Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edible Melon (talk | contribs) at 13:32, 10 February 2020 (→‎Propose a Formal Site-Ban: replying). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    It's always trains - British Rail Class 153 and editing against sources

    user:Jwoch & (their IPs) seems to be a single issue account, intent on changing the manufacturer of British Rail Class 153 from one company to another, based on a claim of managing the project. This conflicts with the sourcing of the article.

    This has been recorded several times in the past, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974#Editor repeatedly changing information to contradict sources. At that point they were indefed, but later unblocked.

    Sadly, although it seems this user is here in good faith, they just don't seem to get it that all the sources disagree with them.

    ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also a note that this Porterbrook data sheet doesn't appear to be on the internet - see a search for "site:porterbrook.co.uk class 153". Obviously not a requirement for sources to be online, but when your source contradicts every other source, the Sagan standard applies. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 19:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    109.150.19.176 is the latest IP, and referred in his edit summaries to Porterbrook's website, as did user:Jwoch in recent comments on User talk:Redrose64, but on User talk:109.150.19.176 I have pointed out that there appears to be no such evidence on that website.--David Biddulph (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex Noble, I unblocked on the basis of a promise to stick to sources. He seems not to get it, still. I have reblocked. Guy (help!) 22:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Uditanalin

    User:Uditanalin is bludgeoning respondents to the MFD for a Wiki-space article he has created, resorting to personal attacks[2] and generally taking a recalcitrant and combative attitude towards established Wikipedia policy[3]. Suspect that this is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT issue, as it has been explained to him repeatedly what WP:OR is and yet he believes that Wikipedia should change its policy and structure to accommodate what he believes to be ground-breaking research.--WaltCip (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    He's claiming that he has no more to say there, and if that's true I don't think it requires any sanctions against him. Would be fine if someone wants to hat the tl;dr bludgeoning comments there, though, right now that MfD looks like a complete disaster. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The MfD will quite obviously end in deletion, or I'm a banana, and I don't think that this editor is interested in anything else other than this research, so why not just let that person bludgeon away without any reply? I don't see any need for administrative action here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm okay with doing that, I'm just concerned and wondering if preventative steps need to be taken to ensure he doesn't attempt to recreate his work in other spaces. I may be reading too much into it, though.--WaltCip (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they are very insistently putting the deletion notice at the bottom of the article, but other than that they appear to have stopped commenting at the MfD. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Creffett, but not adding it to the article in mainspace I see. I have issued a rather blunt warning. Please report iof this continues. Guy (help!) 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: I think we're done here.--WaltCip (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WaltCip, Well, someone is done. I don't think it's one of us though...
    Banninated. Guy (help!) 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose a Formal Site-Ban

    Actually, Guy only indefinitely blocked Uditanalin. In view of their threat to create multiple sock accounts, I propose that we formalize a community site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I will note that at MFD I originally proposed to move their paper on eigenvectors and eigenvalues to draft space to give them time to publish it. There may be various reasons for the fact that they didn't take up that offer, but those include that perhaps it wouldn't pass academic peer review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Assuming their threats are legitimate (they claim to be an admin in disguise!) then it seems like a community site ban would be the best way to go. But I have my doubts that they would be able to act upon those threats. Seems like an awful lot of hassle to go through just to get eyes on your thesis.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'm tempted to ask Bbb23 if this Uditanalin has any other socks they operate under.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Today I've seen somebody get autoblocked because the IP was used by Uditanalin... Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 13:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cambial Yellowing

    User:Cambial Yellowing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There have been some ongoing issues with this user and ongoing WP:TE at Douma chemical attack. Any warning or feedback regarding their behavior has been ignored or dismissed as "sanction gaming".

    They have escalated the behavior a bit recently, with the accusations of bad faith bleeding into article talk space, [4]. They also recently advised a newer editor to ignore warnings, telling them that they "have done nothing wrong" after despite their recent WP:ASPERSIONS violation, [5], and sarcastically awarding @Berean Hunter: with a goat in article talk space after Berean bluelocked the article, [6].

    I don't know if this level of disruption warrants sanctions, though from what I have seen the bar on sanctions for Syrian Civil war topic areas can be pretty low (they were notified of the subject-area sanctions, [7]). I am hopeful that a clear admonishment from the community and a warning will be adequate to get the disruption and habitual, casual accusations of malfeasance to stop.

    Examples of TE:

    Additional examples of accusations of sanction gaming by Cambial:

    Notifications: [22], [23]. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I'd issue a partial block if I was able. Especially with this edit where he dismisses claims of tendentious editing as absurd and not worthy of serious discussion in his edit summary. InvalidOS (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is attributing the actions of other editors to me, presumably in an effort to somehow bolster the lack of substance to their case. I have not "sarcastically awarded [anyone] a goat", nor do I know what that means. VQuakr also mischaracterises a talk page message as "advising a newer editor", though the editor in question has roughly 7 years editing experience to my ~9 months. This is not the first time editor VQuakr has attempted to use false reporting of actions as requiring sanction, as a tactic to try to keep editors they disagree with away from certain articles.
    The diffs provided as evidence of TE (and the edit summaries) speak for themselves; they were fully explained, linked to policy, and the majority were reversions to status quo. This editor has already brought some of these same diffs to the ANI as supposed "evidence" but again there was no violation of policy. In my view bringing these same diffs again months later suggests "admin shopping". My warning to the editor, the content of which was entirely fair, against abuse of talk page templates was prompted by an accusation and warning template about pretended 'edit warring', after I made a single edit; this was my first article edit in more than a week, and the first ever regarding the particular material involved. (An edit immediately following was to restore inadvertent wiping of an admin template).
    This ANI post is the latest in a string of ongoing behavioural problems with editor VQuakr. They refer above to "accusations of bad faith bleeding into article talk space", citing a diff of an edit which came after, and was a direct response to, their spurious accusation of canvassing , and similarly groundless accusation of tagbombing — in the article talk space. To enumerate fully the occasions on which this editor has mischaracterized actions to make them appear improper:
    [24] ("ownership" following the reversion of the addition of a source which, at the time, was considered unreliable by RSN, a fact which was linked to in the edit summary)
    [25] ("edit warring" following VQuakr continuing to add material from this same source without discussion)
    [26] ("edit warring" following a single edit, material on the U.N. website)
    [27] ("personal attack" following a comment on a source being considered unreliable in 'Perennial Sources')
    [28] ("canvassing" following a 'reply to' sent to the last editors to comment roughly one hour prior)
    [29] ("personal attack" following my pointing out that the previous accusation was not acceptable)
    Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper is the definition of WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Attributing one editor's actions to another is WP:GASLIGHTING. I have asked VQuakr to please stop this on more than one occasion:
    [30]
    [31]
    To their credit, VQuakr suggested I take this to ANI previously, but as I stated then, my understanding is that ANI is for "chronic, intractable behavioural problems". Perhaps I should have done so: but at that point, VQuakr had not actually tried to obtain a sanction against me a second time using these mischaracterizations and spurious accusations. They are now doing exactly that, and I ask that admin pageblock VQuakr from my talk page (presumably they can still ping me on their own talk page (?) if they feel the need to contact me) and temporarily from the article under dispute.
    Regarding this block; the admin has not actually given their justification for it. My recent editing on the specific article has been sporadic, and always with direct reference to policy in edit summaries and/or notification in talk:
    [32] — [33]
    [34]
    [35]
    [36]
    [37]
    I assert that there is no justification for a block in the edits above.

    Cambial Yellowing❧ 14:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The goat was misattributed. El_C 15:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: I missed the last sentence before. I requested they receive an admonishment for their behavior (for which Cambial remains unapologetic), not a block from the article to "win" a dispute. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Cambial's relevance to the goat was that Cambial encouraged FrankBierFarmer that they had done nothing wrong, after FrankBierFarmer posted the goat. I should have phrased that better in my OP; I was not attempting to mislead. VQuakr (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr: that is not what you said, though — phrasing aside. As for encouragement and so on — that is not good enough. You need to attach diffs when you make claims like that, especially for a correction. I also would have expected a semblance of an apology to Cambial Yellowing for the misattribution, but oh well. El_C 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: an indefinite block from the article is possibly too harsh. I would be inclined to give them another chance to self-correct their behaviour. I'm just concerned that concluding the report in this way effectively is deciding a content dispute by administrative fiat. El_C 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: since it appears everyone parsed my OP statement in a way differently than I intended, yes I apologize for being unclear in such a critical situation. It was a good faith mistake, but in such a stressful situation I don't think Cambial's accusations of gaslighting should be held against them. Diffs were indeed included in my OP (and my notifications included FrankBierFarmer), including the diff of the posting of the goat, but I see that that specific diff included the admin's response. VQuakr (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, my problem is with behaviour not content. I am happy to adjust the thing if people reckon that should be done. Guy (help!) 16:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr: Cambial's relevance to the goat was that Cambial encouraged FrankBierFarmer that they had done nothing wrong, after FrankBierFarmer posted the goat — again, diff? Please don't make me look for it. El_C 16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: gotcha. Goat. "Done nothing wrong". VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the diffs you provided were more than a week apart discredits the — false — assertion that this was in response to the addition of a goat image to the page. I don't actually know why adding a goat image to a talk page would be wrong - other than that it makes no sense - but that is beside the point. Perhaps my Englishness is showing. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Please indicate which edit summaries you felt justified a block. I myself linked to the last 6 of mine above and genuinely don't follow. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cambial Yellowing: yes, the warning on FrankBierFarmer's for his casting aspersions was more recent, and it was much more concerning to me that you appeared to be egging him on regarding that (regardless of any plausible deniability you tried to establish for yourself). I mentioned the goat mostly because it was the only other source of feedback to which you possibly could have been referring. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I unblocked - the entire history of the article is a clusterfuck so unilateral sanction seems unjust. I will fully protect it instead, as those involved all meet the ECP limit. Guy (help!) 17:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr:It was — I thought quite plainly — a response to this extremely tenuous assertion that the editor had broken WP:NPA, when he did not name or refer to any specific editor in his comment. A personal attack has to — by definition — be personal, and thus directed at a specific editor(/s). You appear to be pursuing an attempt to intimidate through the use of the threat of sanction based on mischaracterisation — similar to precisely this ANI notice. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cambial Yellowing: I actually mentioned WP:ASPERSIONS not NPA, though that info page does in turn reference NPA. If you see nothing wrong with Frank musing on an article talk page about whether those that disagree with him are paid propagandists, then you have no business editing at all. Your advice to Frank was terrible. VQuakr (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @VQuakr: Aspersions is not a policy, but "an information page. It describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks" policy. Thus your accusation was one of a breach of NPA.
    As you have just admitted, FrankBierFarmer was "musing" about the existence of paid advocates, given the "fustercluck" of POV that the article has become. "Musing" about something is not a personal attack, and your false "warning" is not justified or excused. Cambial Yellowing❧ 18:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of the diffs relate to the Douma Chemical attack article, where I am one of the contributing editors (and have myself been the object of VQuakr's ire ... see, for instance, a message left on my user talkpage: [38]). I would recommend looking carefully at the talkpage and its archives to judge whose editing is the most problematic. Currently, right from the start, the article states as facts matters which are, increasingly, in dispute, such as that there was a chemical attack at Douma and that it was carried out by the Syrian government. In my opinion, double-standard tactics such as exagerrating the reliablility of some sources while deprecating others are being employed. Given VQuakr's own contributions, the accusations of tendentious editing are pretty risible, as are complaints about Cambial Yellowing's talkpage comments, given VQuakr's own rather aggressive and personal ones.     ←   ZScarpia   15:41, 9 February 2020‎.

    Thanks for your input, ZScarpia. I get the sense that both sides could benefit from taking a step back and relying more on dispute resolution requests to resolve their disputes. El_C 15:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SchroCat

    Disrupting an RfC at Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#BLP RFC: include or exclude social media numbers.

    • Restoring disputed info to a BLP [39] apparently unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information. [40] [41] [42]
    • Dismissal of the policy, dismissal of all the discussion for exclusion, and obviously upset at me over my attempts to bring attention to policy on his talk page [43]
    • Dislike of policies being brought up, assumption that the policies may not apply, ignoring discussion to date, and assuming burden is on those seeking removal [44]
    • Moved a discussion [45], then assumes I'm making a bad faith accusation about him [46] after I restored my comment to the RfC. It took me a while to figure out what had happened, while he continued to assume I had commented about him. [47] [48]
    • When faced with my clarifying that my comment wasn't about him: I will leave it here; you are being deliberately obtuse, as you have been continually on the talk page. Your approach is uncollegiate and obstructive [49]
    • Dislike of sections of policies being linked in response to his requests for more detail about the policies, accusations of communication problems directed at me [50]
    • More complaining about communication, while not understanding why multiple editors identified YouTube as a primary source [51]
    • Accuses me of not liking the information in the primary sources [52]
    • Moves the goalposts by coming up with potential sources [53]
    • And back to wanting policies quoted [56]
    • Accusing me of lying, misconstruing policies, and identifying policies in bad faith [57]
    • Accusing me of offered nothing but tendentious obstruction and identifying policies in bad faith. [58]

    I've done some quick refactoring of my comments [59], and am happy to do more.

    I'd like dig through the potential refs offered by Isaidnoway and SchroCat without the constant harassment. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ronz has been disruptive and tendentious in the pre-RfC stage and since it has begun. He has thrown around plates of alphabetti spaghetti of policy/guideline names without actually seeming to understand what he is relying on. (The most obvious one is his first diff here "unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information": this is untrue, I am both aware of what the guidelines say, and they do not say to keep the information out of the article - all that I reverted is cited to reliable sources and acceptable within our policies). He has accused me of removing comments from an RfC (untrue, and I see he claims above he "restored" it to the RfC: also untrue - it was never in the RfC to begin with, which is why I moved it), edit warred on my talk page, accused me of "Projection and disruption" when I have asked him to quote the relevant part of the guidelines he is relying on, misconstrued my comments (more than once) and been dismissive and disingenuous when dealing with anyone who disagrees with him. His second point here ("Dismissal of the policy, dismissal of all the discussion for exclusion") is another untruth: I have not dismissed the policy at all - I have not dismissed any policy. The whole basis of these points are incredibly dubious. I have provided a stack of sources to counter his claims on the various talk page threads (dismissed by him as "is there even one good ref in that unlinked list? Guessing the answer is "no" otherwise it would be identified"). Stonewalling on talk pages is rarely helpful, and the !votes in the RfC do not support his position. If you want me to go through each of his points in order to refute the silliness, I'll happily do it, but it all seems such a waste of time. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. If anyone wants me for further comment/explanation, you'll have to ping me. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading the RfC it seems Ronz is primarily the one being stubborn and inflexible. SchroCat is giving as good as he gets, but that's the worst you can say of him. Reyk YO! 19:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As an onlooker, I've got a feeling that there's going to be a WP:BOOMERANG effect going on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing:

    • [60][61] - Apparently SchroCat doesn't realize that I'm arguing against undue weight, not against complete removal based upon the two of the seven sources that aren't irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      If you participate in a discussion it isn't harassment if somebody responds to your comments. What admin action do you want? Somebody to argue on your side? I don't recall "please help me win my argument" being one of the administrator functions. Yomanganitalk 16:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I want the harassment and disruption to stop. The battleground behavior, the incessant assumptions of bad faith, the flooding the discussion with misrepresentations and dismissals. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone wondering whether Ronz's obsession with Grace VanderWaal is recent may like to examine a November 2016 discussion on my talk. A topic ban might be required to allow Ronz to focus elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Who's obsession?! --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have notified both editors of discretionary sanctions for edits related to biographies of living people. If disruption occurs on the talk page in question, any administrator may unilaterally impose restrictions that they believe will prevent further disruption. Beyond that, I don't see much else to be done here and now except remind the two not to bludgeon the process or personalize disputes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a lazy resolution, akin to keeping the entire class behind when someone doesn't own up to setting fire to the classroom paper bin during a chemistry lesson. The admin corps would be proud of that one. CassiantoTalk 08:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ronz's constant wikilawyering is disruptive to Wikipedia. I've been editing here for almost 14 years, and of all the editors I have ever met here, I feel that Ronz is the one whose contributions have most harmed Wikipedia and wasted other editors' time the most, usually by citing sections of policies and guidelines without understanding the spirit or meaning of those policies and guidelines, and then insisting on his/her interpretation of those policies and guidelines despite numerous other editors trying to explain them to him/her. This has been going on for years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Re editor Ronz's statement "Restoring disputed info to a BLP [73] apparently unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information." True, but a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the policy previously cited as the rationale - WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE in my opinion. The very name of the policy link should make it clear. Section 8.3.3 is part of "Role of Administrators". If material has been deleted by an admin, and an editor requests an admin restore it, then 8.3.3 is triggered. There's no policy stating that non-admins have the power to delete the material then cite 8.3.3 in preventing its restoration. That said, I could be just as wrong as I think editor Ronz is on that matter. In my time here on WP, I've engaged in the formal lawyerly side of the process about as rarely as I find gold nuggets in my Cracker Jacks. Anastrophe (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SchroCat hasn't made any subsequent comments directed at me, so I consider this closed. The potential refs offered by SchroCat and Isaidnoway didn't pan out. I've made some alternative proposals. I'll give it a rest at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad you consider it closed, but it should be noted that the refs offered by SchroCat certainly do pan out. You owe SchroCat and everyone who reads this notice board an apology for bringing this baseless ANI and continuing to waste everyone's time, when they could actually be working on the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Belkas SC

    Tired of reverting promotional and unsourced content by a COI account; in fact, Wikipedia's magic sensors won't allow me to revert the latest edit, thinking it's vandalism. See also the article talk page, which has another version of this. Asking for reversion to the last acceptable edit, and a block of the disruptive account. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted and warned in my dif. Someone beat me to the partial block.-- Deepfriedokra 12:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cluebat needed on Balija

    Balija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Protection and EW clueiron required. Ideally by someone with an inclination towards Indian caste issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A caste iron? EEng 06:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While you are at it, you can hit Andy Dingley with a "civility ban hammer". 2600:1003:B846:797D:A876:3B24:39A3:548F (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP is unnecessarily Removing my Contents with Perfect Reference in the article Balija

    An IP address of 49.206.124.217 is always removing my article in Balija page. eventhough i created it with Perfect Reference so Please Block him or take necessary action on him to prevent editwarring. Please consider this admins — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|Sathyanarayana naidu (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)]] comment added by Sathyanarayana naidu (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Request from G.-M._Cupertino for unblock/unbanning

    I am reposting the request made at User talk:G.-M._Cupertino here for a community discussion, as the editor is in effect sitebanned through WP:3X due to numerous block evasions through sock puppets (See the full list here).

    "Since the decision belongs now to the Community and not to individual Administrators, I present the previous argumentation to the Community and add that, regardless of having assumed any edit attributed to me until November 2019, even the ones who had little importance in content and no personal attacks whatsoever, and, to make my word my credible, I promise, with the risk of being blamed for making one or another edit, there will not any more edits that can be attributed to me for a given period of time to be defined, even if I do not see any reason for the most recent edits to be attributed to me. Therefore, I ask for this request to be reposted to the appropriate discussion board. There will not be any more personal attacks issues and I will not create any other account. In fact, I also ask to be able to be able to use my user page, the one where I should be making any appeals rather than this one, the User talk page, and, at the same time, to merge all the accounts attributed to me with my main account. I wish to solve this problem for good. I submit an appeal to UTRS and ask an Administrator to post it to the appropriate discussion board. This is a voluntary act and, in order not to use it in excess, I ask for the guidance of the Administrator in order to present it the most proper and least excessive way possible if it is not accepted the first time. About my banning, I believe I should explain to the Arbitration Committee that blocked me that, despite being right in the initial blocking, I was unable to defend myself that time because I've made an edit and only after that I've read that I would be blocked if I did another edit and, since I was blocked, I wasn't able to reply to the Arbitration Commitee. It was not in bad faith that I didn't reply or defend myself, but because of that. I have no grounds to appeal for past mistakes, the only thing I can do is change in Present and Future. Afterwards, though, I have been blocked by an Administrator until today, despite already being unblocked by the sentence applied by the Arbitration Commitee, which makes it strange: how can I have been fred from an Arbitration Commitee blocking and then need the intervention of the Community because of a blocking made by one single Administrator. In any case, whatever I have to do to be accepted back by the Community, I have accepted: I will be peaceful and, again, will not create any new accounts. People who might have been blocked because an Administrator believed it was me without being me is something I can't avoid 100%, it's a risk of using Wikipedia, but that will not happen again from my part.
    G.-M. Cupertino (talk|TB|) 12:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC) (reply)"

    RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose, and I suggest the user should be prohibited from making another unblock/unban request until at least one year has passed since their last edit. Favonian pointed out on the user's talk page that they've been evading their block as recently as November 14, 2019 and in my opinion, this alone is sufficient to reject the request. I personally suspect this comment from an anonymous user was an attempt to mislead us and was actually made by G.-M. Cupertino. This user has a history of abuse stretching back more than a decade and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive is a testament to their unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - this user has been socking for eleven years. Their unblock request is a jumbled mess of blaming others and avoiding responsibility for their own abuse; I suspect they have not even looked at WP:GAB. I also endorse Yamla's suggestion of a moratorium on unblock requests until one year has passed from their most recent sockpuppet edit. If they can respect that then maybe I'll trust that they can be a constructive editor, but nothing less is going to cut it for me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – the editor needs to face up to their past disruptive behavior and convince us that it will not reoccur. The present request fails completely in that respect. Concur with the one-year moratorium. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-admin comment. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of G.-M. Cupertino - 27 pages.
    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive - 18 entries from March 2009 to June 2019.
    Hmmmm.
    Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. Jer.13:23. Narky Blert (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Horse Eye Jack

    See: User:Horse Eye Jack reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: no violation) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

    User:Horse Eye Jack's focus is to purge several media sources from all articles, for not a WP:RS or even remotely close. (see here). According to Horse Eye Jack, an editor should not revert this purge, since [u]nless you can make an argument for them passing WP:VERIFY than stop using them. When you make a revert you are responsible for the content of that revery, please review WP:CHALLENGE. (see here). According to me, this is ridiculous. WP:CHALLENGE tells us, that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The content deleted by Jack was sourced. However, since this user doesn't believe in the reliability of the given sources, he deletes the sourced material again and again. Thus, in such a way, I cannot make edits, unless I make a case that AND the content is sourced, AND give conclusive evidence that the given source is flawless beyond any doubt in the eyes of EVERY individual editor of Wikipedia. This severely violates the "anyone can edit"-ideology of Wikipedia, and it drains the fun of editing it.

    At the edit-warring-noticeboard, someone advised: "if there's a need for admin intervention, WP:ANI is the place to detail the issues." This I am doing now. And I want to ask the administrators: is User:Horse Eye Jack's way of editing an acceptable method? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Its worth noting that when i interacted with Horse Eye Jack he repeatedly re-added content, claiming the burden was on me to justify removal. He then reverted the last hand full of things in my history example. Its worth noting that he did respect the eventual consensus from an RFC i submitted about the disputed template page, so there is that. Bonewah (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah I remember that one, still can't believe that Who's Nailin' Paylin? gets almost 7,000 page views a month. Who the heck watches that sort of thing? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that the source Jeff5102 is going out on a limb for is Middle East Media Research Institute, and they wanted to use it on a WP:BLP page. The relevant talk page discussion (which Jeff5102 abandoned back in January) can be found at Talk:Gerald Fredrick Töben. I note that despite the talk page discussion being abandoned over a week ago I have not imposed my preferred edit on the page. Anyone can look at my editing history, the idea that my "focus is to purge several media sources from all articles” is simply untrue. My focus is on building an encyclopedia using high quality sources, my work speaks for itself [62][63]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A link to all your contributions is hardly convincing, you will have to do far better than that. You obfuscate when given the chance, not going unnoticed, opening the question to whether you ever discuss any political matter in good faith. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thank you for the notification, Jeff. Before the AN/EW thread is archived, here is the perma-link to the thread that was opened. For now, the only thing I have to add beyond the thread contents is: when he had sided with a user whom I had reported on at AN/EW, and said user turned around to launch what is indisputably a sordid personal attack, HEJ had not only failed to condemn said user, but turned around to use WP:NPA as a battering ram against Zanhe's mildly worded criticism of HEJ's knowledge. Insidious double standards and WP:GAME to escape sanctions at AN/EW. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yny501’s comment and Zanhe’s comment (see User talk:Zanhe#Reliable sources for Chinese articles) were months apart, kind of far apart to say I turned around from one to the other. My leaving their comment on my talk page isn’t an endorsement of their language just as I’m sure you taking me to task on Zanhe’s talk page while ignoring their language wasn’t an endorsement of it. I don’t delete any comments on my talk page, can you say the same? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Failing to condemn" ≠ "Endorsement", as you know well, but choose to obfuscate yet again. Also, review WP:NOTTHEM. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my point, you were the one who argued that my failure to condemn the language and my request that Zanhe not continue to refer to me as "one of those naive youngsters who never read more balanced academic publications and are easily caught in sinophobic hysteria.” was grounds for administrative action against me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the only conclusion I drew there was to correctly describe you as a top-notch WikiLawyer, which is not itself sanction-able. But thanks no thanks for the usual blatant distortion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m talking about your argument here on ANI not on Zanhe’s talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm talking about your horrid record, not what any sanctions should be; neither has anyone else, so far. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So I'm not an admin, and I believe that I am uninvolved, but can't stand the sight of back and forth argumentation. Isn't the onus on Jeff5102 to achieve consensus for the inclusion of disputed content? I very well may have misread the situation, but it seems to me that HEJ challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed. (Although, perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the policy definition of "disputed," in which case, I'm wrong). Surely reinstating the content from the source being challenged is not enough refute the initial challenge? The idea that the only alternative is to give conclusive evidence that the given source is flawless beyond any doubt in the eyes of EVERY individual editor of Wikipedia strikes me as both a strawman and against the very principles of determining things through consensus building. Additionally, to quote WP:BLPRS, any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source - it sounds like there is no consensus about MEMRI as an RS, meaning that it's inclusion is indeed unacceptable. Lastly, a minor point, but I was under the impression that WP:NOTTHEM was solely for use in unblock requests? I sincerely apologize if writing this comment was inappropriate of me, but I felt compelled to do so by what I read as a misuse of policy. If it was indeed inappropriate, I gladly retract it. Darthkayak (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. This is my problem indeed. Any right-wing editor can make a case that CNN fails WP:RS while presenting some Fox News-, Project Veritas- or Russia Today-references to prove that. Then, CNN is disputed, and since "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed," that is a free pass to remove all CNN-references from Wikipedia. I am all for building consensus. However, if an editor plays the role of prosecutor, judge and jury simultaneously, and is not prepared to change his opinion towards the majority view, then things get very tiresome. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The user is indeed focused on removing the sources, even if it's accompanied with other RS. Such as at [64] and the numerous other edits (as brought up at the Administrators' noticeboard discussion). The users focus is purging sources and has less focus on material, as is seen in his/her rapid speed in which the user removes sources without regard to the article's content. --Cold Season (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, CGTN... Who recently published a report entitled By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang[65]. As for the text vs material question if the material is sourced to multiple sources and only some of them are unreliable or of disputed reliability why in the world would I ever remove the material? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff5102: Just to make my previous comment more clear, I'm agreeing with HEJ that removing solely MEMRI-sourced content is the appropriate course of action - as noted, there is no consensus as to its reliability, and I think it's on you, Jeff4102, to try and build such consensus before the content can be added. As for your CNN example, it is not comparable to MEMRI. Perennial sources indicates that there is consensus regarding the general reliability of CNN - it would take your hypothetical right-wing editor a lot more than some Fox News, Project Veritas, or Russia Today references to remove all CNN-references from Wikipedia. There is no such consensus on the reliability of MEMRI, and as such (if I'm understanding BLP correctly, which I might not be), editors have the duty to remove solely MEMRI-sourced content from BLPs, and likely from other contentious applications if they doubt its veracity. Darthkayak (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This contradicts your earlier point, that "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed." Anyway, my idea is that we shouldn't disqualify any "questionable" source at face value, or delete all text that is referenced by it. After all, even the works of a noted fraud as David Irving is used as a source when it comes to the Nazi viewpoint of WWII.

    I've already expressed my opinion about Horse Eye Jack's behaviour at WP:AN3, and EvergreenFir suggested that it's more suitable for ANI than AN3. Since someone else has now started a complaint against him on a different issue, I'm just going to repeat here what I said before: I agree this is strictly speaking not a violation of 3RR as there were only three reverts on Fan Bingbing. However, this article is just part of Horse Eye Jack's larger campaign to mass remove Chinese sources from dozens of articles and edit war when reverted by others. This is despite the fact that he was just recently involved in a discussion on the reliability of Chinese media sources at WP:RSN (see archived thread), and did not get any support for his view that they should be considered unreliable in all contexts. And this is not an isolated incident: during his relatively short editing career, numerous experienced editors have issued warnings on his talk page for editing warring and personal attacks, but he has almost always responded by arguing incessantly until others give up (the Wikilawyering CaradhrasAiguo was talking about). -Zanhe (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone takes the time to read the RSN discussion Zanhe linked its a good one, my favorite part is this argument from Zanhe for why we should consider Chinese state media to have editorial independence and a reputation for fact checking "Governments are presumed to exercise editorial control and fact checking (censorship is an extreme form of editorial control).” Zanhe you’re mischaracterizing my argument (which was the uncontroversial "Chinese state media is general unreliable, especially when it comes to domestic reporting."), I note that we were the only two editors who participated in the end of that discussion so yes technically neither of us got any support for our positions. Per our conversation on my talk page User talk:Horse Eye Jack#Please stop removing sources you already know I object to your characterization of my argument on the RSN, why would you repeat it? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROPE That is quite the deflection. This administrative thread is quite clearly not about the merits of sources involved (purported editorial independence and fact-checking), but rather your wantonness. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darthkayak already pointed out to you that WP:NOTTHEM only applies to blocked users, the same goes for WP:ROPE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another gross example of wiki-lawyering. As guides are not policy, I only care for their spirit, not their parameters. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks,Caradhas. That is weird...when I discussed with Horse Eye Jack on Talk:Gerald_Fredrick_Töben#MEMRI, he literally told me, after my appeal to WP:PUS: Thats an essay not policy... WP:RS is a guideline and WP: Verifiability is policy. But now he is appealing to an explanatory supplement (WP:NOTTHEM) and an essay (WP:ROPE) himself. I do not understand why his postion on this has changed so quickly.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Darthkayak:@Horse Eye Jack: DarthKayak, I agree that Perennial sources indicates that there is consensus regarding the reliability of CNN. However, my comment on CNN was more a criticism on your "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed,"-argument, which, when used by the wrong people, can have nasty consequences.
    As for the other discussed sources: I did see MEMRI, as well as some Chinese media popping up at WP:CITEWATCH. However, it was on the same list as, among others, Holocaust studies (the complete scientific field, apparently), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America, although sources with a clear habit for distorting the truth are mentioned too.. And, as the page clearly states: this list is a starting point to detect unreliable sources which are cited by Wikipedia, but it does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them. It also rightly mentions the somewhat arbitrary nature of what exactly constitutes an unreliable source, and that the CiteWatch cannot determine the full context in which a source is used, therefore use common sense and judgement before removing a citation from an article. When in doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard (especially before a mass purge of a certain source).
    Therefore, I do believe that blindly deleting sourced material, just for having an "unreliable source," is a road too simplistic to travel. As WP:CITEWATCH states, please discuss the discussed sources thoroughly before deciding to purge them. That would have saved everyone time and frustrations. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible rangeblock?

    Lots of LTA and multiple previous rangeblocks for these ranges, including CU blocks - ian.thomson} blocked one, I added the others. Guy (help!) 14:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There's ongoing trolling re the alleged whistleblower from BNSL addresses (an Indian mobile operator), often triggering Special:AbuseFilter/1008.

    There may well be more, log entries for the abuse filter are suppressed. Is this worth rangeblocking, or should I just carry on playing whack-a-mole? Guy (help!) 16:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There is fairly high collateral damage. If we consider their activity significantly harmful, I suggest hardblocking all of the ranges for not more than a day or two. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    In the interest of all BSNL users (BSNL is the largest Internet provider in the country), I plead with you to remove these rangeblocks. Participation in Wikipedia is already low from developing countries. You should not block an entire country like this. I can assure you that the people will exercise self control and not trigger the AbuseFilter in the future. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.243.20.58 (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DragonDancereturns420

    Indeffed by RickinBaltimore (non-admin closure) Puddleglum 2.0 20:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Consistent history of overall disruptive editing from vandalism in articles to a user page that even says they're "not here" and the use of a racial slur on a user talk page. The user should be indef'd for this unexcusable action. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef'd. WP:AIV could have worked for a report on this user as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Richinstead

    Long term promotional account, with some copyright violations today. Appears to work in public relations for the university. Hasn't responded to messages re: copyright, advertising or COI. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) I was drafting a thread at ANI while the IP posted (that was fast!) This was brought to my attention by a report at WP:AIV by the IP. The IP warned the user regarding UPE and asked them to disclose any association (Special:PermaLink/939634821), all of which was subsequently removed without any reply (Special:Diff/939636212). Seeing the contributions, it is obvious that there is some connection between the subjects they edit and themselves, whether it is COI or UPE, I'm not sure about, and in such circumstances I'm not comfortable making a UPE-block, whereas other more experienced adminstrators could have made a call. So, it's probably better that this is discussed at a centralized venue. If you're replying about something I said and not the issue itself, consider pinging me as I'll be away working on a bot! Thanks. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of a block would be preventing further similar contributions if warnings don't help; it is currently not entirely clear if this is the case. The user has received their first warning about the topic today, after 10 years of registration. It is probably reasonable to use {{uw-paid1}}, and possibly even {{uw-paid2}} and {{uw-paid3}} before blocking the user. That said, I guess neither qedk nor me will hesitate to do just that if needed. I think we can close this thread; this is being dealt with. Thank you for noticing the issue, dealing with the promotional edits and filing a report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, none of this is true. Just trying to help edit pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richinstead (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess both of you are correct – trying to help and making mistakes aren't mutually exclusive. I still think this can be closed now. 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem with closing, and I appreciate your diplomacy, ToBeFree. My response has been based not only on the lengthy history of promotional edits--one can't simultaneously take credit for years of 'helpful' contributions and claim ignorance of the most basic premise of neutrality--but on the unwillingness to own years of unacceptable edits. Instead my report was referred to as 'fake news.' So no, I'm not inclined to offer slack. There's not a clear indication that they understand what's unacceptable about their edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA repeating actions of a recently created/blocked SPA on the article "Grsecurity", COI?

    Greetings, for "disclosure" I am a reader and rarely an IP editor of Wikipedia who knows my way around.

    I noticed a section missing in the article Grsecurity and investigated the edit history to find it was originally removed on January 24 by a brand new user "Trollcleaner" who edit warred and was subsequently blocked. Another account "Vox araneae" then repeated this removal with a long edit summary, and this account has also only edited the article Grsecurity and its talk page. This account made similar edits to the page as long ago as June 2018 and was created on "17 June 2018 at 20:16" according to Special:ListUsers.

    If the content removed is actually inappropriate to the article or not is up for debate, but the fact that more than one single purpose account is POV-pushing may warrant at least a block if not a sock investigation to see if there are any more accounts. Someone should take a look at this and possibly reinstate the removed content for now (including that removed in 2018, if appropriate in light of these odd editors). May even be worthwhile to do a minor rewrite, but that's neither here nor there right now.

    Looking further into the page's edit history right now, there are actually more accounts that have done similar and only edited Grsecurity, including "Juniperridge", "Altheacynara", "Spender2001" (has also edited Address space layout randomization), and IP 188.235.237.93 (but just one edit).

    Someone should also notify the user(s), according to AN policy at the top of this page, but as an IP who can't be bothered with wiki politics I'll leave that to someone else.

    Please forgive any faux-pas in my posting, and thanks.

    50.32.224.60 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Users notified:
    Article details: Grsecurity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. The removed section and the associated edits contained false facts for several months, such as "Spengler lost the appeal" (that didn't happen until just recently) and "GPL2 with restrictions", that none of the so called contributors to that section bothered to fix or substantiate. There clearly is POV-pushing, but from those accounts that edited just that section or have suggested and/or attempted similar edits only, actually contributing nothing or misconceptions at best (which I had to fix) on the actual subject. I also resisted the attempts to remove the relevant technical content and tried to discuss changes. But time have shown that the removed section attracts too much people that just push their agenda, and that it doesn't belong to the article dedicated to software. I suggest all the genuinely interested contributors to start an article on OSS, Inc. and/or the "controversial" court case, and contribute there in accordance to the established Wikipedia standards.
    As for calling my account single purpose, I do confirm that it actually is. The purpose is to prevent slander and vandalism that keeps being done to the article about the software I actually use professionally and know well (unlike the many other so called contributors with multi-purpose accounts) for more than a decade.
    Vox Araneae (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I may be missing something, but nothing in the article (regardless of which recent version) appears to me to do anything to establish that this 'set of patches for the Linux kernel' meets Wikipedia notability criteria. Most of it reads like an advertisement, listing endless unexplained features. Rather than waste time trying to figure out who is right regarding this content dispute, it might be simpler to delete it entirely. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You're missing the basic fact that many other articles on specific information security subjects lack third-party sources just as much, due to the very limited number of competent writers and therefore publications on these subjects out there. Besides, most of those "endless unexplained features" are, in fact, minor, have very limited scope and pretty much self-explanatory descriptions. All or most of that is rather obvious for a reader interested in systems security. And just like the great many articles e.g. about mathematics don't have a 101 math course as a part of every one of them, grsecurity article doesn't explain e.g. how chroot works, what scope/limitations/flaws it has as a security measure and how grsecurity chroot restrictions address/affect some of those. Not that it shouldn't reference any other articles or external sources, and not that those sources are non-existent (e.g. see this list: https://grsecurity.net/research - care to investigate and contribute links?). But of course none of the "concerned" anti-grsecurity people are interested in actually making the article better. They would rather have it trimmed down to a few description sentences and a "GRSECURITY BAD" section that retells Bruce Perens' opinion and alikes, preferentially (for them) taken out of context (as was attempted before, with Linus Torvalds' opinion (see this talk thread) and present them as facts for readers with less technical background and factual knowledge.
    Anyway, if you have any particular suggestions about which features need to be explained or folded into more concise descriptions and how, don't hesitate to make them. For example, with my recent edits I tried to make the PaX section more comprehensive and comprehensible for the reader, and the same could be done to the rest of the article, even though more information also needs to be added in the process.
    Vox Araneae (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    vox_araneae You make a great case for removing badly sourced junk from those other articles. I made a start on this one, removing material that was sourced to WikiBooks (which is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia) and the company's own website. There are now two sources other than grsecurity.net, one is PRWeb (so not independent), the other is a ten year old piece in LWN.net. Please add reliable independent secondary sources or this article is likely to be deleted. If you add further unreliable or affiliated sources, you are likely to be banned form that article for promotional editing. I note also that you have no edits to any other subject: that often indicates a connection to the subject, which you must declare. Guy (help!) 10:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on JzG's suggestions, any expansion of the article needs to start by telling the reader why this particular bit of software is of any significance. Has it been the subject of third-party reviews? Is it actually in widespread use? As it stood, the article told us a great deal about 'features', while doing nothing to establish that anyone really cared. Evidence for that comes from third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. Not passing mentions in technical papers, but in-depth coverage. The sort of coverage that justifies inclusion in an encyclopaedia. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of connection to the subject. As I said, I'm a grsecurity user, for more than a decade. Everything I ever got from the project (i.e. the patches themselves) I got for free, without undertaking obligations of any kind. I also contacted them on IRC and via email and always received free support, again, without undertaking obligations of any kind. However, I have a deep respect for the authors of grsecurity for their self-integrity and the work they have done and continue doing, as well as for that they did it for free for about 15 years. I believe such experience is common among the other long-term grsecurity users that didn't happen to rely on intermediary party (e.g. Hardened Gentoo) support only, and that it doesn't create a conflict of interest for me. I also don't think that grsecurity needs any advertising, especially in a form of promotional edit on Wikipedia. However, I also think that it doesn't deserve to have its page being vandalized by the people promoting a hateful agenda. Yet since that's exactly what happened to the page in the past couple of years (and the past few months, btw), as I see it, and since no one else tried to prevent that at the time, I decided to do it myself and registered the account shortly afterwards.
    If the above circumstances are enough to create a conflict of interest according to both the letter and the spirit of the Wikipedia standards, then I really wonder what kind of motivation a volunteering editor should have, not to be accused of COI.
    Vox Araneae (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "I ... don't think that grsecurity needs any advertising, especially in a form of promotional edit on Wikipedia". Good to hear, since as of now the article doesn't contain any. What it lacks however, is third-party sourcing that establishes its notability per Wikipedia guidelines. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you accuse me of promotional editing? What parts of my edits are promotional and why? What are the criteria? Among the other things, I've removed the section with false facts. Is that too a promotional edit? Besides, most part of the content that JzG have removed and the agenda-pushing trolls was calling advertisement is from 2008, when (and as for many years after that) grsecurity was publicly available and free of charge. Was that content promotional too? Has it become promotional at some point? When? Is "reads like an advertisement" an actual criterion? Vox Araneae (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is entirely possible to promote things that are free of charge. People try to do that on Wikipedia all the time. Religion, politics, which end of a boiled egg to remove, etc, etc and so on ad nauseam. The best defence against this is to insist that the notability of article topics is demonstrated through independent sourcing, and that the article content complies with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. A policy which I'd have thought makes clear enough that articles shouldn't read "like an advertisement". Even more so when what the article is promoting is actually a product now being offered for purchase, as grsecurity now is. So even if you have no COI, and are writing about this product out of the purest of intentions, the article still needs proper third-party sourcing, and still needs to read like something other than a sales brochure. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with User:Kingboyk's indefinite NOTHERE block of User:Trollcleaner. The others listed above may or may not have a COI. It would be beneficial to have an article on Grsecurity, though it would take some patience to produce a well-sourced core of material that would actually be informative. If the article were fully reviewed at AfD my guess is that it would be kept. The Register is interested in the GPL licensing court case and keeps reporting on it. The Register gets a pass from WP:RSPS ("The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles..") I believe that LWN.net should be usable as a source for technical material. Pulling in long lists of features from the Grsecurity web site is not going to be useful. If the article is going to mention any court cases it should probably insist on using genuine third party reporting, not any court pleadings or any statements from the parties to the case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pudeo

    Indeed, the request at AE is still open. El_C 22:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made an unprovoked personal attack, accusing three editors of WP:Tag team editing. According to the essay, Wikipedia's definition of tag teaming is "a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." The only evidence Pudeo cites is that the editors have edited some of the same articles.

    I requested here and here, and Objective3000 requested here, for Pudeo to show evidence of coordination or strike their comments. Pudeo refused, and instead doubled down.

    I would like for an administrator to rectify this in accordance with the warning at the top of WP:AE: "Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." Thank you. - MrX 🖋 21:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MrX I can't possibly see how there is a personal attack in the first link provided. Please quote/be more specific. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Willbb234:
    • "It is evident without a doubt that there is tag-teaming at play here. After Snooganssnoogans recently brought up SashiRolls on Awilley's talkpage, MrX and Objective3000 commented there within an hour[73]."
    • "Based on the editor interaction tool with Objective3000 and MrX, it's fairly obvious they are following each other's edits to give back-up."
    From WP:NPA"What is considered to be a personal attack?... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." Lazily showing that editors edit some of the same article is not serious evidence. - MrX 🖋 22:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder why does this need to be here and not in the AE thread you opened about SashiRolls (talk · contribs), who similarly has said that you tag-team and what that thread is about? In fact, I did provide some diffs in my AE comment. As I mentioned on my talkpage, there are 93 articles that you, O300 and Snoogans have edited within 10 minutes of each other according to the editor interaction tool (I still find that result incredible). Writing my own analysis that you tag-team is not a personal attack in an AE thread where your own behavior is being also evaluated as a filer. --Pudeo (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Spam by Mdendr

    User has been indefinitely blocked by Cullen328 as per WP:Spam and WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. (non-admin closure) User talk:AryaTargaryen 23:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    About one and one half years ago User:Mdendr was warned about indiscriminately adding links to the site http://www.epistemeacademy.org with no attempt to integrate the addition to the structure of the article. Similar edits were made around 15 March 2019, although no warning was issued at that time. The behavior resumed today, for example, [74] and [75]. Editing links to this site seems the editor's primary activity in recent years. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The irrelevant linker is back

    Following the expiry of the block due to this ANI thread, this same range is doing it again: [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]. Pinging @Narky Blert, Samwalton9, Serial Number 54129, Boing! said Zebedee, RexxS, and Bbb23: from the previous discussion. ミラP 22:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought maybe they'd given up? I've seen only one example in the last month or so (1 day IP user, 5 edits, 3 reasonable-looking, 2 piles of rubbish reverted).
    See also Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 14#Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words. Narky Blert (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Still mostly disruptive changes, very unlikely to be constructive. I've re-blocked the IPv6 /64 range for a little longer. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note. Experience suggests that it only or largely edits in sections titled "Tokusatsu". Narky Blert (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Three years is way too long. I've reduced the block to six months – even the stickiest addresses typically don't stay allocated to the same person for that long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor bounces between IPs like a Super Ball in a squash court. (A mate tried that once, with a black one. The ball shattered on impact, and he and his opponent spent the next few minutes cowering in the corners until the fragments came to rest.) I've seen addys in both the 1xx and 2xxx ranges; few used for more than a single day, and often stale when found. Long blocks risk collateral damage. Narky Blert (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narky Blert: The filter had to many FPs to set to disallow. I've narrowed it down only to pages containing "Tokusatsu", which I hope is good enough. I have not set the filter to disallow; I'd rather see if the block works, first. If they evade it, please let me know. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Suffusion of Yellow: Thanks. Unless this editor changes their modus operandi, I think filtering for "Tokusatsu" should work. They only need make one edit to an article containing that word to come under scrutiny, and I doubt they'd be able to resist the temptation. Narky Blert (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex-h

    Edits by Alex-h show a repetitive pattern that violating Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy and OR.

    • First
    1. He wrote that They have taken this decision on the request of some Iranian artists who have already boycotted the festival.,but there is nothing in the source about two Italian directors in his first edit. In addition A source which was inserted after a while, says that A group of prominent Iranian writers, poets, playwrights, and actors have asked two Italian stage directors to stay away from the Islamic Republic's official Fajr drama festival. The source does not say the festival is boycotted. There is nothing about the effect of this request by Iranian actors on making a decision by Italian directors!
    2. The Source says that Ali Khamenei has said Iranians should fast Ramadan style to show “the enemy” they can resist its sanctions. but he just wrote that Ali Khamenei, said that under the school of thought of Khomeini people should fast like in Ramadhan.
    3. The source says that "Several members of the victims' families have been forced to participate in interviews with the regime-linked media and stress on their allegiance to the Islamic Republic Supreme Leader," a foreign-based Persian website, Zeytoun, reported on January 23, but he wrote that Iranian regime’s agents force families of victims of the downed Ukrainian airliner to have interviews on state TVs declaring their total support for the Iranian government and the Supreme Leader, Khamenei. Otherwise, the government won’t deliver them the bodies of their loved ones.. It is the claim of Persian website, Zeytoun reported by Radio Farda, but he mentioned it as a fact instead of the claim of Zeytoun.
    4. The source says that Some injured protesters, including those with painful wounds, did not seek hospital treatment for fear of arrest, Amnesty International (AI) reported, but he wrote that Human Rights organizations, including Amnesty International, report that ‘’’many’’’ Iranian protesters wounded in November demonstrations, still cannot use hospital attention as they may get arrested. the source doesn’t support “many”.
    5. The source says that Mohammad Maleki, died of a bullet wound he had received on January 25., he wrote that Two injured protesters, Mohammad Maleki, 23 and Amir Ojani, 43 years old, died in last days of January, of acute infection and respiratory problem. There in nothing in the source about Mohammad Maleki died because of acute infection.
    • Second

    While he was warned for using trash sources, but he repeated the behavior again and again, see that cotton, themediaexpress, ncr-iran, ca-news-forum. He uses unreliable sources for stating extraordinary claims which need extraordinary sources.

    • Third

    Most of the time, Radio farad was being used by the user (1], 2, 3, 4, 5)As user: Winged Blades of Godric explained here, Radio Farda is not an unbiased RS in these domains (with a controversial history), given that it is funded by a state which is hostile to Iran. He did not use it with attribution and I illustrated above he uses it for his OR and saying as fact while they are just the claim of Radio Farda. Thanks for attention!Saff V. (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeanette Wilson page

    I have recently discovered a Wikipedia page set up in my name. It is libelous and malicious and was the work of a group of individuals who call themselves the Good Thinking Society - they are trying to stop my UK and NZ tour. I have a screen shot of their facebook group post congratulating themselves on the creation of my page. Please can the page be taken down ASAP -

    File:Facebook group
    Good Thinking Society

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace11111 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Peace11111 Please withdraw your legal threat, or you will need to be blocked. Legal threats are not permitted on Wikipedia. While it is certainly your right to take legal action, you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both simultaneously. I've already explained how you can address allegedly libelous content, which you seem to have done. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 110.33.138.212

    Hello, I have an issue with 110.33.138.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) arising from edits on 7 February to Alec Douglas-Home, which is a featured article. The IP began with an edit to main narrative which duplicates information that is already held in a footnote. I contend that the information is trivial and should not be in the narrative of a featured article, though it is perhaps worth mentioning in the footnote. I reverted the edit and emphasised the trivia aspect in my edit summary. The IP restored the statement and I reverted again with a request that they follow the terms of WP:BRD and raise the issue on the article talk page. I also pointed out the duplication aspect. The IP restored the statement again with what amounts to a personal attack.

    I have no intention of going anywhere near WP:Edit warring. The IP has ignored my request for BRD and, given their attitude in the edit summaries, I doubt very much if discussion will achieve anything. I see in the person's contribution history that a similar attitude was displayed at 2012 Australian Labor Party leadership spill when Nick-D twice had to revert and later inform the IP that personal opinions cannot be included in articles. The IP appears to favour indiscriminate information along the lines of "this was the only time that...." Examples of this approach can be seen at Geoffrey Palmer (politician), Walter Nash, 1960 Australian Labor Party leadership election, 1974 Australian federal election and, most recently, Bob Ellicott. This stuff tends to be added as single sentence paragraphs which are of course deprecated and, much more importantly, it is never sourced.

    I have left the Douglas-Home article alone since the last restoration as I would prefer a consensus on the matter. If that should go against me, fine, but I would argue that the statement is duplication of WP:IINFO which reduces the quality of a featured article. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Having just seen this edit by the IP which reverts a request by Materialscientist for a source, I will step aside for the time being because I am being accused of malpractice. In fact, I am merely trying to preserve article quality in the face of some questionable edits by this IP who has been criticised and reverted by three or four other editors besides myself. I don't think the IP's edit summaries are particularly edifying. They include: "This is not a good faith edit as No Good Shaker has no understanding at hand and had been going through my edit history as retaliation for a disagreement that develop at the Alec Douglas Home article", "Bbb23 is being troublesome", "Unlike No Great Shaker, I am an Australian and I know what I am talking about" (justifying original research?) and "No need to prove what 2 and 2 equals to" (repudiating WP:V). I think a sysop needs to look at the contributions and decide if this IP is here to help build the encyclopaedia according to site conventions or if they are here to do whatever they feel like doing. On the face of it, the edits appear to be AGF but the IP's attitude indicates otherwise. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinese Wikipedia User "钉钉" Block request

    Hello? My Name is "브릴란떼(Brillante)" I'm From Seoul, Rep. of Korea

    This user attempted to edit the "Yeouido" document several times, making photo disturbances close to vandalism, which prevented other users' free editing.
    On the bus ride on 21st December, 2019, I took Yeouido directly with my smartphone and recently uploaded photos to Wikimedia Commons and started using them in Yeouido documents. No, it was a biased way of returning to the past. I clearly told myself that it was a photo I took myself, but I continued to abuse it as if it was a clean picture.
    We ask for the proper handling of this user and leave a link. This is My Picture Thank you. --브릴란떼 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Reply from a non-admin) Since there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says that photos taken on a bus are automatically accepted, this seems to be a content dispute, about the relative merits of two photos. Which should be discussed on the article talk page. I suggest you start such a discussion, before an actual admin notices this thread and decides to block both of you for edit-warring. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion on Talk:Yeouido#Which should be the lead image? shows that the original photo is more accepted by the community. It is a consensus from the community. 钉钉 (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @브릴란떼:, comrade, your Wikipedia editing stint is off to a bad start if you are using claimed ownership to justify bringing a content dispute to AN/I within when not even your first dozen edits have passed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 08:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Powell (disambiguation)

    Hello, I just stumbled by accident on this vandalism that has lasted for almost 2 months. Someone'd better include such pages in their own watchlist.. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility help

    There is a lengthy discussion that has persisted on talk:DC Extended Universe. Editor @Darkknight2149: has recently decided to start accusing users that disagree with them of WP:SOCKpuppetry as well as WP:BLUDGEONing. They may or may not bring such accusations in another thread, but the user continues to contradict themselves simply to further along their proposed argument. Trying to be collaborative and civil with them is not working. Can we get some assistance, please? Thank you.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You were warned about bludgeoning because, even as the discussion was winding down and we were waiting for others to comment, you kept replying over and over to every single comment (often with two comments at a time) restating your position. As the discussion died down, you were told by both me and TheJoebro64 that there's no reason to keep going in circles and we need to allow others to comment, and you still kept trying to burying the thread with your replies because the discussion wasn't going your way. As soon as Joebro mentioned something about an RfC and I stated that I was about to open a fourth Arbitrary Break to wrap up the discussion and gather final comments/votes, you immediately rushed to open an Abitrary Break yourself [82], [83], [84] [85] just to restate your position (for the umpteenth time) and rant about how "But consensus is not based off of votes!!!"
    Then, almost immediately after you opened the Arbritary Break, Popfox3 shows up to the discussion and becomes the only user to strongly support you in that entire thread. This user only has six edits to their account. [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91] and they're all recent. Every single one of the accounts edits are at Talk:DC Extended Universe, taking the same position as DisneyMetalhead in discussions. The only two exceptions were from yesterday, when the account came to defend DMH and then added a space [92], [93] to their username and talk page, to create those pages and get rid of the redlink (in order to look less suspicious).
    @DisneyMetalhead: Not only were you guilty of WP:BLUDGEON and opened an ANI report as soon as you were warned to stop, but give us one good reason why we shouldn't open a WP:SPI. Your only defense so far for bludgeoning has been "just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm bludgeoning", which immediately falls apart under scrutiny. DarkKnight2149 18:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As if that wasn't evidence enough of WP:SOCKing, DisneyMetalhead's account was registered in September 2016 [94]. Popfox3 was registered only a month later in October 2016 [95]. So far, Popfox's only defense has been "actually I'm not a sock because my account was registered in 2016 and I simply didn't use it until recently." [96] In other words, "I didn't use my account until I needed to support DisneyMetalhead at Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions." DarkKnight2149 19:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While that does appear suspicious, you need to be clear, DK - are you stating, without equivocation, that DMh and Popfox3 are the same user? If so, you need to come out and call for a SPI investigation and file the report. I get how, if it is true, it is infuriating (I've had the same accusation made about me as well, and it is a stain that - if not specifically debunked - remains forever), but you cannot even make the accusation as part of an argument without having created an SPI report. As upset as you might be at DMh, tainting their reputation is completely unwarranted without a truckload of proof. Submit the report, await the results and frame your argument accordingly. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: It is not just DisneyMetalhead's reputation that is being tainted. I finally have time to attempt to contribute, and I immediately have accusations hurled at me and a potential investigation into my account, all because I agreed with a user in a discussion. I am NOT a sock puppet, and it is infuriating and humiliating that I have to go through this and have my reputation tainted before I even really do anything. I actually welcome an investigation if that's what it'll take to get Darknight2149 to stop. This is ridiculous. Popfox3 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: I understand that, throughout the discussion, you have tried to be the middle man of the discussion who has tried to find a middle ground between everyone involved. However, there is no middle ground here. DisneyMetalhead's behaviour fits the exact parameters of WP:BLUDGEON. My point is that there is overwhelming evidence that Popfox3 is a sock puppet of DisneyMetalhead. I'm waiting for administrator feedback first, but I probably am going to have to open a WP:SPI at some point today. I'm not clairvoyant, but from what I can see, this more than warrants a checkuser. DarkKnight2149 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that DisneyMetalhead stop reply-spamming at Talk:DC Extended Universe, and give others a chance to comment. For the moment, unless someone addresses me or something I said, I will be doing the same. DarkKnight2149 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Popfox3 - I am not going to reply directly to your comments as, at best, you are an SPA, and not really worthy of comment. At worst you are a sock, and I literally will not waste any further time (apart from this single comment) to interact with you until you either build a more diverse set of edits and an SPI comes back as unrelated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkknight2149 I myself have been accused of BLUDGEON (even before the term came into fashion); it comes from being young and unwilling to consider other viewpoints; a person doing so is absolutely convinced that the other editors suffer from anterograde amnesia and won't remember the previous comments make. Its rather disrespectful and I cringe at the fact that I used to be that way.
    Understand that DMh is likely young and needs a bit more marinating in the Stew of Life before being taken seriously. If they are socking, they deserve every single awful thing that Wikipedia can do to them (please forgive my draconian view on this, but it will not be softening or changing - socks deserve the Swift Sword of Icky Death, imo). I would have suggested on their talk page that they give other the chance to respond before addressing the comments en toto and not piecemeal. If that failed to work, get an RfC; don't wait for it, just start one. Lots of eyes will come to the page and if DMh keeps doing that, their comments will likely boomerang back onto themselves.
    I think an ANI is bit much (as you skipped a step), unless you are seeking help on how to correct the problem. If you came here seeking punishment for DMh and Popfox3, you've done this incorrectly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: I didn't skip a step. I actually did leave DisneyMetalHead a message asking for them to cool it down, and they retaliated by filing this report. I didn't file it. This is a WP:BOOMERANG scenario.
    To be honest, I don't buy Popfox3's story at all. When I was a newbie, I didn't even understand what a talk page was or the discussion process until a few weeks or so in. Yet his/her supposed first (and only) order of business is to only reply to Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions? And they happen to take all of the same positions as DisneyMetalHead? And they happened to show up to the thread just as DMH was growing more and more desperate and overzealous, and the thread was seemingly leading to a close or a RFC? And as soon as they supported DMH, they created a blank userpage and talk page to get rid of the redlink and make their lack of activity less obvious? And their account was created just a month after DisneyMetalHead's? Yeah, everything about this smells fishy. I already have a WP:SPI tab open. I will alert this thread when the report is filed. DarkKnight2149 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate you you following the necessary steps, Darkknight2149 dotting your 'i's' and crossing your 't's'. Maybe hold off on talking any more about your suspicions regarding the connections between DMh ad Popfox3 until after the SPI. The ANI is to deal with tendentious editing behavior or personal attacks, which DMh correctly did; accusing them of being part of a socking is a PA unless proven, as the lack of AGF is apparent. Others will offer far more wise advice than I. I am suggesting you don't make any further comments regarding the SPI until it is complete. Focus on what you feel is DMh's disruptive editing behaviors as you see them, because I can guarantee that the user is doing the same here.
    The hardest lesson I had to learn in Wikipedia is that trying to verbally annihilate another user in an edit summary or in talk is counterproductive; how can you even wrap your head around working with someone like that ever again, hating them that much? The short answer is that you cannot. You have to just walk away for a while and let them dig a big enough hole for themselves, jump in and start throwing dirt on themselves. You can sit by the side an eat popcorn or whatever. Just stay above their personal implosion. The point is that you point out a problem, and allow the larger contingent of very smart people here figure out how to resolve that problem. Anyone is prone to mistakes, but not a larger group of thinkers, like you see in Wikipedia. Give the system a chance to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    I have used and browsed Wikipedia for a very long time. Long before I made my account and after I forgot about it for several years. I always viewed the talk pages for articles that I was interested in to see the kinds of discussions that were taking place and how decisions were made for edits. When I noticed that New Gods had been removed from the In-Development section on the DCEU page and that there was an active discussion on the talk page that I desired to contribute to, I attempted to create a new account and in so doing discovered my old one. It wasn't too hard to Google how to edit on the Talk pages. I have been very busy recently and only had time to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the page status yesterday. Everything that you are pointing out is purely coincidental, and I'm glad that you are filing an SPI report because I look forward to being vindicated! Popfox3 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Darkknight2149 your vehement beliefs that User:Popfox3 is me through WP:SockPuppetry is humorous. File your WP:SPI and you'll just come to find that you were wrong. I'll wait patiently for your apology. User:Jack Sebastian, I awarded you on your page for being a mediator throughout the discussion and for trying to stay neutral. I've appreciated those things. I would point out that your response to Popfox3 is not the most welcoming comment to a recently registered editor, but your opinions are your own. It's unfortunate that Darkknight2149's behavior requires admin input. I will continue to provide input (with their reliable sources) in any discussion that I'm a part of. Regardless of whether DK2149 likes it or not.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) "It's unfortunate that Darkknight2149's behavior requires admin input." You mean asking you to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, or alerting the discussion to the indisputable suspiciousness of the Popfox3 situation? (I have around 10 notifications from you just from the last few days alone...) I'd say at least of those certainly requires administrator input. It just might not be the administrator input you want. The SPI will sort that out regardless, so there's no reason for me to keep harping on it here.
    I hope you and Popfox3 aren't bluffing, because if this turns out to be a coincidence and Popfox3 really is just a single-purpose account, that's one heck of a coincidence (or rather, multiple coincidences at once). So far, two other users have backed up the suspiciousness of the situation, so I'm not sure what result you're expecting by filing this report. DarkKnight2149 23:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, by their own admission, Popfox has been here for several years; they aren't a "recently registered user". I have little respect for SPAs and far less respect if they are indeed a sock account. As per BEANS, I'm not going to point out why Popfox3 is a red flag. I am giving them the consideration of not bothering to talk to them until the conclusion of the SPI.
    As well, you should hold off on commenting after every. single. comment. in a discussion. People are not stupid. Given folk a chance to compare your clearly stated view with others. No one is going to assume that you have magically dropped your objections if you don't say anything for a day or two. Let others weigh in. That is the advice I would give you on preventing friction in the discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As stated before, I will continue to wait for the apology. Funny thing is, there's one editor here who is jumping to conclusions and "pointing fingers" - and it's not me. Meanwhile I remain calm, and simply would like some assistance from an admin with the entire discussion. I have continued to respond to comments/placed input/and added new sources to the discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe. Though accused of WP:BLUDGEONing, that has not been my intention. I have simply attempted to respond to statements, and contribute to the article with reliable sources. As a sidenote: any and all users - whether non-ANNON/new/old/etc, can constructively contribute to articles. No one should discourage them anyhow. @Jack Sebastian: I'll be hot-tubbing in your Stew of Life with the Swift Sword of Icky Death, waiting for the WP:ANI to prove that User:Popfox3 is not associate with me at all **emphasis on humor intended**. I wonder however, what you think of the recent sources in the discussion - since you contributed to the discussion earlier. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My attention has been drawn elsewhere, DisneyMetalhead. I think that others can get involved in the discussion. I made my opinion known and that should be enough. I am sorry of you took offense at the 'Stew of Life' comment; I see a lot of how I used to act in your behavior, and I am not trying to shame you into being better, but I think its fair to say that the vibe you are putting out there is not having a positive effect on other editors. You don't need to respond to every comment. You just don't. Sit back and let the collaborative discussion happen without you having to reiterate your points (unless directly challenged or asked). There is no hurry. And I've said about Popfox3 all I am going to until the result of the SPI.
    Darkknight2149, please include a link to the SPI request, for the purposes of discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jack Sebastian: Sorry for the slight wait. It will be up soon. DarkKnight2149 03:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jack Sebastian The Stew of Life comment I just made, was meant to be funny. To clarify I did not take offense, and I believe that some of my comments are being read/taken in a sinister/argumentative nature when they are not intended to be. I appreciate your candor and your peace-keeping angle throughout the discussion. I have no ill-will towards anyone on WP, and simply am trying to preserve the integrity of an article. I know that I don't have to response to every comment, but when I am the sole input out of 3 editors, stating why I disagree with the notion (up until @Popfox3: that is) - I was merely attempting to provide all the resources that support my argument. I will wait for that SPI 'investigation' to be over with, and I hope at that point there are some apologies that go around. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued bludgeoning from DisneyMetalhead

    The SPI hasn't even filed yet and DisneyMetalhead is continuing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion [97]. Both myself and Jack Sebastian have warned them about it at this point, and advised them to drop the stick and wait for others to comment. Even when the consensus is stacked against them and when everyone has explained why repeatedly, DMH insists on replying to every single comment to aggressively hammer the point in some more. I guess DMH thought that by filing a retaliatory report and spinning it as an incivility report (all because of this message and this notice, by the way), they would get some kind of "get out of jail free" card to continue exactly what they have been doing. I have well over 20 notifications from DisneyMetalhead from the last few days alone, and they're all from the same discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe. DarkKnight2149 07:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DK2149; your anger is evident on each thread. However, an ongoing discussion that has not reached remotely any consensus, can/should/will be continued with new and updated sources. There was no WP:BLUDGEONing in a message that was my attempts to ping various/additional users who have contributed to the article. I have not replied to "every single comment" nor has there been any "agress[ion]". If you choose to read my comments as such, that's entirely in your error. My attempts here are to preserve and article. I've already stated why I submitted this request to admins. It has nothing to do with the reasoning you just said. In the meantime, @Popfox3: and I are still waiting for you to file your SPI...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No one here is "angry" and WP:BLUDGEON is defined as "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for Deletion, Request for Comment, WP:ANI, an article talk page or even another user's talk page. Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view." You have absolutely been doing this in spades. There also has been a consensus so far, which you are trying to change by replying constantly with the same arguments over and over, while also trying to argue why the standing consensus isn't valid because you don't like it. Every time you have provided "sources", they have either failed to justify your point or failed to contradict the majority viewpoint in the discussion (for the same reasons explained repeatedly). Your more recent sources are no exception.
    The discussion is going in a literal merry-go-round. And as the thread died down and as soon as opening a RFC or wrapping the thread up by taking final comments/votes was mentioned, you immediately jumped in with a new section just to espouse all of the same points all over again and create excuses for why the consensus isn't a consensus. Everyone there understands your position perfectly well. Trying to burying the thread in comments (often at least two comments at once) to try and get your point across is highly disruptive. We get it. Until other users have had a chance to comment, you need to drop the stick and lay off the discussion. As previously mentioned, I have well over 20 notifications from you just from the last few days alone, all from the same discussion. Do I need to post a screenshot? DarkKnight2149 19:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock puppet investigation

    Main page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisneyMetalhead

    The sock puppet investigation has been filed.

    DarkKnight2149 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To note, the users have been found unrelated by a check user. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted (and I myself pointed it out at the SPI even before the CU was requested) that this could be a likely outcome of any CU as it seems that different IP addresses would be in use for each account in purpose to avoid detection, as per DisneyMetalhead's own acknowledgement that they knew Popfox3's IP address was "nowhere near mine" (sic) despite WP:WIA barring any user sort of a Checkuser from knowing such details, and their repeated taunts for a SPI to be filled – they simply knew any CU wouldn't work. Impru20talk 00:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also left an inquiry for Bbb23 on this topic. The evidence tells me that there is too much here for this to be a coincidence. The fact that others were able to dig up even more damning evidence of a connection (such as DisneyMetalhead being telepathically aware of Popfox's IP address) means that this has to be a WP:MEAT situation at the very least. DarkKnight2149 00:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree. Prefall just noted they've gotten away with socking while logged out in the past, so I have a hard time believing that there's genuinely no connection between DMH and Popfox. JOEBRO64 00:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All that I can say is that I do not know DisneyMetalhead and was actually taken aback by their IP Address comment because I wouldn't even know how to go about checking that (and from what I am gathering, is in fact impossible without Check User privileges). I took the same position as them in a discussion, it is as simple as that. All the "evidence" used to attempt to prove otherwise is completely coincidental, and nothing more. Popfox3 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like even more evidence is unravelling about DisneyMetalhead having possibly behaved similarly in the past, this time while logged out ([98]). This would correlate to them having acknowledged themselves in a past discussion on 24 January that "I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames" (sic). Aside of the presented evidence, any claim of editing with alternative accounts would forcefully require them identifying as such on their user page—or not trying to actively deceive other editors in the case of editing while logged out—which does not seem to be the case here. Impru20talk 01:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Popfox3: You were "taken aback" by DisneyMetalhead's IP address comment at 17:33, 8 February 2020, yet still said nothing about it until now, came to this ANI thread in their defense at 19:52, 8 February 2020 without making any mention at such circumstance and even replied by thanking them for their "kindness", "courtesy" and "warm welcome" at 05:22, 9 February 2020? I would surely not be "looking forward to work" nor would be so excited with someone with whom I am "taken aback" because they somehow know about my IP address. Seems odd to say the least. Impru20talk 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I would defend and be excited to work with Disneymetalhead, because they are the one user who have attempted to make me feel welcome at Wikipedia. Try looking at it from my point of view. I contribute to a discussion and am immediately attacked and accused of being a sock puppet account. Multiple times in this ANI thread I have endured personal attacks against the credibility of my account and explanation for the coincidences and was told by one user that I was not even worth talking to, and this was well before an SPI was even officially filed. So forgive me for being willing to defend the ONE user who has been willing to defend me and attempt to make me feel welcome as an editor at Wikipedia. Popfox3 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to clarify, that in my comment regarding IP addresses - I have no idea how these SockPuppetry investigations go. I would have imagined that there was a way to look at IP addresses. I, in no way, actually know Template:Popfox3's IP. Nor do I understand how the whole processes go. Needless to say, I am in no way tech-savvy. Furthermore my statement "I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames" (sic) is in regards to years ago when I had a different profile. The username was deleted, and I left Wikipedia for some time. A similar occasion happened shortly thereafter, before I registered my current username and have since stuck to it. I do not concurrently use multiple log-ins, as has been insinuated (and as my previous statement can be interpreted to mean). --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Then how do you explain this? Moreover, why did you claim that Popfox's IP address is "nowhere near" yours? I'm not alone when I say this - None of this adds up. DarkKnight2149 01:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from TheJoebro64

    I was pinged here, and while I've had nightmares about getting tied up at ANI before, it was rightly so that this discussion was started. So, here's the gist...

    DisneyMetalhead has a long history of disruptive editing and WP:OWNy behavior at the DC Extended Universe article. I'm not sure if this is a general problem with the user (although his talk page isn't too reassuring) or just happens at this specific article, but even so, it's been going on for a long time. To call DMH's behavior when it comes to the DCEU a pain in the ass is, to put it mildly, an understatement. Here's just one example:

    In April 2018 DMH had a minor dispute with Prefall over whether the films Joker and Blackhawk should be in the article (the former had already been confirmed to be part of a separate franchise, while it wasn't clear when it came to Blackhawk). Prefall correctly noted that since it wasn't confirmed, it shouldn't be included. Then in June/July (you can see it all here) DMH waged a days-long edit war to include both, claiming that Updated studio information overrides all consensuses on here (which, to be accurate, was complete BS. Nothing had changed in the intervening months). Another discussion was opened showing extraordinarily strong consensus against DMH (and, if you look at the links I provided, you'll see that DMH continued to edit war even after the discussion was opened).

    ... then, in November, DMH adds Blackhawk again, using the same exact rationale, completely ignoring the consensus from three months prior. I reverted and a new discussion was opened to which there was no consensus since only DMH and I participated. DMH takes "no consensus" as "it's OK to add disputed material back in" and does so around Christmas, resulting in another discussion (in which they tried to play the victim because I accused him of ownership). Then it ended again...

    Until January 2020, that is, when DMH adds it again using the exact same rationale as he did in 2018, even though there quite literally has been no news about the film since its announcement. Another discussion with a consensus against DMH is opened. Of course, they still didn't learn anything and, as Darkknight noted above, engaged in WP:BLUDGEONing.

    And let me tell you, that's just one case of this. Just look at the talk page and its history. It's mind boggling. I knew it would eventually make it to some sort of noticeboard one of these days, I just didn't know when. There. I said it all. I'm at peace now. JOEBRO64 23:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rajbongshi people

    I can not untangle this, and it seems to be undergoing a lot of conflicting edits and original research. What I can request is that someone run a copyright violation check on this, because it seems to be an issue for large passages of the article. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pankaj Koch at Talk:Rajbongshi people

    Blatant threat of legal action by disruptive editor User:Pankaj koch here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't say that that is a blatant threat of legal action, but could well be interpreted as an attempt by someone without English as their first language to say that they will take action within Wikipedia, which is allowed without a block. I see that the user has been blocked for this by User:ToBeFree, but would personally not agree with that block without further clarification about what was meant here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the block reason isn't ideal, but the block appears to be necessary. I have seen this message, but will wait for the pending CU result before commenting further. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have blocked myself per WP:CIR, as this user's proficiency in English doesn't seem to be sufficient for participating in an English-language collaborative encyclopedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I will replace the block reason by "Disruptive editing with a conflict of interest". I am merging this ANI section with the above section; both seem to be about the same topic. Regarding checkuser, the account has now been described as "unlikely" to be a sockpuppet, so a part of my original concern has been alleviated. The "legal threat" by itself indeed isn't a good reason for a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for administrative enforcement of 5patrickgilles5

    FYI
     – Copied much of the text and diffs from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#America is still the place

    I had been fixing some broken redirects on Special:BrokenRedirects and, in so doing, noticed that the above-captioned user had incorrectly replaced the redirect with a simple bibliographic entry at the America is still the place redirect. I kindly reverted the edits (had to do it in two steps as I don't have rollback privileges) to establish consensus at Talk:America is still the place. What follows is the copied text and relevant diffs from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#America is still the place.

    Per the discussion at autoconfirmed editor 5patrickgilles5's talk page, as well as my own talk page, I'm requested temporary extended confirmed protection of this redirect to allow the consensus process at RfD to play out. The editor insisted on creating an uncited bibliographic entry for this article name, which I've kindly explained Wikipedia is WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY and that the correct place to incubate their article is at Draft:America is still the place. Since the editor is still not assuming good faith and adhering to WP:BRD, WP:ECP for a week or so, or some other enforcement, is necessary.

    • Initial diffs here and here (done separately because I don't have rollback privileges). After advising the editor to follow WP:BRD, the editor still insisted on adding back the bibliographic entry here.
    • Comment I noted that the editor is also trying to do the [99] same at the I'm Charlie Walker redirect and that John from Idegon warned the editor via edit summary. Noting the COI warning the editor received from Marchjuly, I'm now thinking at least a temporary block may be in order for this editor and/or a removal of their "autoconfirmed" status.
    • Comment Now the editor, while presumably in good faith, is casting aspersions and, incorrectly, attributing Marchjuly's earlier notification re: potential COI to being from me in this edit.

    Given the above, I think, at minimum, the editor's "autoconfirmed" user right should be manually revoked, and the editor should be temporarily blocked or blocked from editing the related redirects and target page. Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I had edited two pages with factual first-hand knowledge exempt from any conflict of interest. Dmehus has, without concensus, and his/her own words, "I had been fixing some broken redirects" which were not "broken". A draft page had just been create less than 10 minutes ago to resolve the issue with civility and Dmehus is now requesting "revoking my user's privileges". This request falls far outside the codes of civility and should be a warning to all contributors that Dmehus can no longer be considered a "neutral" party in this discussion. His/her own words, "I think" and "user right manually REVOKED" and "Blocked" should not be taken lightly. I call on neutral parties to temper Dmehus' quest for punishment of others on the platform and restore civility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5patrickgilles5 (talk • contribs)

    So that edit need not be revision deleted, but the editor should revert it. Doug Mehus T·C 23:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dmehus: just use the {{unsigned}} template. @5patrickgilles5: maybe it's time you take a step back, discuss the changes you are proposing and... learn the basics before effectively defacing pages. Just take a breather, acquaint yourself with Wikipedia and go from there, please. El_C 23:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    El C, thanks for the template; wasn't aware of that.
    I think it needs a little than the editor taking a step back, not a block necessarily, but, perhaps, page blocks temporarily of the redirects to Mike Colter and/or revocation of their autoconfirmed user right given the consistent failure to adhere to WP:BRD. Doug Mehus T·C 23:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) BRD isn't really policy, but just sort of recommended practice; so, even though not adhering to it in and of itself isn't a really good idea, not following it isn't a blockable offense per se. Edit warring, violating WP:3RR or violating WP:PAID, however, are all blockable offenses. If all that stops, and attempts by are made to 5patrickgilles5 understand how Wikipedia works (particularly with respect to COI and PAID eidting) and then seek resolution through discussion, then there should be no need for any blocks to be issued; if things don't settle down, on the other hand, then that's when an administrator should step in and take action. Whether an article about the film itself is currently warranted or the page should be re-directed might be worthy of further discussion at WP:AFD or WP:RFD since there does appear to be some disagreement about it, but again it will be the community which decides such a thing based upon Wikipedia policy and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I posted this message on the user talk page of Bovineboy2008, which I'm guessing that "5patrickgilles5" saw because he subsequently posted this asking for help on my user talk page. I responded here. I then added a {{Welcome-coi}} template to the 5patrickgilles5's user talk page with this edit and a {{Connected contributor (paid)}} template to Talk:I'm Charlie Walker with this edit. An account named Strong Island 4 posted this on my user talk page, but I'm not sure why. It could be WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT or just a coincidence. Anyway, I responded to that post here. 5patrickgilles5 posted again on my user talk here and here, and I responded here. That's the extent of my involvement in the matter as to whether "I'm Charlie Walker" should be a redirect or an article.
      My personal opinion is that 5patrickgilles5 probably meant well when he created the article about the film back in April 2015, but wasn't aware of WP:COI or WP:PAID he did. When he tried to have the name of the page changed, it got noticed by others and converted to a revert, most likely per WP:NFILM or WP:TOOSOON#Films. 5patrickgilles5 saw this and disagreed with this, which is where the WP:EW started. While I think 5patrickgilles5 should possibly be cut a little slack per WP:BITE, the edit warring should stop and he needs to understand that at least on Wikipedia he's probably going to be considered to have a COI with respect to the film, and also most likely would need to meet WP:PAID. Once the film has been released, it might generate enough significant coverage (not sure if that's the case now) for an article to be re-added about it; even in that case, however, 5patrickgilles5 would should to follow WP:COIADVICE/WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and would need to understand WP:OWN means neither he nor anyone else associated with the film has any final editorial control of a Wikipedia article written about it. So, perhaps an administrator warning is all that's needed here as long as the situation doesn't worsen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Marchjuly, Concur with that, and I'd just add to adhere to WP:BRD, WP:AGF, and not cast aspersions. Doug Mehus T·C 00:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See also my and the editor's talk pages. I do want the editor to self-revert the good-faith confusion of you and I, and for that revision to be deleted. Doug Mehus T·C 00:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can restore the original signature yourself per WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors if you like; just give that as your reason in your edit summary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Marchjuly, it wasn't a signature issue, though. In the text of the content, the editor addressed me by full name. Given that it was unwarranted allegation, I thought it useful to delete the revision. Doug Mehus T·C 00:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Understand now. I get why that bothers you and it's right to ask for a retraction/clarification, but I'm assuming it's just due to confusion and your response will make it clear to anyone reading the thread that it's most likely just a mix up. This might also just be a mix up as well because silly errors are sometimes made in the rush to post a response, especially regarding contentious matters. At this point, it might be better to wait and see if things settle down and let the admins handle it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, Marchjuly. Yeah, El C said it basically just makes the editor look silly, and from the sounds of it, I guess any administrator looking at that reference to me and seeing your notice would look at the diffs, eh? I'll leave for it now, but I am hoping a non-involved administrator or editor will close this ANI thread as the editor has been sufficiently warned and told to adhere to BRD, to assume good faith, and to consider the guidance Marchjuly gave them re: potential COI considerations. Doug Mehus T·C 01:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked Strong Island 4 as a sock. I've taken no action against 5patrickgilles5 as the master for the moment. I've reverted the article back into an article. It makes no sense to redirect the article to one of the stars of the film, especially with that name, which was inappropriate from the get-go as it's not the name of the film. Clearly, some community discussion is needed, so after I restored the article, I nomininated it for AfD to let the community decide its fate. As for 5patricgilles5, I am a hair's breadth from blocking him for disruption and NOTHERE. If he doesn't calm down, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fun and games at Race and intelligence

    There's been some discussion about how this article should be. These major changes have been rejected with consensus in discussions on the talk page. I reverted once, but I'm not going to revert again. Seems like editors are taking this as a green light to gut the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&action=history Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Current discussion this sitch. Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Do_we_like_these_new_changes? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Most recent consensus on whether or not a chainsaw should be taken to the article (answer no). Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Let's_go_back_to_a_previous_version Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several editors, including myself, have removed a number of primary-sourced statements from the article. This has been met with a series of strange comments which seem to be based on a nonexistent "Consensus Required" restriction:
    These objections seem to boil down to "you didn't seek consensus before editing" and "we can't keep up with the pace of your edits", which are not valid reasons to revert. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you justify the blanking of the entire section about mental chronometry? Nearly every secondary source that discusses race and intelligence, including the Hunt and Mackintosh textbooks, includes a discussion about comparisons of MC test results.
    If you were just removing individual primary sources, the rest of us wouldn't be objecting, but that isn't what's happening here. What we're dealing with is the blanking of entire paragraphs or sections, that have been in the article for most of the time that the article has existed, and demanding a consensus before they can be added back. 2600:1004:B11A:7B56:3CC6:3B68:B761:EAB6 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The small subsection was based around claims made by Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, and rebuttal from Richard Nisbett. There might be content worthy of the article about mental chronometry, but it wasn't that particular content. Feel free to propose new content regarding that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that some sanctions against the dynamic IP editor are warranted at this point. They write in the related AfD: I’m writing this from anonymous IP precisely to avoid the kind of “white supremacy” smears exhibited above [103]. Using a dynamic IP to edit in a contentious topic area seems inappropriate since the constantly changing address helps them evade scrutiny by making an entire editing history extremely difficult to trace. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That other IP isn't me. Please compare the geolocations; we're hundreds of miles apart. 2600:1004:B11A:7B56:3CC6:3B68:B761:EAB6 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The point about avoiding scrutiny with an untraceable edit history remains. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope everyone looking at this knows that the article has a bad history with socks. Some are well-known and caught pretty quickly, but not all. We have at least one open SPI, but the range is big and they've belatedly figured out how to stick to WP:CIVILPOV, so... As for the rest, it's clear to me that some editors are knowingly treating IP editing as a loophole, and are treating the technical details of their ISPs as a form of elevated privilege. Oh, and there are also the Arbcom blocked (or previously blocked) accounts involved... Until the community is willing to start making tough calls and supporting serious change, the topic will remain an embarrassment to the project. (Non-administrator comment) Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protecting the talk page could be an option, Category:Wikipedia_semi-protected_talk_pages shows that this has been done occasionally in the past. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, Grayfell Guy Macon collapsed the section and changed the title. Here's the permalink for posterity. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was actually Guy Macon, but I ain't offended. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    187Ernest

    187Ernest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in disruptive behavior, and appears to be WP:NOTHERE.

    I am going to go back farther in history than usual, because he has made few edits per year, but the edits he has made have been largely disruptive. Sometimes we have trouble recognizing editors who disrupt or vandalize in slow motion.

    • One previous block for deliberately introducing false information:[104]
    • Deliberately introducing factual errors:[105] (He called the book title "Cracker: Cracker Culture in Texas History" when the actual title is "Cracker: The Cracker Culture in Florida History"[106]. This appears to be an attempt to fool new page patrollers regarding sourcing for the Texas cracker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page, which 187Ernest created with a snarky edit comment less than 24 hours previously. (Please note that he had previously been warned about deliberately introducing incorrect information.[107][108])
    • Deliberately introducing factual errors, citing a source that does not support the claim:[109][110][111]
    • Copyvio:[119] (the actual edit was revdeleted)

    --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - 187Ernest has made 916 edits over seven years, and their talk page is filled with warnings, yet this editor has responded on their talk page just four times:
    1. [122] - "🖕🏼Don’t you Wikipedia editors have anything better to do than always correct my editing and blocking me for 24 hours. All you guys do is correct my edits your being very abusive towards me. All you Wikipedia editors probably don’t have lives, wives or girlfriends or you all probably don’t have jobs please do yourselves a favor and get a life and get a job".
    2. [123] - "You need to get a fucking life User:Robvanvee and you and other Wikipedia editors need to stop notifying me every time I edit something on Wikipedia".
    3. [124] -"Leave 187Ernest alone... Please leave me alone".
    4. [125] - Removed comment #2 above.
    Low-quality edits and a combative attitude do not improve the project. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The worst offense is deliberately introducing false information. Look at This edit and try to verify the claim in the source cited. Most vandalism is obvious and quickly removed. This type of vandalism sticks around. It could be years before someone checks that particular false claim and notices that the source doesn't support the claim. An editor who does that is a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia and should be indefinitely blocked, Clearly the multiple warnings and previous temporary block had no effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Undisclosed paid editing - David James Connolly Australia

    Blocked by MER-C (non-admin closure) Puddleglum 2.0 16:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    David James Connolly Australia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted spam links to a website called truckerjacket dot com into jean jacket, which I removed. The user subsequently created a WP:POVFORK at Trucker Jacket which I redirected, but it has since been completely deleted so I imagine my edit got reverted in-between.

    creffett, who nominated the article for speedy deletion, left a conflict of interest message notifying David James Connolly Australia about paid editing, but the COI was denied.

    The COI is obvious from the editing but were there any doubt, the Australian Business Register shows that a David James Connolly owns the business being promoted.

    Either our editor is indeed the same David James Connolly and owner of the website they are promoting (whilst denying paid editing) or they are masquerading under a misleading username. Either way, could an admin ensure it does not continue?

    Many thanks, Dorsetonian (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked as an advertising only account. MER-C 13:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Dorsetonian (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tregias003

    After receiving a plethora of warnings on their Talk page and being blocked just a month ago, Tregias003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still displaying problematic behavior:

    • making unsourced additions: 1, 2, 3
    • removing content without explanation: 1, 2

    Robby.is.on (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Change of Date format in multiple articles

    I've never had to make a report before so please excuse any mistakes or ommissions.

    An IP editor 212.116.64.26 is changing dates DMY format to MDY in multiple articles.[[126]] [[127]] [[128]] [[129]] [[130]] [[131]] [[132]] [[133]] [[134]] [[135]] [[136]]

    And probably a few more besides.

    When reverted, they simply revert despite explanations on their talk page.[[137]] I don't have any special tools and it is becoming increasingly difficult to revert without removing intermediate edits. I have probably also broken the 3RR. Sorry.--Ykraps (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Previously blocked for this kind of behavior by El_C. Favonian (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They obviously don't want to discuss this, so I have renewed the block. Favonian (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • OT - but are they methods, or thoughts of implementing something, so that dates (and spelling variations) can be shown in the language/region variation of the reader (rather than the language/region variation of the subject)? On one hand, I can see why some would start fixing what is "clearly wrong" in their eyes. On the other, we are forever inconsistent, particularly for articles where the selection of local formatting/spelling isn't going to be clear. Nfitz (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes although that can be a bit tricky, albeit much easier if all dates were converted to a template format. There would also be a side issue of people asking why all the dates had changed whenever they switched between browsers with different language/regional preferences. Getting back to the main point, even if all dates were in template format, you'd still need someone to do the back-end work, and historically speaking that kind of stuff has tended to proceed at a glacial pace. volunteers? 74.73.230.72 (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Constant introduction of false information

    See the previous ANI discussion, after which Special:Contributions/2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64 was blocked for three months. After the IP block ended, the user Juansantos123 has continued more or less the same activity on the same or related pages. In addition to some useful edits, the user continually introduces speculative or outright false information related to translation services and the Hong Kong MTR; all eight of their edits since 5 February have introduced false information. The user has not responded to any of the messages on their talk page, and nor did any of the IPs. Jc86035 (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Notifying ComplexRational and EdJohnston (from the last ANI discussion). Jc86035 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jc86035 Thank you for the notification. This looks like a duck to me, and if so, has not learned anything from their past blocks and still refuses to communicate. Regardless, I'd go straight for an indefinite block for a history of disruptive editing and CIR. ComplexRational (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTHERE, CIR or both

    Indeffed. But will be happy to unblock if they show willingness to cease from the disruptive edits. El_C 19:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Jaguar E-Type AstonMartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been dumping incoherent stuff mainly into James Bond-related article talkpages since August 2019. He's also dumped some incoherent BLP violations on the talkpage of Donald Trump. The account edits are low volume, but still the question arises if they should be allowed to edit on this wiki. Dr. K. 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    72.226.21.114 reported by FlightTime

    Moved from WP:AIV
     – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    72.226.21.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Multiple BLP voi's, changing leinage to what they believe. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I don't have any excuses, guess I should try and do better in the future. Thanx. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries from my side then; I guess I should just have asked you directly instead. That was quick, thank you too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would of replied quicker, but I was at PokerStars :P - FlightTime (open channel) 20:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent anon-IP misuse at Lincoln, England

    During the last two days various anon-IPs are adding information about drug-use prominently at the start of the lead of Lincoln, England. This certainly isn't the right position in the article, but they insist. Additionally, the ref. they (eventually) used was an article from five years ago, which was very cautious about how the figures were estimated, but the attempted anon-IP/WP updates are misrepresenting these cautious estimates as hard facts.

    1. Does this five-year old estimate belong in the article at all?
    2. Should it misrepresent cautious estimate as hard statistics?
    3. Should it be prominent at the start of the lead?

    Advice and assistance would be appreciated. (I'm at risk of going 3RR.) Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Grand Delusion

    Hello again, I'm having another problem with editing on the List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons page. About almost two months ago, I agreed that I would start putting sources for the last air dates of certain shows on the channel, which is what I've been doing. However, The Grand Delusion keeps reverting my last air date source for the last air date of Back at the Barnyard and Breadwinners on December 25, 2019 because he's saying that it doesn't count because it's a "one-off airing" even though the source I provided was reliable and that is clearly the last time it was shown on the channel. (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    The filer has been trying to push the inclusion of the airdates for these one-off airings as the "last aired" date for weeks:
    February 8, 2020
    January 19, 2020
    January 15, 2020
    January 4, 2020
    December 13, 2019
    December 11, 2019
    Additionally, there is no consensus to support the inclusion of these air dates on the article's talk page - Talk:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nicktoons#Christmas_episodes_on_Nicktoons. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I posted a notice at The Grand Delusion - FlightTime (open channel)

    NEGUS1010: personal attacks

    NEGUS1010 (talk · contribs) became very incensed when asked by Whpq (using the regular politely worded template) if they are a paid editor. N1010 replied with personal attacks, to which Whpq, still very calmly, replied with an explanation of why the template was placed. This resulted in another attack, for which N1010 was given a AGF notification. The attacks have since escalated; I gave N1010 a final warning for personal attacks and for requesting that other editors disclose their real identity, and since then they have among other things (for someone who claims to be here only to edit articles, they spend a lot of time and energy on tweaking and perfecting insults on their user talk page) posted this, which is really beyond the pale. (I removed that and they restored it.) They seem to be quite angry, and I am not going to involve myself further, except for posting the ANI notice to their talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 22:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for one week for personal attacks after warning. El_C 22:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Could the "beyond the pale" edit I linked above, and subsequent ones including the same external link, be revdeled (or am I being unnecessarily sensitive?) --bonadea contributions talk 23:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're alright, actually. Unless I'm missing something. El_C 00:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    An external link to a review of a handgun added as a "reference" to the sentence "This your final warning [sic]", directed against a fellow editor, after having repeatedly asked for that editor's real name? I would not consider that all right, but I am not an admin. --bonadea contributions talk 07:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked a few NEGUS1010 socks, including NEGUS1010X, Sarrounia, and SEKHEMX. It might be worth considering an indef block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help with WP:AIV backlog

    Not attended to in the last five hours. Multiple reports. Hydromania (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems resolved... for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just blocked Jarmusic2‎ (talk · contribs) per 'If this information Is not change I will be seeking Legal Action as the DEAL IS DONE AND HE IS FINALLY A DODGER.' I here seek review of the block. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse. Seems like a standard lblock. El_C 08:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse, @Beetstra:, this seems a fairly standard legal threat (with no DOLT concerns, at that). They have now (just about) withdrawn their legal threat in their appeal, which can be reviewed in the normal way, but the underlying block was fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully it will be reviewed in the same spirit as any other unblock request that said so you people can stop crying... ——SN54129 10:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or I did not know you guys are crybabies :D ——SN54129 10:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll leave any unblock request to an uninvolved admin. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the user has been unblocked, having withdrawn their threat of taking legal action. El_C 10:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated unsourced genre's

    This user ignores final warnings, previous blocks and personal pleas on their talk page by continuing to add unsourced genre's as can be seen here, here, here and here for example. They have also taken to adding sources that do not make any mention of the genre's they add as can be seen here. On top of all that they have yet to make any effort to communicate with any of the editors (myself ,FlightTime & ValarianB) that have brought these issues to their talk page since their previous block for the same reason. Please could an admin cast an eye over these disruptive edits. Robvanvee 08:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    More since this report was filed

    Maybe they can do one of those "block them to get their attention" types of blocks? It's the non-communication that irritates the most here, the other problem (mass genre changes sourced to ephemeral "100 of the best songs ever!" lists) can be discussed pending a response. ValarianB (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    KHMELNYTSKYIA and topic ban violation

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

    The user has been topic-banned from Ukraine topics broadly construed, as arbitration enforcement. They have been twice blocked in October for the topic ban violation, on 24 October for a months. All their edits after the block expired are about Ukraine.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=940088558"