and respectful practices in contributing." This user has posted on another user's talk page for help [here], but can't reply amiably to our discussion? I have responded to them in a well-meaning manner and have understood their points, yet they continue with these unnecessary actions, not resolving the issue directly with me and instead resorting to discussing it on another user's talk page. I have tried resolving this issue with this user/IP address, but he/she has moved the discussion, inappropriately, to Jjj1238's page [here].

2. Also, as I've looked into this user, contributors [23.16.167.50] and [2001:569:7c07:2600:34c3:f496:71fb:7ec3] as shown on the article's [Edit history] may likely be one and the same, as they have both responded to my edit queries, like one single person? Should we look into this as possible sock puppetry? I am quite unsure how to proceed.

3. This user has also accused me of "yelling" at them: "And you yell at me" [see here]

How could I yell at them? Why are they throwing these overblown accusations? I have sought to resolve this editorial dispute with them amicably, by posting on the right channels and talk page, but they have not responded appropriately and instead have resorted to posting elsewhere without replying to my queries on the Lee Jae-yoon talk page, and now they're accusing me of "yelling" at them.

I'm seeking disciplinary action on 2001:569:7C07:2600:34C3:F496:71FB:7EC3 and its alter-ego, [23.16.167.50]. If this merits a block, please apply said procedure. If not, please advise how we'd proceed.

Update, their last reply is: "Stop sending messages to me. I want to assist the user for resolution. And I don't want to explain it at the article's talk page. I explain it to you and you deleted it from your talk page. For the last time I am refusing to coment at the article's talk page and that's final," as you can see [here].

Again, I'm seeking disciplinary action on this user, 2001:569:7C07:2600:34C3:F496:71FB:7EC3 and its alter-ego, [23.16.167.50]. If this merits a block, please proceed. If not, please advise what we could do.

Thanks so much.

Migsmigss (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

TFBCT1's editing on longevity articles

• TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of the oldest living people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oldest people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor TFBCT1 has for years been knowingly and flagrantly using unreliable sources or sources deemed inadequate by the community for inclusion (from before 110th birthday, over 1 year old, no specific date of birth) at List of the oldest living people, Oldest people, and elsewhere. This has been explained to them many times, but they refuse to change their behavior, which has flared up again in the last few days as is seen in the first three difs.

1 They re-added using Find-a-grave an entry that was removed for lacking a specific birthdate, when that's obviously not a reliable source.

2 Their original addition of this entry.

3 Adding two invalid entries. The source for Eugenia Zuniga Jeldres was from before she turned 110, which the community has long deemed invalid as proof of being a supercentenarian, and Maria Vivaldelli was added with a link to a longevity fan website.

4 Here they re-added a removed entry with a source pre-dating 110th birthday and launched a personal attack against me.

5 Here they removed, for the fifth time, someone else's entry of a woman with a source pre-dating her 110th birthday at List of American supercentenarians, which shows they know such entries should not be included.

6 A thread about their inclusion of an entry whose only source was an image randomly uploaded to an image upload website, where it took three editors and a trip to RSN to get them to stop trying to add the entry with this source.

7 A long thread under "Major issues with Japanese supercentenarians" where they edit warred and launched personal attacks because long-standing consensus was being enforced, which they didn't like, yet they didn't do anything constructive to solve the problem.

8 Where they re-added two invalid entries to Oldest people based on hearsay and a Japanese report they had never seen.

9 My well reasoned statement and work was met with this 10 unconstructive, and absurd response for an experienced editor.

It's clear from years of evidence that TFBCT1 has no interest in changing their behavior and will continue to flagrantly ignore Wikipedia polices, such as WP:V, and long-established consensus in their pursuit of including any entry they want listed. They will also continue their personal attacks (the latest saying I have OCD) and habitual habit of making maintaining these lists far harder then it needs to be for other editors. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm obviously involved in this, and I will second Newshunter12's take above. These lists have enough trouble as it is with people adding random "I heard it somewhere" names, and this makes it even more difficult to keep things in order. That last diff in particular is a nice example of a personal attack, and one that has no place anywhere but especially in a contentious topic; this topic area is finally a little calmer, trying to reignite the powder keg is a terrible move. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that they have re-added the entry for a third time stating the sourcing is fine and there is a YouTube video of her to. This was reverted by an imposter account (pretending to be me using a similar username) belonging to an IP editor who has been stalking me for nearly a year, sending death threats to me and other longevity editors, and trying to get me blocked. Please be forewarned they may try to further troll this complaint. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

All issues identified by Newshunter12 were except the few current ones on the List of the oldest living people summarily closed without incident or cause. He is trying to re-hash old occurrences that have no current relevance. I'm going to be very specific as to the current situation. In the past Newshunter12 had been the one to add new individuals to the List of oldest living people. In recent months he stopped doing this, so I put my time and efforts into taking up this task. I added nearly 25 entries in recent weeks. Newshunter12 showed back up again after a long absence and removed seven entries from this list. Of the seven removed four had been added by me. (2) of the cases were "good faith errors" on my part. Newshunter12 then proceeded to open a talk page discussion entitled "sourcing issues" which the main purpose was to defame and attack me and accuse me of doing something deliberate. The posting was so inflammatory that another editor warned me via my talk page that I was being threatened by Newshunter12. So I proceeded to respond.

I have never done anything knowingly, deliberately, or maliciously to undermine Wikipedia. I have been tirelessly editing the longevity pages for over 15 years probably with more dedication than any other editor. I feel very disrespected by Newshunter12. I do make mistakes, but no editor should be attacked in this manner especially when investing substantial amounts of their time and energy. Newshunter12 and I do have different visions of Wikipedia, he sees things more in "black and white," I like other editors see some areas open for interpretation. He is rarely willing to compromise and not just with me, but with any editor. This idea of "always having to be right" does not work well on Wikipedia.

One last note, I find it very inappropriate for Newshunter12 to incessantly mention the "constant death threats" he receives on Wikipedia, not only on talk pages, but also, within page histories. And to accuse this person or that person of being the certain "troll" perpetuating these threats. This type of personal drama has no place on Wikipedia.

I'm sorry I'm not able to provide you with specific links, diffs etc.. I'm not a young person and I'm not computer savvy. I just wanted to be able to paint a clear picture of what's going on.TFBCT1 (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

My above difs and statements speak for themselves about what the truth is and isn't, but I think it's worth mentioning that, "The posting was so inflammatory that another editor warned me via my talk page that I was being threatened by Newshunter12" was done by the very IP troll who has been stalking me since last year, not some concerned onlooker horrified by horrible Newshunter12's actions. So much for drama has no place on Wikipedia, TFBCT1, and I apologize that I don't appreciate someone repeatedly talking about beating me to death with a hammer and some such because of my longevity edits. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Point in case. Newshunter12's response is purely reactionary, defensive. Nothing constructive. Nothing cooperative. Maybe it's just a matter of maturity.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Potential account sharing

I was gnoming and came on the account of User:GreatScottoftheAwesomes. A quick look at his userpage suggests their password. Since it's not a username of mypasswordis xxxx I couldn't post it to the Username board, so I thought I'd point this account for possible action from admins . Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Revolve NTNU must be unblocked.

Hi!

We are the marketing team of Revolve NTNU. We have been trying to update and edit the Wikipedia page of our organization, Revolve NTNU. But seems like there has been some misunderstanding between Wikipedia admins on the changes we have published. We have been blocked from editing. We believe that there is simply just a big misunderstanding since we can't figure out what we have done wrong. All the information that we have added to the User:Revolve NTNU page is facts and relevant information about our organization, Revolve NTNU. There is no sensitive information about individual people or about the organization itself.

We hope you guys can unblock us and also give us permission to edit the page and accept our published changes.

Our page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolve_NTNU

Best regards, Rafi Khajeh Marketing team, Revolve NTNU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehrafi (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't permit accounts used by groups, nor does it permit "official" accounts representing organizations. It also doesn't permit promotional content, and we expect editors with conflicts of interest to clearly declare them and to work within the confines of WIkipedia's guidelines for editors with a COI. Please read them before you edit the Revolve NTNU article. The Revolve NTNU account will not be unblocked - "marketing teams" may not edit Wikipedia for a whole host of reasons that will become clear if you read the block notice and the COI page. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The misunderstanding is by you. This is an encyclopedia, not a marketing resource, and you would do well to find out something about it before claiming that anyone else has misunderstood anything. Plenty of such information has been provided to you at User talk:Revolve NTNU and User talk:Tehrafi. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)