Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

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 [1], [2], [3] [4] just to restate your position (for the umpteenth time) and rant about how "But consensus is not based off of votes!!!"

• Popfox3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] 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 [11], [12] 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)

As if that wasn't evidence enough of WP:SOCKing, DisneyMetalhead's account was registered in September 2016 [13]. Popfox3 was registered only a month later in October 2016 [14]. 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." [15] 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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

@Jack Sebastian: Sorry for the slight wait. It will be up soon. DarkKnight2149 03:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

Continued bludgeoning from DisneyMetalhead

The SPI hasn't even filed yet and DisneyMetalhead is continuing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion [16]. 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)

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)

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)

Sock puppet investigation

Main page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisneyMetalhead

The sock puppet investigation has been filed.

• @DisneyMetalhead: You are currently under investigation for suspected sock puppetry.
• @Popfox3: You are currently under investigation for suspected sock puppetry.

DarkKnight2149 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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. Impru20^talk 00:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Looks like even more evidence is unravelling about DisneyMetalhead having possibly behaved similarly in the past, this time while logged out ([17]). 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. Impru20^talk 01:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@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. Impru20^talk 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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 @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)

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)

How do I explain what exactly? I just stated that I don't know the user known as Popfox3. Assume WP:GOODFAITH, and understand that I misspoke - stating how I thought it would be proved...through IPs. I stated that they are nowhere near me - because they aren't me. Cheers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If they're not you, then how would you know where their IP address is? That's a very specific way of putting it. But back to my first question, how do you explain the strong evidence of socking between you and 206.81.136.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) presented by Prefall at the SPI? This wasn't a simple case of logged out editing, because you directly interacted with the IP as if it were a separate user. Also worth mentioning, Popfox3 made their first non-DC Extended Universe edits today by making some edits at Harry Potter articles and joining the Harry Potter Task Force, and even that is a topic area that you have been known to edit in the past [18], [19], [20]. As others have pointed out, checkusers can detect proxies and VPNs, but they can't necessarily detect if you are using a long distance IP from another computer or instances of WP:MEAT. DarkKnight2149 04:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, would you care linking to your previous account(s)? The account isn't deleted, as it's impossible to delete an account. JOEBRO64 12:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I was going to comment about this. DisneyMetalhead claims he had "a different profile" (singular) years ago and that "the username" (singular again) was then "deleted"; however, Wikipedia profiles can't be deleted as per WP:FAQ and WP:UNC. Further, they relate to just one previous account here despite having previously referred to "various usernames" on 24 January and claiming in their own userpage that they "have been for years as an unregistered editor, and previously other editing profiles that were since abandoned/unregistered". On this, it is remarkable that their userpage initially claimed, in March 2017, that they "have been for years under an unregistered editor name" only. It was not until June 2019 that they made mention to "other editing profiles". And they edited it again to add the "that were since abandoned/unregistered" bit at 01:51, 10 February 2020, this is, in response to my comment earlier at 01:02 where I pointed out that they had previously claimed having had several usernames.

If DisneyMetalhead did use other accounts in the past, which do obviously still exist because they can't be unregistered or deleted, their identity must be disclosed. We can't have an user apparently having undisclosed sleeper accounts around here, as that's a potential hotbed for socking and even block evasion.

On the IP issue, the concern is not that DisneyMetalhead claimed having a different IP than Popfox3 (that would be obvious if they are different people). The issue is that they claimed that Popfox3's IP was "nowhere near mine". You can't know where a IP range originates from without knowing such an IP address beforehand, thus being impossible to determine whether it is near or far from your own.

It's also becoming very obvious that Popfox3 is only commenting in places where DisneyMetalhead is present. Indeed, their user talkpage discussions are becoming a near-insult at pretending they are different people. The way the two accounts are engaging to each other is not natural at all (Further, it wasn't DisneyMetalhead who opened this ANI thread? One would think they know nothing about it from this comment.... This has gone beyond WP:BOOMERANG already). Impru20^talk 14:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

We definitely need to get some admin involvement. I think it's safe to say there's definitely something fishy going on here. JOEBRO64 21:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Users: Impru20 and TheJoebro64 - an admin reviewed the case and closed it. I misspoke in the past when I said that I had various users. What happened in the past is that for years I made edits on Wikipedia without having a registered login. That was my choice. When I registered a user, it was in the early days of my edits. It was my impression that the old user was done away with.... unless I'm mistaken. I will look up my old username. Regardless of this past mistake, I have only ever used my current log-in/user since creating it. As for my comments on @Popfox3:'s page - I am free to congratulate them on the ending of this ridiculous witch hunt. I changed my user page to reflect what I had originally meant when posting the comment that IMPRU is referring to. I have re-stated and clarified what I have meant by each comment. I stand by my clarifications.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Question: Honest question (this may perhaps show my lack of tech-savviness)... how do I look at when an article was created? There was one article created with my previous editor log-in.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, previously when I stated that I had used other 'log-ins' I was being ambiguous as to how many... and when I added that I did not know that it was not allowed to have multiple. That is why I have adjusted it to state what I had originally meant.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, you should just go into the article history and keep going back until you get to the earliest revision. JOEBRO64 23:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: If you inform us on what the article is, we can find it for you. DarkKnight2149 07:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: and @Darkknight2149: the only article created with a previous log-in was an article about The Storm, the American rock band. However, as I previously stated that log-in has been abandoned/never used long ago. Reviewing the edit history however, I go to the oldest edit and I don't see the article being created. Perhaps I'm looking at this incorrectly(?). In all honesty I don't even remember the old username that was used (this was years ago).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Upon searching my old user-name, the page no longer exists... with some further digging, reviewing articles I have edited years ago, as well as talk-page discussions that I was involved with - I found an ANI regarding incivility allegations in 2016, with a discussion regarding some edits I had done years ago. They can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933 #User:Burningblue52.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The account in question is Lorem ipsum5656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is indefinitely blocked, and I'm not entirely sure why you didn't just retract the supposed legal threat (and become immediately unblocked) instead of creating a new account two weeks later. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: the honest reason was that I thought it had been deleted/removed (I didn't know it could be unblocked). On top of that, the title of username had personal significance in my life at that time. After going through some traumatic marital experiences, I wanted a "clean slate"/fresh start and changed all my log-ins on various pages. In the meantime, my busy schedule did not allow for me to be constantly checking WP. I hope this shows that I have not used 'multiple user names' as I miss-stated on my talk page. I edited without a registered log-in for years, simply because I did not care to/have time to. When I made the user referenced above and upon being blocked (in addition to the personal life situations), I made a new log-in to start over. Those are the only user names I ever made/used. It was my understanding that the username was deleted/removed...I didn't know it could be unblocked at the time.

You are telling me you have been evading a block for four years? Wow.

That's not how WP:FRESHSTART works. It is explicit in that Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions imposed (including, but not limited to, those listed here); or is currently or about to be formally discussed for their conduct (such as at an administrative noticeboard or in an open case with the Arbitration Committee); or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start. You can't just create a new account because your previous one was indeffed, then claim it is a "clean start". That's anything but "clean". Impru20^talk 00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

On top of the apparent socking with IP addresses, this would blatantly and unambiguously fall under WP:Block evasion. DarkKnight2149 05:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Seemingly, their previous account did acknowledge already in September 2016 having been an editor "under various emails and usernames". Plus, under the DisneyMetalhead account they attempted to pose as if the two of them were two entirely different and unrelated editors (diff). Considering all presented evidence, it is very likely that this older account isn't the only one or even the first one being operated by this person. Impru20^talk 12:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I just remembered something. I thought this account sounded familiar, and it turns out, I have a history with Lorem ipsum5656. Lorem is actually Burningblue52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who actually had an extensive history of original research, WP:CIR, restoring edits reverted by multiple editors against consensus, and a whole list of other problems. Burningblue52 renamed their account right before they were blocked, and they weren't blocked for no reason. If Burningblue and DisneyMetalHead are the same user, that's definitely a major problem. DarkKnight2149 19:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Tagging Doug Weller, who blocked Lorem ipsum5656/Burningblue52 the first time. DarkKnight2149 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, this certainly answers a lot of questions I had. I'm absolutely stunned and saddened that DMH has been block evading for years now. I think we need to keep doing some digging to see if we can find any other potential sleepers/previously blocked accounts, as this is by no means a small issue. JOEBRO64 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

If DMH has been doing that, shouldn't they be blocked by this point? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

We're still waiting for an administrator response. DarkKnight2149 23:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

User:Feinoa again

I had previously mentioned User:Feinoa at ANI earlier (please read the earlier report for more detailed issues). Unfortunately, I don't think stuff has improved since then and the behaviour has continued despite multiple warnings. Here are some recent edits

1. Persistent removal of templates without attempting to discuss
   1. [21] removing tag without any explanation or discussion. After the tags were restored, Feinoa removed them again [22] claiming These tags are not necessary. Discussing on the talk page is sufficient enough. (even though their participation in the talk page discussion was minimal)
   2. Despite being requested to restore the tags, and later warned about disruptive editing, they go ahead and remove templates [23] in another article I was editing with an active discussion (note that once again they did not participate in the discussion). There is no edit summary or explanation for removal.
2. Slow moving edit wars (without no attempt at initiating discussions)
   1. (See the diffs at point 4 in the previous report. This is the same issue ("Malay as a national language")and it has continued in Jan and Feb 2020)
   2. [24] claiming "I think we can make do without this as 4 languages have equal status." Reverted by another editor [25]
   3. [26] Another edit towards similar aims, no edit summary. Reverted by another editor.
3. Ownership issues and edit warring
   1. There are multiple times where they edit/revert without adequate explanation or even attempting to discuss, particularly on Singapore. This is highly disruptive and irritating, given that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Other editors have also explained it to them and requested them to self revert but to no avail.
   2. Bad faith accusations questioning my intent to edit the article and a refusal to collaborate [27]. It is interesting that they say "No one seemed to have had an issue with the original lead except for you. I don't understand why you hadn't brought up your concerns during the GA review." I didn't even know a GA Review was going on (and the honestly I still disagree with the reviewer's decision). Interestingly, the last time a GA Review was happening they said [28] " I just don't understand why unfamiliar editors to this article have suddenly piped in to put the lead under scrutiny only just when it's trying to become a GA". It's becoming clear to me that they would prefer to edit without the contribution and reviews of other editors, which is pretty much opposite to the collaborative idea of Wikipedia

At this point I don't know whether this is a WP:CIR issue but it is highly disruptive and takes up valuable time which could be spent on improving articles. I have explained multiple times before and good faith can only stretch so far. I believe some admin action is necessary to stop this disruption.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to brush over the fact that you've been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for months? You've on numerous occasions reverted my edits with some really weird reasonings on articles with no direction connection with each other such as - [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] and [35]. You're clearly doing this intentionally, waiting for me to get annoyed enough to seem like I'm in the wrong before you could make another post on the Administrators' noticeboard to try and get me blocked. I even made a post on your talk page all those months ago to leave me alone, but clearly you didn't. You were still tracking my edits, and would then try to revert those with a good enough excuse for doing so in an attempt to spark up another edit war and then claim innocence and get all patronizing when it gets out of hand, multiple times. Feinoa (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure where have I been "Wikihounding you for months" and reverted edits with "really weird reasonings". Kindly bring some evidence with diffs. You edits and behaviour is problematic and false allegations of Wikihounding do not discount it. Yes, I did revert some of your changes but these were limited to Grab (company), Mukim and Minami-Tori-shima back in September when you were removing references without any explanation. These were the only "unrelated" pages I reverted when I checked your recent edits at that time and I left explanations for them as well. As for the diffs that you have provided

1. Hong Kong protest related articles - These articles were on my watchlist and I took part in multiple discussions and an RfC regarding these. I remember pointing out this edit of yours where you arbitrarily removed some content without any explanation for which I warned you and explained the issue. I would note that many other editors since then have also pointed out problems with your edits/behaviour on Hong Kong related articles on your talk. As for this edit, it follows the citation and I would note that you were involved in an edit war with other editors regarding this same point.
2. Grab - As explained in the previous ANI you have been involved in removing information and a long running edit war. I note that another editor had reverted you for arbitrarily removing content and warned you on your talk (which you deleted citing "ill founded claims"). I left a note on your talk about Grab as well. I opened a discussion on the talk in on 23 November 2019 as well. Despite all of this, you never responded to any dispute resolution and simply redid the edit again on 31 January 2020.
3. Mukim - You removed content saying the references is dead. I found an archived version and restored the information. I also explained our guidelines regarding WP:PRESERVE to you.
4. Minami-Tori-shima - Same issue. You removed content without any explanation including categories, I reverted. I started a discussion explaining my edits in which you did not take part.
5. Singapore Island I have a bunch of Singapore related article on my watchlist. I admit I reverted your changes based on a mistaken assumption. However I self reverted and restored your changes about 20 minutes later
6. Colony of Singapore Same here. I disagreed with your edit since it was adding unnecessary information and was not an improvement. If you really preferred your version, per WP:BRD you could have opened a discussion and I could have participated.
7. Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak Umm, I edited some content on this article [36]. Then you came and edited after that [37]. So who's Wikihounding now ;) By the way, your first edit on this article was removing a maintenance template without any explanation.

I don't see any evidence of Wikihounding. I have tried to open discussions for many reverts and got no response. If any of my reverts above was unjustified, I would be happy to get feedback from the community and work on it. --DreamLinker (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Feinoa: your edits seem concerning. Would you please explain them? One should not remove maintenance templates if issues remain. Also, when in content disputes, it is important to discuss differences and seek resolution-- WP:BRD.-- Deepfriedokra 05:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Per @Oshwah: in the prior thread linked above, Then, stick to that ultimatum. I think that this will give Feinoa one final chance to stop the behavior (like you said, Feinoa seems to be attempting to edit in good faith - this will be an appropriate next step to take without jumping too far), and if this doesn't succeed and if it continues, he/she knows exactly what is going to happen. So I guess it's time to block. Now as to "sparking an edit war," that's nonsense. You just stop reverting and discuss. WP:BRD. And @Feinoa and DreamLinker: if I may be so bold, I would suggest that neither of you revert the other. Discuss instead, seek an third opinion, 'cause TBH I can see how Feinona might feel hounded.-- Deepfriedokra 13:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand you point. That said, I have tried opening a discussion multiple times without any response, hence I never proceeded to 3O.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I would like just to weigh in that I feel both sides are at fault here. @DreamLinker:, I wouldn't like someone breathing down every edit I do either. While many people edit the same popular articles, especially on topics within the same country or of international interest, I doubt Grab and the two Japanese island pages are within the same common denominator in this case. When I do see an edit by a frequent and reliable editor that I disagree with, my strategy is usually to let the matter rest and allow someone else to revert or improve it instead of doing it myself. DreamLinker, I would concur with the admin's advice to simply back off. For @Feinoa:, I do regard the person as a positive contributor to the Wikipedia, but with a tad of obsessiveness and unnecessary over-protectiveness of content. Feinoa's latest revert at Singapore on the basis of a "stable version", with accusations to DreamLinker as "disruptive" is completely unfounded, especially since consensus was achieved on the Talkpage between two editors. If Feinoa declines to discuss the matter out of (perhaps) legitimate irritation, he or she should too, step back, and respect the BRD process. Seloloving (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As I explained, the changes to those "unrelated" pages were only done in September and are limited to those 3 pages, for which I also offered an explanation on their talk. I have never even looked at their vast majority of edits. The bigger issue here is that Feinoa's edits are clearly not following Wikipedia's guidelines like removing templates, removing citations and refusing to offer any explanation or discussion.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Well, it has been several days and @Feinoa is still unwilling to communicate or answer Deepfriedokra's question, and as they have received warnings in the past over questionable edits in the past, I don't there's much to say here except that the user is unwilling to entertain the idea that the Wiki is a collaboration. The removal of maintenance templates, reverting of @DreamLinker edits without proper cause (other than citing a return to a stable version) and recent reverting of another editor edit without a edit summary, seem to hint at WP:OWN. All three are not demerits in itself, but taken together, hint at a user unwilling to communicate. Seloloving (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

As Deepfriedokra pointed out above, I suggested in the previous ANI that Feinoa be given a detailed final warning on their user talk page regarding the concerns and behavior that were found and listed in that discussion, and hold the user to this ultimatum. Looking at the edit history of Feinoa's user talk page, it appears that this warning wasn't left. Holding someone to an ultimatum or final warning isn't very much possible if no ultimatum is left in the first place... ;-) In most situations, for an administrator to be able to justify applying a block to a user following a discussion and where he/she appears to be editing in good faith but is causing problems and disruptive behavior, the user needs to be sufficiently warned. My definition of "sufficiently warned" in this situation means that they received a message on their user talk page with a detailed description of the issues they're causing (with diffs to edits showing the behaviors and links pointing to relevant policy), a request asking that they stop engaging in the disruptive editing or behavior and that this will serve as a final warning due to repeated attempts in the past to talk to them, and instructions on how to ask for and receive help, properly discuss the issue or dispute at-hand, and resolve things. Edit warring blocks starting at 24 hours and applied at an increasing duration for subsequent violations of policy are fair game to be applied to any user and at any time when such a situation warrants it (assuming that the violation is active and in-progress or occurred recently or only moments ago, and following a 3RR notice and the engagement in edit warring by the user despite the warning), and any administrator, of course, has the freedom and the discretion to take the actions they deem to be necessary and appropriate. However, it is my objective personal opinion and belief that, in this situation, we haven't done enough to try and warn the user, stick to the ultimatum, and put an end to these matters without administrative enforcement first (as I suggested before). Hence, a long-term or indefinite block isn't justifiable yet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I believe a "final" warning was left earlier as well, along with explanations. These were removed from the talk [38] with the edit summary "vandalism".--DreamLinker (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on K9 Thunder and T-155 Firtina, Uncivil behavior by Progressive288 and not contributing to discussion

Hello, an edit war between User:Kadrun and User:Progressive288 Recently started on the pages about the K9 Thunder and T-155 Firtina artillery systems. No direct 3RR rule violation happend within 24h but over multiple days. However seeing the users revert each other time after time with only using the edit summary for talk I decided to request both users to discuss the matter on the talk page, this took some coordination but I got it going at Talk:K9_Thunder#K9_Thunder_and_T-155_Firtina. While both users and myself responded no other editors have comment yet at the issue at hand. A brief summary is that In my opinion Progressive288 disagrees with the reliably sourced information that the T-155 Is a variant of The K9, claiming that sources from Turkish officials are also needed, and that since there are only Korean and International sources used this is unconfirmed. He provides no supporting sources for his claims and they seem to be purely based on personal opinion and a mis understanding of how Wikipedia works. I would suggest to read the arguments brought up by both sides on the talk page and also read the edit summaries of both pages. Unfortunately Progressive288 seems to not care about any of the points brought up and so meaningful discussion has so far not been established. I asked both users and tried myself to be civil so far, but Progressive288 called my arguments bullshit without going in to any meaningful detail and called me biased. I have asked Progressive288 for more explanation but the aren't providing any meaningful help in my opinion and that coupled with the uncivil comments made against me I feel the need to report. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Shortly "IN MY OPINION" :DD I see you're crying, yeah Keep continuing this way, Wikipedia will be blocked in Turkey again, I'll send a letter to Center of Communication of the Turkish Presidency about the public anti-Turkism against the Turkish people and non-based biased claims against Turkey by Wikipedia admins on Wikipedia. Don't think that you're God because you're Admin on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progressive288 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC) ~~~~

Progressive288, Redalert2Fan is not an admin... also please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's ok, I thought he was. Progressive288 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC) ~~~~

Progressive288, you don't type the nowiki tags as part of it. You have signed before. You put the four tides WITHOUT the nowiki tags to sign posts.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think we allowed legal threats against Wikipedia here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The comments once again made against me are misinformed, call me crying and include some form of legal threats... I feel I have only been trying to encourage discussion but once again I am insulted again, all this on ANI itself. Further I have provided requested RS at the K9 talk page Redalert2fan (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A link to any legal threat would be helpful. And whoever made a legal threat needs to withdraw it before an admin blocks them.-- Deepfriedokra 16:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the threat is the statement above, " I'll send a letter to Center of Communication of the Turkish Presidency about the public anti-Turkism against the Turkish people and non-based biased claims against Turkey by Wikipedia admins on Wikipedia". 331dot (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

331dot, I would agree that is what Redalert is talking about by legal threat. (One of the more odd ones I have seen tbh)

This is what I was referring to, and to be clear I have no intention to make false claims or be biased against turkey or their government for that matter. Honestly I fail to see why RS information about whether a military vehicle is based on and a variant of another military vehicle constitutes to that, for that matter, as I shared on the K9 talk page even Turkish sources exist that support my claim. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified what I said. The legal threat I was calling out was Progressive288's comment: "Wikipedia will be blocked in Turkey again, I'll send a letter to Center of Communication of the Turkish Presidency about the public anti-Turkism..." And Progressive288's comment, ":DD I see you're crying" is a taunt, and I thought we were supposed to be civil here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

So what I'm seeing here is Progressive288 needs to be indeffed for WP:NOTHERE and bullying. Frankly, anyone who brings in this short of nationalistic, "I'm gonna tell the President on you" nonsense 'needs to be blocked indefinitely. Redalert2fan's point is well taken.-- Deepfriedokra 21:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I am a little bit surprised that this conversation seems to have fizzled out. Please read Block of Wikipedia in Turkey, which documents that Wikipedia was blocked in that country for well over 2-1/2 years by the government headed by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and access was restored only a few weeks ago, on January 15, 2020. Under these circumstances, the comments by Progressive288 seem utterly unacceptable to me, and functionally equivalent to a legal threat. In this case, the threats have an ominous level of credibility that is unusual in situations like this. I do not see how this editor can be allowed to continue contributing to Wikipedia while this threat stands. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It 100% sounds like a legal threat to me, so a block is probably overdue here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Progressive288 has not edited since their comments above on February 11. Please notify me if any disruptive behavior resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by Darkknight2149

Darkknight2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been causing persistent disruption at Articles for deletion. This "keep" vote in particular, in which they attack the nominator for three paragraphs, and drags me into it for some reason, is problematic.

TTN has been cleaning up topics about fictional elements on Wikipedia for the past several months by nominating several hundred of them for deletion via PROD and AFD. I compiled a list of his AFD nominations from November 2019 and found that he had a 97% “success” rate, meaning 97% of his nominations resulted in delete, merge, or redirect after discussion.

November 2019 TTN AFD nominations

Stats: Total nominated = 127 Delete = 88 Merge = 8 Redirect = 27 Keep = 4 Delete Places in The Dark Tower series World of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen List of Hollyoaks locations Earldoms of Gwynedd (fictional) Crafthalls of Pern Locations in the Bionicle Saga Religions of the Discworld Guids of Ankh-Morpork Harper Hall List of locations in Artemis Fowl Locations of Shorthand Street Duchies of Gwynedd (fictional) Transformers: Generations Roadbuster Female Autobots List of boats in Arthur Ransome books Ahab (comics) Blithe (comics) Blight (comics) List of dimensions of the Discworld Transformers: Alternators Cancer (comics) Vishanti Adri Nital Action Pack (comics) Deities in the Elric series Karl Glogauer Gwynedd (fictional) Torenth (fictional) – also redirect Aura (comics) Grail (Wildstorm) Debbie Grayson Discworld gods Flora and fauna of the Discworld List of locations in Babylon 5 Outstanding elements of Babylon 5 List of Firefly planets and moons Planets of the Hainish Cycle Transformers: Robot Masters Pretenders (Transformers) Candlemaker (DC Comics) Cannon (Wildstorm) Mythology of Teen Wolf League of Super-Assassins Transformers Label series Exiles (Red Skull allies) Committee (comics) Creatures of Terabithia List of Redwall characters Nanny (comics) Cordelia Frost Bludgeon (Transformers) Darkwing (Transformers) Demolishor List of Primes and Matrix holders Flint (Wildstorm) Taboo (Wildstorm) Frostbite (Wildstorm) Spike Witwicky Wheeljack List of Beast Wars toys Double Dare (comics) Doctor Moon Deuce and Charger Crazy Sues Daily Globe (comics) Appellaxian Aquawoman Protector (Marvel Comics) NKVDemon Spacecraft in Red Dwarf List of Dune ships Gaius Cassius Longius (Rome character) Quintus Valerius Pompey Transformers: Robots in Disguise (toy line) Ironhide Norns (comics) Kid Commandos Cognoscenti (comics) Blacklight (MC2) – also redirect Stone (Marvel Comics) Googam Katherine Anne Summers Shiver Man Wildcard (comics) Plague (comics) List of planets in Marvel Comics Revolutionary (comics) Merge Ankh-Morpork Assassins' Guild History Monks Cutthroat (comics) Izzy Cohen Ronald Reagan in fiction Glowworm (comics) Arm-Fall-Off-Boy Guillotine (character) Redirect Rumble (Transformers) Ramjet (Transformers) Sentinel Prime Black Mass (comics) Grail (DC Comics) Clown (comics) Nehwon Eleven Kingdoms Ace Morgan Dorian Hawkmoon Marcus Junius Brutus (Rome character) Servilia of the Junii Lord Conquest Captain Wonder (DC Comics) Chlorophyll Kid Foxglove (DC Comics) Octavia of the Julii Chaos Dwarfs (Warhammer) Optimus Primal Gnaeus Pompey Magnus (Rome character) Undead (Warhammer) Niobe of the Voreni Artemis (Marvel Comics) Redwing (Marvel Comics) Bagalia Jann of the Jungle Lucky the Pizza Dog Keep Big Man (comics) Bi-Beast Umar (Marvel Comics) Goom

Darkknight2149 has been frustrated about these mass nominations, claiming TTN doesn't look into these topics before nominating them and that the !voters are either misguided or have an agenda.

There have been multiple instances of Darkknight2149 threatening to take TTN to ANI over these concerns, and seemingly using this threat to try to prevent TTN from nominating more pages for deletion:

1. "If you continue your disruption, you will be reported."
2. "When you continue on, do be surprised when you get hit with an ANI report. That's all there really is to say at this point."
3. "I hope you understand that the incivility and WP:Casting aspersions alone is enough reason for me to file a report, let alone everything else."
4. "I'm going to file a report within the next few days when I get the time/energy to do so."
5. "In addition to what this IP said, I plan on filing an ANI report on TTN within the next few days, per the exchange here..."
6. "Yes, I still plan on doing so (if you are referring to the TTN report)."
7. "I actually plan on filing an WP:ANI report pretty soon in regard to the blind spammings that are currently taking place at WP:AFD; the user in question has displayed tendencies of WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, and several others, and has been banned from fictional character deletion discussions for similar behaviours in the past"
8. "A lot of it is the refusal to get the point and engage in dispute resolution by TTN and Piotrus, from which I plan filing an WP:ANI report over the weekend if they do not rectify their behaviour."
9. "If they make no effort to open a larger community-wide discussion to address the concerns with fancruft, instead of disruptively and haphazardly spamming deletion nominations, I absolutely am filing an WP:ANI report this weekend."
10. "The battleground mentality and inability to admit when you have a mistake is a major reason this is going to WP:ANI this weekend if no attempt is made to stop what you are doing and engage in dispute resolution."
11. "Stop deletion spamming and open a legitimate discussion to propose your concerns, or this will soon become an WP:ANI / WP:ARBCOM matter. TTN and Piotrus have until this weekend."
12. "If we can agree on these terms, I will step down from this dispute and recede the (very valid) WP:ANI report I was planning on filing."
13. "You really are going to make us take this to ANI or ArbCom, aren't you?"

The main discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) can be found here, which expands on many editors' opinions on the matter, including TTN, Darkknight2149, and multiple administrators like me.

Other threads that have persistent hostility from this user:

1. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goblin_(Marvel_Comics)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley Quinn in other media

Other particularly disruptive/hostile diffs (edit: these are diffs that help show a pattern for this user's behavior, including but not limited to their interactions with TTN):

1. Here
2. Here
3. Here
4. Here

Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes by attacking TTN or other users for nominating many articles for deletion:

1. Iron Maiden (comics)
2. Harley Quinn in other media
3. Judge Death
4. Terrible Trio

Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes at AFD without providing a rationale:

1. List of Marvel Comics dimensions
2. Screwball (comics)
3. Super Buddies
4. Wonder Dog (Super Friends)

I am proposing a one-way interaction ban between Darkknight2149 and TTN, as well as a topic ban for Darkknight2149 at AFD. I have no issue with trying to argue in favor of keeping an article at AFD, but when your arguments are mainly attacking the nominator or ”just a !vote”, they aren't productive. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand that my focus on deletion over anything else and past history are contentious for many, but I'm not particularly sure how I earned such ire from them. Pretty much every interaction with them goes back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (Marvel Comics), in which I think they formed Mount Everest from a grain of sand. Maybe a third party can tell me I'm wrong, but I think my position there was perfectly clear. I'd admit that our initial interactions weren't without a bit of venom from both sides, but I feel they should have long moved past it. TTN (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If Darkknight2149 feels that he has a legitimate reason for a grievance about TTN then I feel he needs to address it, and lay out his case here and now. If not, then I agree it is long past time he let it go instead of continuing to make threats and doing nothing. I think discussion on an interaction ban and/or AFD topic ban should hold until after he has had a chance to respond, since depending on how he responds, his response may itself prompt a ban discussion. If he does not file a complaint at this time and is willing and able to let it go, then a ban is not needed. BOZ (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban between Darkknight2149 and TTN and topic ban at AFD as nom. It's clear from Darkknight2149's response below that they are not going to drop the stick anytime soon. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• More threats/attempts at intimidation, this time directed towards me: 1. "If you continue to edit war and scew the discussion, I'm having you reported for edit warring." 2. "I will probably end up having to a report to have to file a report about Eagle427's administratorship." 3. "This is most likely headed to Request for De-Adminship, depending on how the situation and (probable) ArbCom follow up plays out." Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban between Darkknight2149 and TTN and topic ban at AFD as per nom, but time-limited for 90 days. Not specific to Darkknight 2149 necessarily, but obviously including them based on the diffs presented by nom, there has been a pattern of intimidation, incivility, misinformed AfD !votes and threats against editors nominating comics and game-related topics for deletion. Though I initially suggested this should be time-limited to 90 days, on the basis of my perception that this was a transient issue, Darkknight's subsequent comments in this thread are indicative of a long-term fixation that will be unlikely to resolve in a set period of time. I think an indefinite IBAN/TBAN would, therefore, be in the best interest of the community. Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC); edited 02:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN to stop Darkknight2149 from harassing TTN, and also support AfD topic ban. This editor doesn't seem able to disagree civilly with people over deletion discussions, and has obviously developed an extreme hatred for TTN. A 97% success rate indicates there actually isn't anything wrong with TTN's nominations, but Darkknight2149 can't seem to accept that. The ranting and raving pointed out in the above diffs are bad enough, but the attempted intimidation is worse. "Do as I say or I'll take you to ANI! I'll do it! ANI! I will, I'll drag you to ANI! You have until the count of three.... one... two... two and a half... No really, I'm serious, you have to do as I say or I'll drag you to ANI!! And I'm starting an ArbCom case too!" Reyk _YO! 12:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Boomerang - This proposal is baseless, dishonest, and is very likely to WP:BOOMERANG for Eagles247.

Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes by attacking TTN or other users for nominating many articles for deletion - Blatantly fabricated. Half of those diffs (taken out of context) have absolutely nothing to do with AfD, TTN, or this situation at all. This was me removing a rude reply from my talk page (not AfD related), and this was me replying to a flippant, uncivil insult (also unrelated to AfD). Eagles247 is deliberately digging through my comment history, cherry-picking diffs, and claiming that they are AfD-related. This type of dishonesty is concerning coming from an administrator, not to mention (in addition to everything else) grounds for WP:ADMINACCT.

TTN has been cleaning up topics about fictional elements on Wikipedia for the past several months by nominating several hundred of them for deletion via PROD and AFD Right off the bat, he spins the situation without even attempting to explain what has been happening at AfD.

found that he had a 97% “success” rate, meaning 97% of his nominations resulted in delete, merge, or redirect after discussion - This excuse isn't valid for the reasons I'm about to outline below and are already outlined at WT:Notability (fiction). Nor does it justify TTN's disruption and refusal to engage in dispute resolution (the driving force of this conflict that Eagles neglected to mention).

and seemingly using this threat to try to prevent TTN from nominating more pages Having actively participated in the dispute at WT:Notability (fiction), Eagles247 knows exactly what the conflict is about. On top of outright lying, Eagles247 is deliberately feigning ignorance for the convenience of this report.

There have been multiple instances of Darkknight2149 threatening to take TTN to ANI over these concerns Proceeds to list of the instances where TTN was warned to stop and engage in dispute resolution. Notice how the crux of this "report" that Eagles247 filed (and subsequently parroted by Reyk) boils down to "Darkknight2149 had not gotten around to filing the ANI report yet, so he was using intimidation!" That's because it is the only thing they have to use against me and they know it.

Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes at AFD without providing a rationale This falls under WP:BADGERING. Given the sheer volume of nominations, my votes are perfectly valid. Every single one of those diffs was also in favour of a merge/move (which actually supports the nominations), so I'm not exactly sure what Eagles247 is trying to prove with this. This is also hypocritical considering that most of the rationales for deletion themselves (provided by TTN and Piotrus) have been some copy/paste variation of "Fails to establish notability. WP:GNG." TTN has also made it abundantly clear throughout these nominations that all he is doing is digging up as many Start-class/C-class character articles as he can, scrolling down to the References section, and spamming deletion nominations based on that alone. He doesn't even give users time to respond to the PRODS before opening an AfD. When sources are provided and guidelines are presented, TTN almost always refuses to accept them. There's no reason to type an in-depth explanation on every single vote. DarkKnight2149 11:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note 2 - Additionally, I should also note that Reyk and Chetsford are both biased involved parties. Reyk is fully in on TTN and Eagles247's behaviour, as can be seen in the grotesque circlejerk that took place at WT:Notability (fiction) [39], [40], [41] and every other instance where Reyk has involved himself. His rationale for the ban is also the same paper-thin "DK didn't open the ANI report yet!" excuse that he parroted from Eagles247.

Similarly, Chetsford's rationale for support is purely political - Not specific to Darkknight2149 necessarily, but obviously including them based on the diffs presented by nom, there has been a pattern of intimidation, incivility, misinformed AfD !votes and threats against editors nominating comics and game-related topics for deletion. Diffs that were (in part) fabricated by Eagles247, having been completely unrelated to TTN and AfD. This AN thread provided by Miraclepine below also seems to shed light on Chetsford, where TTN and Chetsford are both seen harassing BOZ for creating character articles and voting against TTN's deletion nominations. [42] Nothing fishy about any of this at all.

I suspect that every Support vote will be exactly the same. Even if Eagles247 and TTN can WP:FACTION their way into making this retaliatory proposal pass ANI, it would likely be immediately repealed afterwards by the arbitration committee. TTN and Eagles247 would do best to stop sanction gaming and open a community-wide discussion at WP:DRN. Their refusal to adhere to simple consensus / WP:BRD procedure, and attempting to claim that everyone who has come out against them is part of some secret ownership cabal is the only reason this dispute is still ongoing. DarkKnight2149 11:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN to stop Darkknight2149 interacting with TTN, and also an AfD topic ban at the very least. No, DarkKnight2149, not every "Support" vote will be the same, because this one wouldn't even have existed but for your ludicrous rant just above this with accusations of lying, hypocrisy, intimidation and the "grotesque circlejerk" comment. I'm not entirely sure what you were thinking when you wrote it, but I suspect it will ensure that this ANI will not go well for you. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I am currently working on a response to this below explaining the situation with TTN (which I don't believe you are aware of and hasn't been addressed yet). The "accusations of lying, hypocrisy, and intimidation" exists because actual lying and hypocrisy took place. As I mentioned on my talk page, you will see me mention that this is the most blatant instance of administrator corruption I have encountered on Wikipedia (and I don't say that lightly). If you go through those diffs, you will find that what I said about Eagles427 fabricating evidence is 100% accurate.

I believe you are reacting to my comment on your face value perception of it. Could you please explain what it is you object to? DarkKnight2149 13:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're partially correct - if you don't understand why the above comments are written in a seriously problematic way, then I don't think I can help. (I mean, "Reyk is fully in on TTN and Eagles247's behaviour, as can be seen in the grotesque circlejerk that took place at (diffs) and every other instance where Reyk has involved himself") More to the point is that you are writing as if there is a massive political conspiracy by multiple users against you, without stopping to think that they all might believe independently that they are doing the right thing. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I apologise if my wording came across too strongly in that sentence. I don't see anything inherently hostile in the rest of it, though. And no, there most certainly isn't a "political conspiracy" against me. In fact, TTN, Piotrus, and Eagles247 are the ones arguing that there's a conspiracy. This (and the situation itself, which is complicated) will be properly explained in #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149, where I outline what is really been happening with the whole TTN debacle (Eagles247 has been deliberately vague and dishonest). Hopefully when given proper context, you reconsider your vote. So far, you are the only uninvolved party to vote. DarkKnight2149 13:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do not believe there is a conspiracy here or at AFD. I think in general, members of a WikiProject may be more inclined to support the inclusion of articles within their WikiProject scope but there is nothing wrong with that tendency as long as there are policies and guidelines to support their positions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the fabrication of evidence than anything else, and specifically attributing out of context unrelated diffs that you dug from my contribution history to the AfD situation. I never thought I would see an administrator stoop that low. DarkKnight2149 14:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're carrying on in the same manner here - accusing people of lying, calling them names, and making all sorts of wild speculations as to their motivations. That makes it hard to believe the diffs above have been taken out of context at all. Being rude and accusatory seems to be your default setting. Reyk _YO! 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What you want to believe is immaterial, Reyk. Eagles247 absolutely did cherry-pick random diffs from my comment history and lie about them being related to AfD and TTN, which would be fabricating evidence. Not to mention that those two diffs that are related to AfD aren't even uncivil to begin with. If Eagles247 doesn't want to get called out for lying, then I suggest he stops lying. If they continue libeling and disruption, they are going to get called out for doing so. It's as simple as that. I know I'm in the right because the only thing you have against me is - 1) I didn't get around to filing the ANI report as soon as I would have liked. 2) I called TTN and Eagles247 out for their disruption, which you are spinning as an "attack". You know it just as well as I do, which is why Eagles247 is being forced to lie and fabricate evidence to begin with.

"calling them names" - Speaking of lying, when was this supposed name-calling? I would love to see proof of that, unless you consider "biased and involved" a personal attack.

"making all sorts of wild speculations" Ironic. Nothing I have said has been speculation, and your, TTN, and Eagles247's entire position at WT:Notability (fiction) has been built on making wild speculations about other people's motives. Every time someone opposes you, you automatically label them a "radical inclusionist fanboy" without any evidence. The conflict started with TTN casting aspersions and refusing to get the point after I pointed out a mistake in his Goblin nomination, and the subject of this report is me warning him about continued disruption and refusal to engage in dispute resolution. But don't worry, #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 will be up tonight. I look forward to watching this dishonest proposal getting batted down by the Arbritation Committee. DarkKnight2149 05:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that Eagles247 has cherry picked anything. As far as I can tell, the diffs they provided absolutely are representative of your hostility and vivid imagination. This whole "conflict" started because you don't like TTN nominating things for deletion, nothing more. Perhaps you see him as an easy target because he was once punished by ArbCom, arguing that he must be also being disruptive now because he was once described as disruptive way back when. However, the fact that his nominations nowadays are backed by community consensus 97% of the time completely refutes that idea. You seem to have boundless time to badger people with angry rants, but seemingly no time to actually start the proceedings you keep threatening people with. Hurry up and start your ArbCom case already. I predict it won't go the way you want. Reyk _YO! 08:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"This whole "conflict" started because you don't like TTN nominating things for deletion, nothing more." You mean aside from the very genuine concerns repeatedly raised with TTN's behaviour and the nomination spamming? And the very demonstrable problems that they have caused at AfD? And the several other users that have spoken out about it? Your persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is exactly why we're here today. But keep digging your grave. I'm in the middle of typing up a proper rebuttal below, and it's going to be a lot harder for you to keep pushing the narrative "But they are just mad because articles are deleted!" when it's finished.

"the fact that his nominations nowadays are backed by community consensus 97% of the time completely refutes that idea." Your arbritary percentage doesn't indicate a consensus for what TTN is doing, for reasons already explained by multiple users at WT:Notability (fiction), the Arbcom report, and soon by me (once again) below. Despite your attempts to libel me, you have nothing and you know you have nothing. I'm still waiting for you to show where "name calling" took place, by the way. DarkKnight2149 10:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And if you want to claim that this is all an elaborate bluff (yet again), Reyk, here is a preview of what I am currently typing in that section. The goal is to have it finished tonight and posted either tonight or mid-day tomorrow. The ArbCom case won't be filed until this is over (and it won't take nearly as long, since the foundation would already be set), as the section header explicitly states below. But I guess you really want to keep pushing the "empty threats" narrative, huh? DarkKnight2149 10:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not on trial and I haven't started proceedings against anyone so your repeated insistence that I "have nothing" is not really relevant. I just think you're wrong. By the way, if you're going to accuse people of lying, you shouldn't then also do things like accusing me of calling others "radical inclusionist fanboys". I never said that and I defy you to find a diff where I did. Or just finish typing up your ArbCom case. I predict it won't go the way you want. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, the ArbCom case is after this ANI thread has wrapped. In fact, we're likely going to be migrating there as soon as this closes. I'm in the middle of working on #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 right now. And you, Eagles247, and TTN have claimed and insinuated more than once (particularly at WT:Notability (fiction)) that every. single. person that has spoken out against you is an irrational inclusionist (with zero evidence). You just said it again about me right here. That's the epitome of WP:IDHT and WP:ASPERSIONS if I have ever seen it. DarkKnight2149 10:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say anything of the kind. Either file your ArbCom motion or just drop the issue. Up to you. Either way, stop putting words in my mouth that I never said, and leave me alone. Reyk _YO! 10:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This will be my final reply to you, until I get the below section finished (which will have your diffs/proof in it), is to stop putting words in my mouth and stop libeling me. You are accountable for your actions. DarkKnight2149 10:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN to stop Darkknight2149 interacting with TTN. This constant attacking has to stop. Regardless of the merits of an AFD, AFD discussion should not be about the nominator. Paul August ☎ 13:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: It was a mistake to post the cliffnotes rebuttal above without giving the proper context first, by explaining the situation below at #Comments and proposals by Darkknight2149 (currently working on). It's a shame that my limited time on Wikipedia has allowed Eagles247 to scew the narrative and completely deceive uninitiated editors who don't actually know what's been going on. ArbCom seems like the natural conclusion. After all, they are the ones who sanctioned TTN for this kind of behaviour the first time.

One thing I should address, since it's the only remotely convincing point that Eagles247 has on me, is the narrative that I have been using "bluffs" to "intimidate". He's essentially arguing that, because I warned TTN about an upcoming ANI report numerous times and never got around to it, I have been trying to "intimidate" people. First of all, let me explain a few more tidbits of the situation:

1. My time on Wikipedia is more limited than it was three or so years ago. As users such as Paleface Jack can attest, my work in general tends to move pretty slowly.
2. The original goal was to file the ANI report the weekend after I dropped the warning on TTN's talk page. Before this could happen, however, the discussion at WT:Notability (fiction) took off and delayed it significantly (this was around mid-December). However, it was delayed because the discussion there was heating up and I was waiting to see how it would pan out. However, there was a period from the holidays to mid-January that it honestly looked like TTN had taken some of the feedback at heart (from myself and multiple users), slowed down, and started to take the time to properly assess the articles he was nominating. However, I found out that this wasn't the case two days ago.
3. Even with this notice from 2 days ago in mind, the ANI report would not have been filed immediately. For one, I am currently dealing with another situation above involving WP:BLUDGEONING. For two, I am currently busy in real life, which is I haven't even gotten my full response published yet. I probably shouldn't have published smaller rebuttals first, since they rely heavily on the context of the larger situation at #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149. Going incremental was a bad idea, apparently.

To be honest, whether or not he believes that I'm "bluffing" isn't relevant. This thread is becoming a trainwreck before it has really even begun, and the band aid has already been ripped off (so an ArbCom case request wouldn't take nearly as long to file as this ANI report did). If this situation isn't properly and justly resolved, the ArbCom case request will (hopefully) be filed the same week this thread concludes. DarkKnight2149 14:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide me a diff in which I accuse you of "bluffing"? You used it in quotes twice here which makes it look like I've used that word before, and I don't believe this is the case. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I have only interacted with Darkknight2149 in three threads prior to opening this discussion: Iron Maiden (comics) AFD in which he !voted "keep" per my rationale (despite my !vote supporting a redirect), Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Deletion_of_articles_about_fiction, and Mindless Ones AFD only because he pinged me to sling mud two months after I responded at the notability thread. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support One-way IBAN and AFD Topicban for Darkknight, I dont see how any context would make what DK is doing okay. but we will see once he finshes typing up the comments and proposel section. TTN and Eagles, im sorry you are having to deal with this bullshit. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support two-way interaction ban and topic ban both Darkknight2149 and TTN from AFD. One-way interaction bans are rarely workable, and based on the conversations linked above, TTN's nominations were very obviously disruptive. Darkknight2149 wasn't behaving well, but TTN himself often responded by senseless bludgeoning of Darkknight2149's comments. Give both of them the same. Incidentally, I agree that this case is likely too soon for Arbcom. Krow750 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krow750: Honestly, if TTN would just stop and engage in dispute resolution by making his case at WP:DRN, I would be more than happy to drop the stick based on whatever result is determined there (as I stated throughout the AfDs). But alas, that is unlikely to happen. While I do not believe that I deserve to be banned, I would support this on the condition that TTN engages in Dispute Resolution when the ban expires, instead of going right back to what he was doing before in some other form (he was already banned once for bulk-redirecting massive amounts of character articles, and now it's PRODs and AfDs).

A one-way IBAN would also put me in a very vulnerable position, especially after having been lied about several times, so I would have no choice but to file the ArbCom case if that happens. DarkKnight2149 06:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support One-way IBAN and AFD Topicban for Darkknight per OP. I observed, but didn't participate in several of the discussions quoted above, and the additional evidence combined with DKs behaviour in this thread show me that they clearly can't contribute non-disruptively in these areas. As an additional note, threatening, but not actually initiating proceedings is a never a good look, and neither is repeatedly bringing up a 10+ old finding. Scribolt (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support two-way IBAN for Darknight and TTN, noting that I mainly see DarkKnight's behaviour as the problem, and TTN only in so far that he keeps his interactions with DK running for way longer than is productive. While TTN tends to rebut notability claims of any editor in AfDs and generally makes it about the sources, it's obvious that DK has a beef with TTN and targets him specifically. DK has repeatedly hijacked AfDs so that I felt that subthreads had to be archived to make the AfD readable (1,2). My take on the discussion at WT:FICT (while it was still running) was that DK lacks self-reflection and suffers from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to learn from other people's suggestions, while at the same time continuing to threaten with ANI and ARBCOM, apparently to daunt others (as if that was likely to work, huh). DK appears unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and it's gotten so tiresome for me that I just ignore any DK discussion threads (with or about TTN) nowadays. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sgeureka: If a one-way interaction ban were enacted (with only Darkknight2149 being banned from interacting with TTN), are you of the belief that TTN would make reference or interact with Darkknight2149 in a disruptive manner in the future? I agree that TTN has let their arguments with Darkknight219 go on for far too long at times, but it doesn't seem like TTN is the one starting these debates. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Eagles247: I initially preferred a one-way IBAN, but then I found this AFD where TTN started the (way too long) interaction. It would be unfair to make it all about DK, and I somewhat agree with Krow750 that one-way IBANs rarely work and with DK that that would put DK in a very vulnerable position. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Per Sgeureka and his sensible comments, I prefer a two-way IBAN. On the other hand, I feel that the AfD ban is unnecessary for either party, since it's most important to just separate the two parties at the moment. Talrolande (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Delayed (briefly) per El C

Case request by Darkknight2149 In light of this ([43], [44], [45]), I have scrapped the comment I was typing and will now be opening a case request to the arbritration committee before today is over with. The rampant disruption of TTN and misconduct from Eagles247 is astounding. The latter is an administrator and should know better, and I'm glad he did half of my work for me by filing this report and prompting me to push my other work aside and take action. ArbCom is the most appropriate place to take this, since they are the ones who banned TTN for very similar disruption in the past. For immediate background information, I would recommend taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Deletion of articles about fiction. The case request will be about the persistent personal attacks, aspersions, gaming, battleground-behaviour, WP:IDHT, refusal to engage in dispute resolution, blindly mass nominating copious amounts of Start-class articles for deletion at once (based only on quickly scrolling to the References sections, which has caused several issues at WP:AFD), borderline WP:NOTHERE tendencies, and rampant dishonesty from TTN, as well as factioning, gaming, and administrator misconduct from Eagles247. Virtually nothing that Eagles247 has said here has been honest, and the case request will be open before today is over with. DarkKnight2149 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I re-read my responses at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Deletion of articles about fiction, and I stand by all of them. I also stand by reverting your attempted header change using the rollback tool in accordance with WP:TPO. I look forward to reading your ArbCom case request when it is filed, and I wish you luck with the process. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Comment - What Eagles247's diffs about me "threatening" ANI don't show is that every time I had begun working an ANI report, something else came up. The holidays, the discussion at WT:Notability (fiction), and a number of other things. After December, it honestly looked as though TTN had slowed down and actually begun assessing the articles that he was bulk-nominating. It wasn't until yesterday that I checked AfD and found that TTN (who has been warned way too many times at this point) was continuing exactly what he was doing beforehand. If Eagles247 believes that I am bluffing (I'm sure they will grasp onto anything they can get a hold of as a defense), I don't actually care either way, since the ArbCom case will be up soon regardless. This isn't the first time this week that someone has WP:BOOMERANGed themselves by filing a retaliatory report on me. Eaglea247's weak allegations are also reassuring. DarkKnight2149 18:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC) @Darkknight2149: you are risking having your Arbitration request, which lest we forget is the last step in the dispute resolution process, being declined as premature due to not having attempted everything else first. Cited above are numerous warnings you've made of submitting noticeboard reports about this dispute. Did you submit such a report yet? If not, I'm not sure this ANI discussion itself has been exhausted yet, having reached an impasse that would result in an accepted Arbitration request. Just a hunch. El_C 18:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC) @Darkknight2149: I'd recommend adding BOZ to the Arbitration request. TTN's comment in this AN thread about BOZ stating that many of his actions are in line with keeping the standards of 2006 Wikipedia raises concerns about whether or not the criterion 6 of WP:ADMINACCT - Repeated or consistent poor judgment - applies to BOZ's situation and should be grounds to desysop BOZ. ミラP 02:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC) For the record, and if it helps, since my AN discussion (and this is summarizing my last post there), I have acknowledged and apologized for my past mistakes and poor judgement. I have greatly reduced my efforts at article creation to focus only on notable topics, I have modified my approach at AFD to always cite relevant policies and avoid the appearance of canvassing, and I have avoided undeleting anything which clearly should not be undeleted and using my admin tools on any articles that I have been previously involved with, and will continue to do these things. I have made a lot of progress on my undeletions list, but I understand that I still have a lot to go through. BOZ (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I don't think this issue has much to do with BOZ at all, unless you want to drag everyone who votes the other way to TTN into it was well. Reyk YO! 12:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Also also for the record, although I clearly do not agree with a good majority of his goals on Wikipedia, I have actually come to respect TTN for at least his openness about it and I think he takes a far more tempered approach than he once did. I might have quarreled with him in the past, but I do not want to have conflict with him or anyone else anymore. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149

Up soon. To avoid further distractions, I'm going to hold off replying to users (such as Reyk, Eagles247, and anything that isn't necessary to reply to) until it's done. DarkKnight2149 10:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: you've been talking about how you're going to post something in this section for a couple days now. I think admins have been fairly patient so far and have given you enough time to respond adequately to the concerns raised here. I strongly suggest that you post something here very soon if you intend for it to be read before this thread is closed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I was planning on posting it yesterday, but something came up. I mentioned earlier that my time isn't unlimited these days. Would it be more convenient to go ahead and close the case with the proposed sanctions due to "support for Eagles' proposal and excessive delays in Darkknight's defense" and then have me reopen the case (either here or at ArbCom) when I can get it typed? Eagles' allegations are weak enough that I'm confident that debunking them and repealing the sanction won't be difficult, just time consuming. DarkKnight2149 03:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Genuine question (no subtext), by the way. That much is obvious, but I felt I should clarify just so my words don't get spun around by Eagles247 later as "aggression at AfD" again. He already pulled diffs from unrelated threads and claimed that they were "AfD-related", which is just one example of his dishonesty. DarkKnight2149 05:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

That might be best. It would give you as much time as necessary. Since I'm here, I could close this.... but I've interacted extensively with most of the people mentioned in this proposal except for Eagles 247. TTN, Reyk, BOZ, and I are acquainted through hundreds (maybe even thousands) of AfD discussions, which seems to be the crux of this dispute. I also probably interacted with each of them a bit more outside of AfD, too (looking for sources, discussing notability issues, that sort of thing). I've helped DK2149 deal with a harassment campaign by sock puppets of a troll. In short, it's small world, and I'm a pretty active editor/admin. So, it might be best if someone else closed this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for closure

Would an uninvolved admin (@El C: ?) please close per Darkknight2149's suggestion: close the case with the proposed sanctions due to "support for Eagles' proposal and excessive delays in Darkknight's defense" and then have me reopen the case (either here or at ArbCom) when I can get it typed?, and NinjaRobotPirate's demure, above? Paul August ☎ 14:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, since Serial Number 54129 seems to have misunderstood me (see below), I'm proposing this be closed with a sanction for Darkknight2149 as they themselves have proposed. Paul August ☎ 12:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "excessive delays in Darkknight's defense" is a contributing factor to a closure here, he's responded 16 times already with great length and detail, and has been unable to convince participants in this discussion to agree with him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether "excessive delays" should be a factor, or whether mention of such should be part of the language of the close, those would be things the closing admin should decide. Paul August ☎ 15:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"with great length and detail" This is false. My primary defense has yet to be posted and the situation has yet to be explained. All of my comments here have been supplementary statements responding to specific claims from Eagles, Reyk, and other users. And without my primary statement, those supplementary statements have been pretty ineffectual due to a lack of context. DarkKnight2149 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

So what are the "Boomerang" and "Note 2" comments above? There isn't any due process requirement where people have to wait for your response or as you call your "primary" defense. If you made lengthy responses but failed to provide your main points (saving them for some nebulous later time), do not be surprised if most people aren't going to go back and revise their !vote here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: What lenghty response? Boomerang is a compilation of quickfire responses to specific points that Eagles247 made and Note 2 was a follow up addressing something else. That would fall under "supplementary responses". A lot of the stuff mentioned there is also reliant on #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149. Examples - This type of dishonesty is concerning coming from an administrator, not to mention (in addition to everything else) grounds for WP:ADMINACCT. What's the everything else? Right off the bat, he spins the situation without even attempting to explain what has been happening at AfD. What's been going on at AfD? What is TTN's disruption? This excuse isn't valid for the reasons I'm about to outline below and are already outlined at WT:Notability (fiction). Nor does it justify TTN's disruption and refusal to engage in dispute resolution (the driving force of this conflict that Eagles neglected to mention). This never got outlined below, and where does Dispute Resolution enter the equation? And so on...

"do not be surprised if most people aren't going to go back and revise their !vote here" Which is exactly why I advised NinjaRobotPirate to go ahead and close the thread to begin with. The Request for Closure? That would be me. The defense was initially supposed to be posted within a few hours of Boomerang. Then the next day. Then the next day. Then I got over halfway done and believed it would be posted the day-before-yesterday. Then something came up, and I suggested a closure. If you and Serial Number 54129 are going to respond, please keep up with the conversation. DarkKnight2149 19:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear, the intention is to re-open the case as soon as it is done typing, either here or (more likely) a follow up at ArbCom. DarkKnight2149 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

So no matter what the closure is here, you will argue after it's done, either here or try again at ArbCom? Hopefully then you will provide us with your "primary" defense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: No, it should be closed in line with consensus; and in this particular case, the consensus seems to be in favour of osme kind of sanction for DK2K149 (although acertaining precisely what that sanction is to be is why the closing admin is paid big bucks). ——SN54129 11:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: You seem to have misunderstood me. Yes, it should be closed "in line" with consensus, and yes, as you say, the consensus favors a sanction for Darkknight2149. And this is exactly what I've proposed above, and in fact this is what Darkknight2149 themselves have proposed.

Many thakns! I assumed that DK2K149 was aligning themselves with the suggestion that they should (naturally) avoid sanction. Thanks for the clarification! ——SN54129 12:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yes, I understand. Sorry for not being more clear. Paul August ☎ 12:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Paul August, I have not read this report closely and am simply too busy today to do so. El_C 18:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN of Darkknight2149 and support AfD topic ban. Darkknight2149, whatever your strategy here is, it's not helping your cause to keep on promising to present some explanation or defense later and especially not helpful to further drag this on by stating that you will keep on elevating this. You would be better off honestly reviewing everything here instead of being so defensive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Why bother replying to a discussion you obviously know nothing about? I can only repeat - If you are going to respond, then keep up with the conversation. The intention was to post #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 immediately after the supplementary statement. The only thing delaying it is the length and scheduling in real life. As I was getting closer to finishing a few days later, NinjaRobotPirate mentioned how long it was taking and I suggested going ahead and closing the discussion to give me more time to work on it without keeping everyone waiting. None of this was planned, and I have certainly been honest than TTN, Reyk, and Eagles247.

I should also note that I was already going to file an ANI thread at some point, but Eagles247 wanted to beat me to the punch. So yeah, don't act shocked when my schedule doesn't align with yours. If I had an infinite amount of time, this ANI report would have been filed in early December. I'm also currently juggling a sock puppet situation at #Sock puppet investigation and DC Extended Universe. You would do well to familarise yourself with the situation before basing your support on a presumptuous narrative about "strategy". DarkKnight2149 22:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If you simply must know, I am currently dealing with medical issues, a child support situation, work-related stuff, and I'm about to move houses for the third time since 2018. And that's all I'm telling you. Even now, I'm typing this on a mobile phone while the #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 draft is on a laptop at my house. So familarise yourself on this ANI situation before you attempt to "confront" someone and throw down some sort of gauntlet. DarkKnight2149 22:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User 199.66.69.88 accusing multiple people as disruptive

199.66.69.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dear admins,

User 199.66.69.88 is repeatedly accusing new name discussion as "disruptive" on Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and have made the discussion a bit unfriendly (or just I felt it) at the least. Could anyone help me understand if this is a good behavior in Wiki-land? I don't know any rule that applied here. But I felt that behavior is inconsistent with WP:AGF?

I hope to address this behavior with this user but since they are unregistered user, I don't know where to go (no user Talk page). If this is not the best place to address such issue, please educate me.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

IP editors do have a Talk page. I have just used a template to welcome this particular one on theirs. You can add to it if you wish at User talk:199.66.69.88. (Talk pages for IP editors can, however, be problematic if they have an ISP that frequently changes their address.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I left a message there User_talk:199.66.69.88#Addressing_issue and let's see how it goes. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 06:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: thank you for your suggestion. The follow up result here is the message I wrote on their user talk page is reverted in Special:Diff/940761104. Does it mean that writing on their talk page was not the right way to address issue?

By the way I explicitly ask the IP editor to disclose their other contributions but that question seems not answered. So I wasn't sure if this reverting revision is considered an act of refusing the discussion on talk page, or the IP editor mistakenly think they have answered all questions. ::: Since the message on the user Talk was explicitly reverted by the user themselves, unless I understand it wrong, I guess ANI is the only place for this discussion to continue on? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I also suspected some disruption from this ip might of used a multiple registered account to vote in RMs in the article. Suddenly this ip know how to look for a ANI properly and properly link a polices. This person waited until the RM had more oppose than support. Regice2020 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020: If I read between your lines correctly, are you suggesting there could be a possible WP:SOCK of this user? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspected it after seeing the ip know how properly link and use ANI like a experienced person that been here before. It was just so sudden. Regice2020 (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have seen many IP editors who are savvy and experienced editor, mostly very friendly and self restraint when dealing with conflict of opinions. But this is the only a few cases that I have seen an IP who only have participated in one topic in most recent history, AND have been being super strong in trying to push people to follow his/her instruction. I guess it's not totally impossible this could be a WP:SOCK. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 07:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment (Feb 15) I mean the evidence is pretty clear and this outrageous behavior to cut off discussion when more oppose gathered basically that fits the ip agenda. This where it all suddenly triggered, pressure admins on another ANI in a sneaky way to have discussion closed after gathering more opposition. Making false assumptions that users who did not side with the ip. 1 Successfully got his way. 2. This behavior was part of the closure of the 2019 coronavirus outbreak Requested move 2 February 2020 <-- This where the behavior started. I may have to notify more users who had their voices cut off because of this. Regice2020 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You characterize some behavior here as "harassment" in your edit summary. Would you mind providing diffs to support the accusation that I have harassed anybody? Otherwise I would appreciate your retraction of that accusation. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOCK aside for now, it's pretty plain that the IP's present behaviour is not holding WP:AGF to task as I see it and it certainly stands out as a stark outlier to the generally civil RM discussions conducted by the rest of the community on that page, made more pronounced by a seeming intent by the individual to WP:BLUD.

Talk:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#2019–20 coronavirus outbreak: In a thread opened by @Wikmoz: with explicit overtures to WP:CIVIL, IP immediately casted the OP's intent as a POV-push attempt "to deride and portray as conspiracy theorists anyone who disagrees with renaming the article." Engaged by the OP in a query to clarify their accusation, the IP replied: "I don’t expect you to admit to wrongdoing in making this thread. I’m just asking that an admin close it as disruptive. There is no intention to seek self-criticism here."

Wikipedia:Move_review#2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak: Portraying a RM close explicitly tabbed "without prejudice" as a mandate to cite WP:IDHT and "sanctions handed out to those disruptive individuals" they assert are continuing "their pattern of disruption." Sleath56 (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my statements that the individuals at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak are engaged in disruption. I specifically request a WP:BOOMERANG for xinbenlv (who opened this thread without notifying me of the discussion, as required), who took it upon himself to falsely tag my posts with a disclaimer that I had only ever participated in discussions regarding the Wuhan coronavirus. As a cursory review of my contributions will show, this is entirely false. I am growing very concerned with xinbenlv's behavior in these discussions and elsewhere, including a blatant anti-anonymous editor animus.

I further request that reviewing administrators consider the behavior of Regice2020, who has called for unregistered editors to be excluded from future requested move discussions in a transparent attempt to exclude me from such discussions. This same person has, without a shred of evidence, accused me of sockpuppetry on this very page! (Knowing the existence of ANI is not suspicious in the least. And calling anything I've done "disruptive" is ridiculous.

Sleath56's behavior is concerning as well. Not knowing the difference between an accusation of "disruption" and one of "vandalism" and coming to this board insisting some intervention be made is bordering on WP:CIR territory.

Other participants at the talk page have indeed been disruptive, though I have always assumed good faith (as has been evidenced by the tone and tenor of their participation) that their disruption was the result of a failure to understand the nature of the community process rather than a deliberate attempt to bludgeon a pro-PRC perspective.

All that said, I believe it may soon be time to seek general sanctions for the entire Wuhan coronavirus topic area. The individuals involved in bludgeoning requested moves and endlessly starting new threads in what very much looks like a WP:FILLIBUSTER have not shown any sign of slowing down despite the timely, patient intervention of multiple experienced editors. This race to ANI is a sign that the efforts to contain the dispute thus far have failed. Please step in and provide some assistance. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

As requested here, I have posted the above on 199.66.69.88's behalf. aboideau^talk 16:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the statement of 199.66.69.88 here, @Aboideau:. I felt a bit hard to even have a normal conversation of 199.66.69.88. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I am not accusing anything of 199.66.69.88, but on a factual basis, if we look at the most recent contributions of 199.66.69.88, from 2/7 - 2/14 Special:Contributions/199.66.69.88 they have over 50 contributions, except 1 edits, all other contributions is on Talk page of the 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus related topic and move requests. So I might have typo, not strictly only, as I wrote in other places The user's only recent contributions are about this topic. It seems over the past several days the only thing this IP is focusing on is asking people to do not start a new title discussion for that particular article. Maybe harrassment might not be the best description of this user's behavior, but I start to feel very concern about how their behavior (calling other people disruptive for even discussing a proper name(not formally go for a RM yet), have influenced the discussion atmosphere in other participants who want to join discussion and form a consensus. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I see a user who still has a thing or two to learn about wikipedia and how to edit effectively with others but I’m not sure I see disruptive behavior here. Perhaps I am misunderstanding but from Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak it seems that they are far from the only editor who objects to the repeated name change attempts. IP users have the same rights as other users and that page is a very popular one ATM, a page warning was appropriate but I don’t think ANI is the venue to solve this problem. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

IPs actually don't have the same rights as other users, which is also pedantically obvious when the IP can't directly respond here on AN/I, because they are inherently unaccountable unless effort is expended for a WP:CHECK. As demonstrated in the IP's response, they prefer to promptly cross-examine rather than address points of order made, which is particularly noted when concerns brought up are of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. It's clear the IP is not a new user, and regardless of whether WP:SOCK is citable, the observable fact stands that their IP status serves as an inherent cushion to their benefit against reciprocal conduct examinations while they liberally cite the conducts of other participants here and beyond. Sleath56 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

We’re running into the issue of WP using rights, permissions, bits and flags interchangeably aren’t we? I apologize for misusing the term of art, I would restate my point but this thread seems to have run its course (and even continued onto another thread) in my absence so it would be of no use to anyone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I would. The charge of deliberate intent in "xinbenlv (who opened this thread without notifying me of the discussion, as required)" is plain to see as an outright fabrication when the very opening statement of this AN/I stands as contrary that the OP expended documented effort to notify the IP. OP also notified them through reply on the pertinent Talk page. I view it as representative of an unhelpful penchant for overblown accusative assumptions which are thereafter utilized as rebuttals. Sleath56 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• 1 "Hi 199.66.69.88, I want to kindly notify you that I bringing this to ANI for your accusation of other people being disruptive for trying to drive title consensus. I can't bing it to your talk page because I can't, so I am just notifying you here... xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)"

This isn’t the required notification procedure. xinbenlv knows full well how to write to a user talk page, and should know (as should you) that merely pinging or burying a comment on a talk page is insufficient. I was not notified as is required. The failure to concede this point speaks to the credibility of the positions you have staked out. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting that their reply, instead of addressing the points of order made, were instead to issue counter charges instead, amusingly against every other participant. As such, I take it that they hold implied consent to the citations I've presented of their behaviour and see them as 'wholly appropriate.' As a result, I see those two citations as demonstrably of WP:AGF not being held to task and an user not invested in correcting their behaviour from further engaging in such manners.

On another note, citing misconstrued WP:CIRs in an AN/I opened on grounds of WP:CIVIL and failing to read the header addendum on its utility in disputes being citable for WP:PA is comedic, and I do consider it a borderline WP:PA. Sleath56 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor 199.66.69.88 is clearly not a newbie given the way he or she cited many policies/guidelines/essays, therefore likely to have been around for quite a while. I didn't like the way the editor is trying to disrupt or stop other people discussing issues by urging closure of these discussions, but I don't think what he or she did is sanctionable just yet. Whether the editor is a sock or not I don't know, and that is the only concern in the !vote of various discussions of the talk pages. Hzh (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no need to address spurious accusations on the terms of such an accuser. By what right should any of you control the direction of this discussion?

Perhaps you find it amusing that I've leveled complaints at the other participants to this thread, but the most basic look at those participants will show that everyone who has participated in this thread (with one exception, against whom I naturally have no complaint) has been a participant in the discussions at the talk page (and specifically those who have so desperately demanded a pagemove). Nobody has had a chance to participate, and as has been the modus operandi of the talk page since the "no consensus" RM, it has been filibustered by those in favor of a pagemove. None of you has given a chance to any ANI participant—administrator or otherwise—to really review this case, which in my experience is par for the course.

At its core, this is a content dispute that those who have brought this complaint seek to cast as a behavioral dispute. Those experienced in ANI dealings will recognize this as a very common stratagem. I urge you to look beyond the claims made above by xinbenlv, Regice2020, and Sleath56, who have not provided a single diff of the claimed misconduct on my part on the talk page. Look at the diffs I've provided. Thank you. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

To have balanced voices heard, I like to notify Wikipedian, @Hurricane Noah:, @Benlisquare: to join this discussion. These two Wikipedian do not agree with my point of view in that they both disagree to have a RM.

has also @Benlisquare: have think raising new title discussion could be disruptive and an ANI-worthy case. I know you have not formally requested any ANI, but since this is a similar discussion, I'd like to make sure you are aware of our debate here. I am willing to be convinced by you or 199.66.69.88 that any conduct of discussing new name could be disruptive.

Oh by the way,

I like to point out among these 3 Wikipedians who have thought even having a new name discussion (not a RM) as "disruptive", two of them, @Benlisquare: and 199.66.69.88, have 3 major similarities I couldn't help noticing:

* 1. they make strong statement asking people to stop discussion immediately, in a very strong toneSpecial:Diff/940211462 and Special:Diff/940711118.

* 2. they are very familiar with policies and have been citing policies inline as links such as Special:Diff/940211462 by Benlisquare and Special:Diff/940692880 by 199.66.69.88.

* 3. evidence shows they both understand Chinese to some level, as showing on Benlisquare's talk page, and 199.66.69.88's first contribution is on Wenliang Li updating the subject's Chinese name markup Special:Diff/939627710.

Instead there is no sign @Hurricane Noah: shares these two similarities. I am not suggesting these facts (or just my opinion) are sufficient to justify a WP:SOCK accusation, and I genuinely think 199.66.69.88's Special:Diff/939627710 is a good edit for Wenliang Li that I want to applaud him/her for, but I think it would be great if 199.66.69.88 could further disclose his/her other contributions, I think this will greatly resolve any minor doubt people may have in WP:SOCK. However, I like to hightly both 199.66.69.88 and Benlisquare have voted the same side as OPPOSE in two separate RMs of the same topic (maybe not a violation of WP:SOCK even proven same people? if so, that's smart). xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I was like thinking where i did see this similar edit before which prompted me to respond to IP. Hopefully this ANI will get to the bottom of this out control issue. Regice2020 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that the reason why I am upset is that RM after RM has been opened and no consensus is able to come from these. It seems people there are unable to cope with the no consensus because they feel it is a factually incorrect title. It is imo disruptive to open another RM for a similar move soon after the previous one is closed just for the sake of continuing a discussion that went nowhere. Everyone needs to take a break from this and come back once the fog has cleared and the name is clearly known in the media. I thought that a month would be a good break for everyone since it takes time for the public to accept a common name. I'm not saying new name discussions/RMs are disruptive in general, just the fact that they are being done with such haste and clear lack of evidence in support of a new name. I would support opening a RM/discussion once there is a name clearly established. Noah^Talk 01:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In regards to your accusations, is there an extensive history between those two users? If not, it likely can't be confirmed if they are the same or not. Participation/voting the same in arguments over and over again would suggest they are the same. If it is just the two times you mentioned, it would be doubtful since the Coronavirus outbreak mainly pertains to China right now. Noah^Talk 01:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The IP mentioned above contacted me on my talkpage as I submitted the above messages in a manner that I take as him wanting me to defend myself for his own wellbeing. I see he sent the exact same thing to the other user mentioned as well. Noah^Talk 02:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

On your page he knows how this very cleanly. What is this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHurricane_Noah&type=revision&diff=940855999&oldid=940216817 Regice2020 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I take everything after the standard ANI message as the IP user trying to influence the discussion, in the manner of soliciting a response instead of just leaving the neutral, standard ANI message. All I can say is that something doesnt seem right about the IP's actions. Noah^Talk 02:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that user was able do that ANI posting on your talk page. The user is not new and must be very experienced under a account(s) of Wikipedia. The part were the ip was disruptive was not acceptable for people who did not side with the ip. Regice2020 (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Hurricane Noah:, your answer convinced me that within a given time frame, probably lock down any RMs would be much more productive than allowing RMs to be re-opened over and over again, and causing a distraction of discussing new names. (I previously voted oppose, but now I think I changed my mind convinced by you) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And I like to make it clear, in contrary to what 199.66.69.88 said in Special:Diff/940855999, I did not suggest any WP:SOCK possibility of you @Hurricane Noah: as in the sentence ..."Instead there is no sign @Hurricane Noah: shares these two similarities. "... xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think that I'm a sock of 199.66.69.88, then feel free to start a SPI and request for a CheckUser lookup. Though, I am a little offended that you'd even remotely think that I'd happily visit a third world country like the United States of America with its murder rate of 5.0 per 100,000, median income of $56,516, and lack of use of the metric system. But then again, I suppose it's completely impossible that different people can share the same opinion about childish behaviour (such as shoehorning RM discussions) being displayed on an article talk page, and it's definitely impossible that somebody could link to Wikipedia policy pages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this is my current dynamic IP, and this is when I'm on my phone. Now the real question is, was I able to hop on a plane from the United States after 03:54 UTC, 14 February 2020 and fly to Australia to make these posts? Tough question, I agree. I certainly am in possession of a personal-use F/A-18 Hornet myself. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Benlisquare:, I apologize if you feel offended of a potential sense of WP:SOCK . In fact if you and 199.66.69.88 are separate users, which I very much like to assume so, you don't have to disclose anything, neither contributions nor IP address, because we can easily see your contributions as public, and we can file for WP:SPI if needed for IP addresses you access. I don't worry about you(benlisquare) at all. You are invited here to address the question: @Benlisquare:, what kind of act on the talk page, in discussing a potential new name, make you think that it's disruptive? I like to be convinced by you and learn to edit Wikipedia with you effectively if any part of our discussion indeed makes it disruptive. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My position is that the best outcome is to avoid a situation at 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak where we end up with the same situation we have at Talk:Kiev, Talk:Sea of Japan, Talk:Liancourt Rocks, and many other back-and-forth cases. Everybody ends up wasting their own time, and we don't end up moving anywhere meaningful; for what benefit does this bring? With this in mind, Rome wasn't built in a day, and we can afford to wait until there is clear literary consensus (not just Wikipedia consensus, but consensus across the board, from newspapers to organisations) of a widely accepted name. This concern has been brought up by many other users, and is not something that I alone came up with.

Even with this concern brought up time and time again, between 2 February and 11 February, we've seen an onslaught of RMs after RMs after RMs. In Australia there is a common idiom, "throw enough shit at the wall, and eventually some of it will stick"; what this means is that if you repeat the same action again and again, you'll eventually reach your goal. The repetitive RMs certainly felt like an attempt at eventually making something stick to the wall, especially given:

One, the timing between the RMs, and

Two, that there was very little difference between the first handful of suggested titles.

While upon first glance it might not seem like much, there have been various instances in the distant past where these tactics have been used over and over again in a disruptive manner. I'm sure that I wouldn't be the only person who sees the repetitive creation of RMs as disruptive behaviour, and that this sentiment is echoed elsewhere as well. When the community cannot come to a consensus to move, starting up another identical discussion four hours later in the hopes of reaching a different outcome is definitely not appropriate, ergo I consider it falling within the realms of WP:TENDENTIOUS. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What I do ask explicitly for 199.66.69.88 is for him/her to disclose his/her other contributions so we can learn his/her pattern. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No. I’m not interested in being further harassed by your gang from that page. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

My thoughts

1. Let's all try to take a step back here. The discussions at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to this point have not always adhered to the standard of civility that we set for our contributors and which apply equally to everyone whether or not they have an account. While I do not think uncivil behavior should be condoned it is understandable under the circumstances that things became a bit heated, and while many of the diffs presented here are hardly creditable, none are exceptionally severe, and as such I do not see a need for any sanctions unless things continue to degrade. If everyone in those discussions agrees to just focus on content from now on there won't be any further problems.
2. If you believe someone is abusing multiple accounts then file a detailed report at WP:SPI backed by diffs and confine your concerns to that forum, lest it appear to others as mere casting of WP:ASPERSIONS. As a clarification in advance I am not saying anyone has intended to cast aspersions, but merely that the possible appearance of impropriety is by itself reason enough to confine such concerns to the appropriate forum. Further discussion here can only serve to add fuel to the fire.
3. There is no policy against long-term IP editing. Some users choose to create an account, and that's fine, some choose not to create an account, and that's fine too. Neither choice should be held against anyone.
4. It is not the purpose of ANI to resolve content disputes. I suggest that if you believe the volume of move requests has become too large then you should initiate a discussion resembling Talk:Kiev#Proposed moratorium on move requests, and abide by whatever consensus emerges from it.

Sorry about bouncing back and forth between two IPs, these are public computers, and with no time-limit I have no more right to evict anyone than they have to evict me so I have to get in whichever chair is open, and that's assuming it has working internet which has not always been the case these past few days. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've maintained that my point of order in this AN/I is the observation that the IP's present behaviour is not WP:AGF-worthy conduct. I disagree with the proposition that discussions on the page were ubiquitously devolved or heated such that the IP's behaviour holds parity with that Talk's standard. My observation is that their behaviour, as said, stands out as a stark outlier to the generally civil RM discussions conducted by the rest of the community on that page, made more pronounced by a seeming intent by the individual to WP:BLUD. This ties to the rather plainly attempted deflection through the IP's claim that the point of order is a content dispute despite the citations of behaviour contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF that they have rejected to respond to that were brought up within this AN/I.
• Points which bring up the IP's unregistered status are not attempted forays into discussion on the merits of long-term IP editing but rather that the user's fundamentally unaccountable status as an IP is now a point of interest when they seem principally interested in conduct cross-examining on conjectural grounds, which in my case amounted to a borderline WP:PA through the use of specious WP:CIR in a AN/I dispute. This is rather than engaging or even rebutting the concerns made by participants here, and when their status inherently inhibits the reciprocity potential for WP:BOOMERANG.
• The deficit is glaring because it doesn't require WP:CHECKUSER, or charges of WP:SOCK, when the IP's conduct demonstrates they are clearly not a new user, nor have they objected to that characterization throughout this, yet while albeit not wholly, principally the weight of their contributions are dedicated to the topic at hand. This is problematic from a bilateral engagement on AN/I standpoint because since the dialogue has devolved to tit-for-tat conduct allegations, they hold a tabula rasa on the appearance of a new user, with the considerations of clemency that pertains on the concerns presented of not meeting WP:AGF, yet the extant evidence points clearly to the contrary. Sleath56 (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed that the IP editor 199.66.69.88 again attempted to have a discussion closed - [46], mischaracterising the nominator's position. That was followed by a closure by someone else, before it was reopened after an objection by the nominator. I think I can now say the editor's action is disruptive when he or she did it so many times. Hzh (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: Let me try to address this as best I can.

1. I didn't state that the discussions were ubiquitously devolved, just not always civil. My words were carefully chosen because they were based off a review of presented diffs from each individual, not from reading every single thread on the originating discussion page. In fact I should have at least done a spread read, because it looks like the recommendation in my 4th point was already discussed and I needn't have been mentioned it. However one of the reasons that diffs are so often requested is because it is irrational to ask everyone who wishes to comment on these threads to review the originating discussions in their entirety.
2. As so often happens a dispute which started over content has become one over conduct. Without saying who if anyone is at fault, the conduct should be discussed here, and the content there.
3. 199.66.69.88 did not initiate the discussion so WP:BOOMERANG isn't really applicable. That merely technical correction aside, IP users are just as accountable for their conduct as user's with accounts, and must be willing to answer for their actions if called to account and accept the consequences for them. If an uninvolved admin finds their conduct sanction-able then they may be sanctioned up to and including blocks. Their may be a narrower argument in there that IPs can't be indeffed, however, based on what I've seen, no one is being indeffed judging from the evidence so far presented. In any case IP users can be banned as happened with WP:BKFIP, so the maximum penalty remains the same.
4. I'm not quite sure I follow your last point so I'll need some help. You seem to be saying that the short amount of history available to judge 199.66.69.88 is an unfair advantage of sorts in this situation. Yet, having a short history to judge off cuts both ways, long-standing respected users who lose their cool over an issue and become disruptive in an area are usually afforded far more leeway than new ones who come in and begin disrupting things immediately. I could kind of see your point about unfairness if we had a case where a laundry list of grievances stretching back years was presented by one side, while the other had no such history to criticize. However as far as I can see, all accusations and counter accusations have been limited thus far to a single dispute so I do not see that as a concern.

If you feel I have missed a crucial point or characterized anything wrongly please let me know, I can be a bit slow sometimes so a bit of clarification never hurts, thank you. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

An extremely fair response and assessment. I endorse your post. I maintain that any disruption I may have caused is purely incidental and harmless. The only thing they might rightly criticize is my immediate move to close one discussion (though I stand by my statement that the anti-name change views were being misrepresented in that table). But I rightly disengaged from that discussion to permit other participation. I have not filibustered that (or any) discussion, and I challenge anybody to give diffs showing misconduct on my part (I note that few if any have been posted despite the claims of OP and his associates).

The other complaint, that my comment at the MRV “misinterpreted” the nominator’s response, is pretty spurious. He said, I now agree that simply reopening the RM will likely not lead anywhere. (diff) By agreeing that relisting or overturning is not the answer, he had conceded that there was no outcome for MRV to reach other than endorsing. The remainder of his comment was dedicated to “other things that could be done” in a future RM, which is entirely outside the purpose of MRV. It’s like talking about page cleanup in an AFD: It belongs on the talk page. And in fact, he promised just that in his edit summary! There was nothing left to review about the RM under discussion. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@74.73.230.72. I appreciate the aspiration of mediation I derived from your reply, but I'll be brief as I felt your response was more directed to the spirit of my reply rather than the substance. The point of this entire ANI as I said is the assertion that the IP's behaviour was precisely notable for not meeting civility because it set itself as an outlier and to my attention through their enthusiastic WP:BLUD. The use of WP:BOOMERANG per my sentence is as a 'tit-for-tat process', as the IP has set the blame (seemingly on nigh everyone but themselves) when they accused both participants here but also others still uninvolved on the Talk, it is indeed applicable. The view on IPs being unaccountable is well established, the point of this discussion is not a wholesale discussion of that philosophy. It's brought up here because I view the sentiment as applicable to the ongoing situation. The point of my last bullet is better argued just restated: "This is problematic from a bilateral engagement on AN/I standpoint because since the dialogue has devolved to tit-for-tat conduct allegations, they hold a tabula rasa on the appearance of a new user, with the considerations of clemency that pertains on the concerns presented of not meeting WP:AGF, yet the extant evidence points clearly to the contrary."

@Sean Heron: as he has been discussed by the IP, yet unpinged by them. Sleath56 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: Well I tried to cover both spirit and substance, perhaps not all that well.

• I set out quite deliberately to keep things at a high-level in my posts so far to get at principles everyone can agree upon before diving into the details. It's probably best to avoid further discussion WRT IP accountability in general at this time, as an unfruitful tangent that will be further complicated by the different meanings that word assumes in context. I think we can agree that in this circumstance 199.66.69.88 has been called upon to account, is doing so, and will be sanctioned if their actions are determined to warrant such. As a member of the Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle part of my mission is ensuring that all IPs are treated fairly and equally, and to call out unfair prejudice and bias against other IP editors when unambiguously stated as such. However, I am not here specifically to shield other IPs from the consequences of their misbehavior either. I have many times in the past requested blocks against users registered and unregistered alike in accordance with the blocking policy, and I will undoubtedly do so in the future.
• I'm a bit reluctant to get into the details here, because I know I won't be able to participate much longer, and it would be inappropriate as such to try to assume a referee role that I know I won't be able to follow through on, however I will with apologies approach some of them in the remainder of this post.
• I think 199.66.69.88 has acknowledged a solid pre-existing knowledge of guidelines and the five pillars, as such they along with all participants can safely be assumed to have been familiar with WP:AGF and WP:AAGF alike, and we can move forward with that in mind. If I am wrong on this account anyone who was not familiar with either the guideline or essay prior to this dispute please correct me on that point. Likewise I don't think there's any need to worry about WP:BITEs, and again please correct me if I'm wrong.
• Finally what specific remedies are being sought here? Based only on the diffs presented thus far, and admitting that I have not read the discussion in any detail, nor have I followed it's continuing development, my initial assessment still holds that ideally if everyone just follows WP:FOC hereforward in these discussions this can all just be water under the bridge. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My original opinion was that while 199.66.69.88 was annoying, his or her actions did not warrant a sanction. However, after seeing examples of the editor's attempts at closing discussions (some of which were successful but another reverted, which I mentioned before), I'm considering such actions to be disruptive, and if such behaviour persists, then something would need to be done.Hzh (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? The MRV closure? The closer never said anything about my characterization of the nom’s comment as influencing the close (which was correct, by the way—he agreed that relisting/reversing was not an outcome he desired, therefore MRV had nothing left to do, and the closer got it 100% correct). The closer should not have reopened the MRV.

As to closing RMs, so what? I did nothing improper. In one case I sought input from an AN thread that was already open, to inform participants that the problem of disruptive “protest RMs” was still ongoing. I don’t appreciate your aspersions. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@74.73.230.72: I appreciate the disclosure and the further clarification of mediator impartiality, though I don't believe I've ever objected to your impartial conduct, nonetheless I retract any statements that you may have construed that way. My view is that the IP's behaviour is a breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL conduct, made pronounced by WP:BLUD, and their reluctance here on this AN/I to provide response to the incidents I've cited further asserts that. This is along with explicit conjectures of their behaviour as without being without fault and "purely incidental and harmless" despite numerous uninvolved editors beyond the participants here, including one whom they called to this AN/I themselves (who stated they were called here inappropriately): @Doc James:, @Hurricane Noah: holding the case otherwise and this makes me believe the mere existence of this protracted AN/I doesn't hold any merit in stemming future behaviour in this regard. There will be be a further RM discussion in a few days time on the relevant Talk page and I believe the IP should be allowed to participate, but this should be provided they acknowledge not to utilize the same non-WP:AGF behaviour. The remedy to this of a ruling of un-WP:CIVIL behaviour or a warning as closure to this AN/I would suffice as appropriate action in my view. Sleath56 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I note that, yet again, you've not provided a single diff of the alleged misconduct. All you've done is give a single diff of me defending myself, and a diff of someone complaining that I gave him a detailed ANI notice after he was mentioned as a possible sockpuppet. I take issue with the claim that there are numerous uninvolved editors beyond the participants here. Who? Doc James said in one line that he viewed my conduct as somewhat disruptive and never said another thing. Hurricaine Noah is another talk page contributor, and is hardly "not a participant". I don't think there's been a single comment ITT from actual ANI regulars, so forgive me if I don't particularly take your assessment of any "consensus" here to heart.

I reiterate my demand that you actually provide diffs for your claims of misconduct. From all I can tell, this entire thread boils down to one post wherein I described a move-related thread as disruptive after a series of speedy closes of disruptive RMs. Worst case, I'm wrong and it wasn't disruptive. Have I disrupted anything? No. Have I failed to assume good faith? No! Have I done anything for which sanctions normally lie? Absolutely not. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As you say, your behaviour will be held to the determination of AN/I to decide, that's all I will say to that regard. I have listed my points of concern already and I have no interest in repeat ad-nauseam what has already been stated. I indeed did provide citations with diffs, though it's telling of your prompt dismissal of points made by participants here that you neglected to notice them. Additionally, Ctrl+F shows you are the only one to use the word "consensus" in this AN/I apart from the OP statement. Caricaturing extant comments from uninvolved editors as cited as such to allow you to go on a rhetorical tangent about lacking "consensus" is not needed, I've provided the diffs for those comments made, whose merit here stand on their own for AN/I to judge without the necessity of your negationist interpretation of them. Sleath56 (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Everyone the person earlier behind the comments from 74.73.230.72 on this thread has left. Etiquette among our little group is to not ever resume discussion from other IPs on any threads once we are no longer here, so we can't be impersonated. I chose a different computer for this comment to limit confusion, I may use that computer later this week if it's the only one open, sorry but I don't know enough to help out myself, I mostly do RCP. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sleath56 is possibly a paid editor working for the PRC, or maybe just a WP:SPA obsessed with PRC hot button issues. Regardless needs a t-ban, although that will likely do little to prevent from creating another account. Huge ongoing WP:BLUDGEON going on here Talk:2019–20_Hong_Kong_protests#Discussion_Break. @JzG: have a look at this, you tend to patrol the political arena. I guess the IP address edits are also related. Probably need page protection and maybe DS on this article, as much as I find DS annoying. Maybe at least start with high level page protection. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Accusation is inappropriate buried here, should be its own section. Obvious request of WP:BOOMERANG for the out of nowhere WP:CIV breach of WP:PA and WP:ASPERSIONS along with here. Sleath56 (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Xinbenlv's final(probably?) statement

@199.66.69.88:, since you have explicitly refused to provide your other contributions, I respect your stance out of your privacy.

I genuinely believe Wikipedians, including you who I hold different opinions on content or procedure in this subject, are here to contribute to Wikipedia, and do good for it. And sometimes Wikipedians and you and I have strong opinions or react strongly because we both care very much about the Subject. In this aspect, shouldn't we be called friends? I think this is the AGF spirit.

I understand you want to ensure we follow a right way to edit that subject, discuss name, or you want to ensure it's called a right name in your mind. I am very open to be convinced and I'd like to suggest you that if you have used a better tone, instead of saying "stop such disruptive behavior immediately", you could say "hey do you know by initiating such discussion it could cause unintended destruction? And to avoid such, I suggest the disucssion to be closed as soon as possible", etc. In such way, your message could be much better received and your influence is delivered. Wouldn't that be better to amplify your contributed time on Wikipedia?

At this point, I think since I have delivered all my messages and unless new information / opinion is needed from me, I will leave this thread to other participants, admins to furhter disucssion. Other than that, I will try to WP:FOC from now on. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Side note: I give kudos and respect to 74.73.230.72's facilitation of this discussion. I applaud to your efforts in ensuring IP editors are treated fairly, I sincerely agree with this opinion. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Regice 2020 Final evidence

IP completely bias again on a ANI that he not being reported. I have no choice but to fully agree with @Xinbenlv: and users who believe they were harmed for not siding with the IP Regice2020 (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

199.66.69.88 may have connections with Wired Article

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

199.66.69.88 behavior was very unacceptable on 2019 coronavirus outbreak talk page . I suspect that behavior led to creation of this Wired news article were the ip was possibly collecting information and data without our knowledge. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-coronavirus Regice2020 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020: I'm not particularly sure what administrative action you would like to see. There's already a section above about that particular user. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I seek Block or Topic ban. Thank you for bring me tot his attention, but the ANI report is about the users disruptive behavior towards other people on that talk page while this one about the ip planned this behavior outrage, so the wired news article can be created with loads of information collected. Regice2020 (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what you mean, as that's a very serious accusation. I've read the Wired article, and it doesn't present an argument on the topic of RM disputes as far as I've read it. Unless you have evidence based grounds for the charge, this seems like a rather inappropriate WP:CONSPIRACY. Sleath56 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The article also mention the notable @Doc James: and other users. Someone need get this outbreak controlled and get to the bottom of the source. Regice2020 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020: I don't think the IP user was deliberately trying to sabotage Wikipedia's internal discussions to tip off Wired about it. Wired writes a lot of stuff about Wikipedia because I think one of their journalists is an editor here. Plus, that piece highly praised us anyways, so I don't know why you are pursuing this line accusations. Assume good faith. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Doubt the wired piece and this IP are related. The IPs behavior however is somewhat disruptive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is what I’ve been talking about. The harassment coming from Regice2020 and other participants on the Wuhan Coronavirus talk page—baseless accusations of being a sockpuppet, demands I disclose past contributions, false claims that I’ve only edited in this one topic area, running to ANI with conspire theories like this, etc.—has only intensified in the last couple days. No matter what I’ve done, nothing merits this sickening level of bullying and harassment. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Given that I was the first to pointedly object to the conjecture made above, I find this an inappropriate assertion and representative of a tendency by the IP to conflate those who propose opposing views in 'collaborative' monolithic 'hostile' camps, often fringed with accusations of "conspiracy." 12 I find it odd the IP is happy to liberally portray themselves as having received "sickening level of bullying and harassment" (in reply to an accusation rejected by all responding participants) when they're also unwilling to address the observations of WP:BLUD and borderline "bullying" behaviour as I've cited and remain unaddressed above. Sleath56 (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've commented too much already to close this thread myself. I do suggest that nothing good can come of breaking the discussion into ever more pieces, and advise everyone interested to confine their future comments to the thread already opened above. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have moved this thread to be a subthread of the existing thread on the same editor. It's less confusing that way. There's generally no need to have 2 separate threads on the same editor at ANI. I have no objection to closing it since I agree no evidence has been presented of any connection between the IP and the Wired article, but I felt it better not to close and move at the same time.Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Алексей Густов and linking

Hi there. I have been repeatedly trying to tell Алексей Густов (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) that linking multiple times in an article is not acceptable and they have continued to cite reasons such as it was "added/edited by much more competetive curling-En-Wiki-people than me". Examples of warning, in chronological order are: [47], [48] (I do apologies, this wasn't "disruptive editing" and I shouldn't have used this template), [49], [50], [51].

Please note that I stated that it was their "last chance before I take action" in the final link. The action that prompted me to take this to ANI was the creation of Jørgen Myran which occurred after the final warning was sent. I believe that this user's inability to follow MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:REPEATLINK require action. Also, it appears as if they know they are doing something wrong (they never say that I am wrong, suggesting they have admitted this; they also say "it was my mistake" at [52]), appearing to simply pass it off as other user's fault. I don't understand why a user knows that something they are doing is wrong and yet continue to do it. Either they don't understand/agree or are here in bad faith. I hope it's the former. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This issue is with repeating links in team lists, right? WP:REPEATLINK allows an exception in these cases: "Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader." I mean, we should probably have the debate as to whether an exception should be had for team lists (I think it does aid the reader, especially if a teammate leaves a team and comes back after a few seasons) before we clamp down on users who are just following precedence. Anyway, I've been following the user in question's editing for quite some time, and I don't detect any maliciousness in any of his editing. His English isn't the best, so there's likely just a miscommunication. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

IP persistent unsourced edits

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

---

Despite four warnings, and requests for talk page discussion, 2600:1700:8440:42B0:6158:846F:F726:4979 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and several other IPs from the range 2600:1700:8440:42B0::/64, have repeatedly made changes to sourced population figures in People of the Dominican Republic without providing a source, and which blatantly contradict the existing reliable sources: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. The intent seems to be to increase the number of white people and discount the number of black people. I've been reverting them, but I don't want to be seen as edit warring.

At one point they did replace an existing source (CIA World Fact Book) with another source (World Atlas): [59] but the figures are from a 1960 census. They are not the same figures as they've been using in the other edits, which are inconsistent and look to be made-up.

Request for discussion on article talk page: Talk:People of the Dominican Republic#Population ethnicity statistics

User talk page warnings about unsourced changes: [60], [61], [62], [63]

--IamNotU (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I dropped a 31-hour block on the range; let's see if that makes them change their mind and lessens disruption. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully they'll take notice. I'll report back if they keep it up. --IamNotU (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Somalia/ Somaliland political dispute

On a variety of articles related to Somalia there appears to be a battle going on between User:Lion Pappa and User:Aqooni (and also possibly User:Capewearer). Lion Pappa has accused the other two users of sockpuppetry, but I have told him that he must not make such accusations without evidence, and that if he has evidence he should present it at WP:SPI. Both Lion Pappa and Aqooni have made edits at WP:AN3 making accusations against each other, but in both cases malformed. I have told Lion Pappa and Aqooni that if they have a content dispute the starting point is to discuss on the relevant article talk pages, but they have not done so. Lion Pappa has repeatedly removed sourced text from a number of articles, and in his most recent edit he has deliberately falsified a reference title. I was rather surprised not to find the Somalia/ Somaliland dispute among areas covered by Discretionary sanctions, but in any case the current behaviour of this group of editors appears to be disruptive. I will leave those of you with greater expertise to decide how widely the blame lies. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My edits to Issa Musse‎ and Oodweyne District (which I assume are the articles in dispute?) were only cleanup and reference fixes. Issa Musse in particular was a mess, and I cleaned it up. When a reference said Somalia, I wrote Somalia; when new references were added that said Somaliland, I backed away from editing, because I have no knowledge of or interest in the dispute over where any of the people or places are located. I'l add some supporting links from the edit history in a few minutes. Capewearer (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My initial cleanup of Issa Musse: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68].

A little later, following some back and forth between Lion Pappa and Aqooni, a reFill format of three new bare references: [69].

And on Oodweyne District, my initial cleanup, just as neutral as in the other article: [70]; then a re-format of the same bare reference [71]; then added a reliable source to a poorly sourced article: [72], [73], [74]. Editor Lion Pappa, who in addition to their edit warring and inflammatory edit summaries has clearly stated at User talk:David Biddulph that he or she is "here for justice" [75], and needs to state clearly what I've done wrong in all this. Capewearer (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been accused sockpuppetry by User:Lion Pappa quite a number of times and I hope the administrators can do the necessary checks to verify the invalidity of such a preposterous claim. I want to point your attention that the user User:Lion Pappa has been vandalising multiple pages and removing sourced information on the article do not state. He has also made multiple editions WITHOUT any references. The user has been notified twice already and haven't stopped. Please refer back to the history section of these articles to see the horrific levels of vandalism:

[[76]] (Oodweyne District) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[77]] (Gadabuursi) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[78]] (Berbera) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[79]] (Sahil, Somaliland) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[80]] (Somalia) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[81]] (Zeila) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[82]] (Issa Musse) - Created an entire article without any references

[[83]] (Awdal) - Constant vandalising of this page without references

[[84]] (Borama) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[85]] (Lughaya District) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[86]] (Lughaya) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

Aqooni (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

All three editors need to stop accusing each other of Vandalism (and perhaps read Wikipedia:Vandalism) - while you appear to be involved in a content dispute, and there seems to be some edit-warring, there does not seem to be any vandalism. Have any of you attempted to discuss the matters at the article talk pages?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

All three of us? I'm not in a content dispute, and I haven't accused anyone of vandalism. I'm here because a notice at my talk page said I may have been involved in this somehow. But as I explained in detail above, all I did was try to tidy up two pages. How about I just volunteer to never, ever edit another Somalia-related article again? Capewearer (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Being involved in editing in this topic, I thought I'd like to put my thought into this:

While all sides are engaging in an edit war, Aqooni has had a history of initiating edit wars, as proven by his history and talk page that is filled with blocks and reports. Aqooni seems to have a tribal bias and tends to remove any mentions of Somaliland despite Somaliland having complete, albeit unrecognized, independence from Somalia and Somali government control and despite promising Lion Pappa in Lion Pappa's page to leave articles alone, he's still at it if that's how I understood correctly.

I hope this resolves quickly. Mushteeg (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

As Mushteeq had chosen to join this discussion, it will be noticed that his recent edit changed Somalia to Somaliland, with an edit summary claiming "removed unsourced content", although the 3 references for the text in question all referred to Somalia rather than Somaliland. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Admins investigating this problem may wish also to consider User:Zaki199105 who was involved in editing many of the same articles (and undoing numerous edits by User:Aqooni) but is now blocked for sockpuppetry. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And another doing the same (& also blocked for sockpuppetry) was User:MahamedHaashi; I haven't notified this one, as I assume that if one instance of the sock knows about this thread then there's no need to notify each one separately). --David Biddulph (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologized on my talk page. I should be more careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushteeg (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Just one thing I propose:

All towns and districts of Somaliland should have its flag and push-in map, however, it should come with some sort of disclaimer that states that Somaliland is a de facto country that's internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia.

Now, the way to put it in the articles can be debated and wrong wordings would probably spark even more edit warring, but that is what I propose to put an end to this. Mushteeg (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mushteeg that we need to aim at a long-lasting solution. Pinging Kzl55, who is the paramount authority on Somaliland that I know of on Wikipedia. A centralized discussion somewhere (probably not here) in the form of a Request for Comment seems like a sound approach to moving forward. El_C 06:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

On returning from a block for edit-warring, User:Lion Pappa has resumed his previous behaviour of deliberately contradicting 3 cited references. Mushteeg has been blocked for sock-puppetry, but it looks as if this conflict (on multiple articles) will continue for as long as User:Lion Pappa is allowed to edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging El C, I see we are back to square one on the Somaliland/Somalia question again :). This issue almost always draws excessive emotional/nationalistic responses, members of the community who are familiar with the project know all about how long it has been going. As such it would seem beneficial to try and discuss the facts on the ground, away from nationalistic rhetoric (on both sides). Somaliland is a self-declared but internationally unrecognised de facto state, meaning that it has physical presence and control on the ground with all the trappings of a state (currency, government, army etc) whilst not being recognised internationally as a separate state by any country.

There is another fact that is important to acknowledge here; just like Somaliland is NOT a full state in the complete sense of the word (owing to lack of international recognition), Somalia too isn’t a full state in the complete sense of the word. Yes, it is recognised as a sovereign state by the UN and most countries in the world, but its government is very fragile and exerts little control on the ground, relying on +20,000 African Union soldiers to exist. Therefore Somalia has the opposite problem of Somaliland, it is a recognised state de jure, but lacks full de facto control on the ground.

Note: I am putting aside the history of Somaliland and Somalia being two separate, sovereign states that chose to form a union for now, just focusing on the reality on the ground today.

As such the two ‘states’ are not full states in the conventional sense of the word, Somalia has international recognition but de facto controls limited area and requires the protection of foreign soldiers, whilst Somaliland is de facto in control of its territory but no other state recognises it. Its a very unique issue. The problem with presenting Somaliland as an "autonomous region" within Somalia is that Somalia already has autonomous regions within the framework of its federal system (e.g. Galmudug, Puntland, Jubaland..etc) of which Somaliland is not part of, that would not be helpful to Wikipedia readership.

I think as a community we have two options to try and resolve the issue:

- If Wikipedia articles are reflecting the neutral reality on the ground, then a nuanced approach is needed. Something similar to the treatment of Taiwan on Wikipedia in relation to the PRC, or that of Sahrawi Republic would be apt. By that I mean describing Somaliland in a neutral language that describes reality on the ground, e.g. "self-declared state that is internationally unrecognised". This would be satisfy those who believe statehood does not necessarily mean international recognition but instead mean existence and effective control on the ground.

- On the other hand if Wikipedia is strictly focusing on the status of UN/international community recognition, then a de facto/de jure treatment might be the way to go, e.g. "Somaliland is a self-declared state, internationally recognised to be part of Somalia".

Addendum: just hours ago, Somaliland rejected another proposed visit by Ethiopia's PM Abiye Ahmed accompanied by Somalia's President Farmajo to Somaliland [87]. Also, NY Times reported five days ago the first ever meeting between heads of Somalia and Somaliland, which happened in the office of Ethiopia's PM during the recent AU summit [88]. It is worth noting that both were accorded presidential welcomes in Adis Ababa upon arrival. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring and resulting WP:Ethics by Zandxo

User Zandxo was blocked for edit warring in Uchar-hadji article and now rages in insults that "he can't seek consensus with nationalist". Also he accuses me (same link) in distorting the quote when he is the one mixing source with his fantasies. Any Russian-reading admin can verify it. I gave word for word translation to the user on talk page, but he cares not.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You're supposed to inform the editor being discussed, I have done so now. I'm the blocking administrator and I do not think they understand policies, hopefully being off the page will make them less disruptive elsewhere. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I admit I am not familiar with the policies, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia (excuse me if I'm not allowed to answer here), but I would like to point out that I can't seek consensus with Arsenekoumyk. He simply blocks off all my sources and pretends not to understand me. He is a hardcore Kumyk nationalist. I have wrote everything on the talk page to Uchar Hadji. I should not be blocked from editing there (or any articles regarding that topic), it's him who vandalises those with his nationalism. I would please ask you to just look at the talk page and the conversation I have had with him, c.(talk) 19:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

qedk "hardcore Kumyk nationalist" again. could you point me to WP Ethics page please, I couldn't find the page describing that rule?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring is spreading

qedk, Zandxo continued spreading his edit warring. now he deletes the part where Kumyks live in Chechnya four times already. For instance, Braguny village is in Chechnya. he hates it apparently.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

pardon, 3 for now. he insists that it says Chechnya is Kumyk when the phrase is "Kumyks live in Chechnya, Ossetya etc." the editor is very tiring.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

One small village there doesn't make it Kumyk territory, which you claim in it. There are 50 to 100 of Chechen villages in Dagestan, especially as what you claim as "Kumyk land". (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not insist on anything. the phrase says Kumyks live there but you see again smth different, could you please calm down, for God's sake--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

2 more insults

Some kind of other language insult again — link. Also derogatory familiarity meaning "Arsen good boy" here.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

1 more insult

User called me a nickname Arsene de Koumyk [here]. I asked to call me properly — here. He continued this familiarity — link --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And 1 more

[Insult]--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Arsenekoumyk and Zandxo: I'm sorry but I cannot look into this mess right now. In the meantime, can both of you stop editing anything related to this topic, that would be much helpful. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  qedk, seems pretty simple mess to me, mimimum 6 cases of insults, but I agree, the editor managed to distract.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I stopped edditing them and went to the talk threads of said articles looking for the conversation with Arsenekoumyk, but he sadly didn't really react cooperative. --Zandxo (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent promotional history at Duke articles

• Duke University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Duke University School of Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Duke–NUS Medical School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would appreciate more eyes on these, and possibly protection for the main article. COI edits from Duke and Singapore IPs. It's also possible that the most promotional content in the school of medicine are copyright violations, as from [89]. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am an IP editor who has never coordinated with other accounts to build the appearance of consensus. I don't know where this person is getting that from. All my edits have credible sources (example: research papers published in Science/Nature or media outlets like the NY Times, WSJ, etc.) It is not my fault that the university in question has been receiving a lot of positive coverage lately. The fact that the coverage is positive doesn't make it less worthy of being highlighted in the article as and where appropriate.

Also, I'd like to refer to this: "When an editor sees a single purpose editor, one initial reaction might be to cry "COI!" or "Paid editing!", taking the issue to noticeboards and other venues. It is often done in violation of assuming good faith." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_cry_COI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.217.221 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BOOSTER is also a good essay. As for my concerns re: multiple accounts with similar objectives:
• 137.132.217.221 (talk · contribs)
• 137.132.215.192 (talk · contribs)
• 119.74.237.226 (talk · contribs)
• 152.3.43.52 (talk · contribs)
• 137.132.215.196 (talk · contribs)
• 137.132.212.213 (talk · contribs)
• Most of these IPs are from the same range in Singapore--from the National University, whose medical school is affiliated with Duke--and all are drawn to Duke articles, including that of the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. If they're not all used by the same editor, then they suggest a longer term effort by multiple COI editors for the same ends. Though I do like "It is not my fault that the university in question has been receiving a lot of positive coverage lately" as a defense. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has also included these talk pages: [90]; [91] and [92]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ricky Martin inflated sales

Hi,

I've been trying to talk to @آرمین هویدایی: since last year about inflated sales of the singer Ricky Martin in his talk page (link), I already talked to him on the talk page of the singer's article (link) and showed a series of proves that the 85 million albums sold that he insists in put in the article are totally disproportionate to the amount of certifications and performance in charts of the singer's albums and singles, after 4 albums with 5 million sold in the world, he never exceeded the 1 million mark. It happens to Ricky Martin and other artists, the fans come here and increase sales excessively and the media repeats the information without any other criteria. Ricky Martin has about 30 million copies proven by companies that deal with sales such as IFPI, RIAA and AMPROFON, among others here a list that can also be seen in his discography page: (link) even the artist's record company says that he sold 70 million copies worldwide see here, I do not understand the insistence of this user in wanting to increase the number of copies, only because the information appeared in an article from forbes that doesn't work with sales counts like the IFPI. I would like you to help me solve this problem. I wait a reply.--88marcus (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, the thing is آرمین هویدایی is right that Forbes is generally considered reliable, and its typically policy to report figures using reliable third party sources. I'd also like to point out that the record company said 70 million, but this was posted in 2014. Theres a good chance it has increased to 85 million since forbes reported on it in 2017. So i dont think this is particularly inaccurate. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Album sales is a tricky area, especially now that many people choose to count album-equivalent units (which include singles and streams) as album sold, which is strictly speaking not true since "album units" is pure album sales + tracks sales + streams. Note that the number from Sony Music site predates the change in methodology, therefore it is possible the new sales figure may be album units rather than actual sales. I don't believe Ricky Martin sold 15 million albums since 2017 (he is no longer the big selling artist he was), but I have seen massive jumps in sales figures when album-equivalent units are counted for other artists. Many websites including Forbes do give artificially inflate sales figures, often just repeating possibly unreliable sales information given by publicists who blur the difference between units and album sold. Personally I would have preferred websites that use SoundScan figures, but there isn't the equivalence for world-wide sales figures, so we are basically stuck. I do understand why people want to remove such inflated figures (and I think 88marcus is correct in this regard, technically at least if we are talking about pure album sales), but with the steep decline in actual album sales and the increase in streams, it might be a losing battle. Hzh (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiman5676: Thank you for your explaining. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus, Wikiman5676, Hzh, and آرمین هویدایی: while articles by Forbes staff are considered generally reliable (see WP:FORBES), articles by Forbes.com contributors are considered both generally unreliable and self-published. Just search for "Forbes.com contributors" on WP:RSP for more details. The source in question was indeed written by a Forbes.com contributer and did not appear in the print edition of Forbes. Is the author reliable independent of Forbes.com? Maybe, but if their numbers are wildly off from a variety of reliable sources, then probably not. Woodroar (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue extends beyond Forbes, and reported sales figures have long been a problem even with reliable sources. The reason being that there are many ways sales figures can be inflated, for example using album shipped rather album sold, bundling of concert ticket and merch sales with album sales (sometimes free albums are counted as album sales), and now using album units instead of actual album sales. There isn't really an official body that counts worldwide sales, so news outlets generally rely on numbers by publicists or record companies who inflate sales figures. Billboard still makes a distinction between album units and actual sales, but increasing number of websites (reliable or not) no longer do it since actual album sales have dropped significantly. As I said, 88marcus is probably right, but it might also be a losing battle. Hzh (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Woodroar: There are many other references that telling this too, for example Entertainment Weekly which as I saw is a reliable source in Entertaiment topics (which probably includes music!): https://ew.com/tv/2017/04/13/rupauls-drag-race-renewed-season-10-vh1/ or USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2015/02/10/ricky-martin-world-tour-concert-phoenix/23177461/ I can find many websites which are telling the number 85 million albums, it's not only Forbes. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Forbes also said 85 million albums not 85 million records which means, album, singles, DVDs/Blu-rays all together. Martin has 30 million certified records not 30 million certified albums, the Forbes statement give the impression that he sold 85 million albums and lot more with singles and DVD, which is unlikely. 70 million recors seems already inflated, it's twice the Martin's certifications. This sources from Yahoo also says 70 million records and it's from 2019 link--88marcus (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It could be that Forbes misunderstood "records" to mean "albums", or it could be that they meant "album units". Do we have a clear idea of how many of his "sales" might be in units? Hzh (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: As you probably know, label records must pay to update the certifications and obviously many sales certifications have not been updated or even received. (If you want I can give you simple "obvious" examples.) Ok we can find sources of 70 million records, 70 million albums & 85 million albums. And we both know it! But the fact is that "70 millions" was for years ago and certainly should be updated. I think we should use the word "equivalent" for that 85 million album sales. I hope everyone would agree on this. It won't be inflated anymore and it's not false. He had such a big streaming hits (Vente Pa' Ca, La Mordidita, etc.) And including album equivalent sales this data would be accurate. Why should we use only pure sales on this article? We can just explain it to readers and this way we are using a newer datas.آرمین هویدایی (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think he is a big-seller nowadays, so trying to boost his sales artificially isn't helpful. We don't really know what Forbes means, if the author had made a mistake, although I'm fairly certain that the number is unlikely to be the number of pure albums sold. Hzh (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

85 million albums is not reliable and inflated. Martin's last album sold around 300,000 worldwide and has 225,000 with certified sales which include streamings. His certifications after 2014 also included streamings and it's all updated, together all singles/songs he released after 2014 has around 1,4 million certified copies. The claim (2019) over 70 million records is ideal to cover all the sales after 2014.--88marcus (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, @Woodroar: has a good point. Apologies, I didnt notice that that was a contributor. We would need another reliable source if you want to put 85 million, if not stick to the 70 million. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikiman5676: I've found actually, USA Today I checked it and as I saw USA Today is generally reliable and it doesn't have any problems. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not only Forbes that you are calling it a mistake. Here you can see: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2015/02/10/ricky-martin-world-tour-concert-phoenix/23177461/ USA Today is also a generally reliable source. I've also sent Entertainment weekly. These sources are reliable based on wikipedia rules. And they didn't even say "equivalent", it's written as "85 million albums" you are calling it as inflated only because of not updated certifications? آرمین هویدایی (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, many websites don't make a distinction between actual album sales and album-equivalent units, which isn't helpful to us. It is unlikely that he has sold so many albums. Since there isn't an official body that releases worldwide sales figure, it could be argued that since such figures likely originated from publicists for the artist or record labels, worldwide sales figure may be considered WP:PROMO and therefore unreliable. Hzh (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Those sites can't say nothing about sales they doesn't work with that like companies such IFPI, RIAA, AMPROFON... See Thriller album by Michael Jackson as example, there are many sites that claim it sold 100 million copies, 150 million copies and so on, but it's included here in Wikipedia as having sold over 66 million copies since the certifications are around 45 million copies. Sites that doesn't work with that only copy from other sites and record companies sites and mostly from Wikipedia itself. 70 million records is given by a record company and it's already inflated, it is twice the number of certified sales by Martin to date also including his streaming performance. 85 million records is way inflated and 85 million albums worst, we can't say 85 million equivalents because there's no place with such claim and we don't know how to make a calculation for that.--88marcus (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, even numbers from certification sites like RIAA are problematic, see for example the certification for Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) by the Eagles (you can read a discussion in there), certified 38x platinum for 38 million, overtaking Michael Jackson's Thriller. Album sales figures are problematic, and 85 million albums sold is likely untrue and just a bit of puffery from publicists, although I would accept it if the number comes from Billboard (therefore if آرمین هویدایی can find a source from Billboard it would be fine). Hzh (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

We can't write articles based on "what we think is accurate", we should obey wikipedia rules and as Wikiman5676 said its typically policy to report figures using reliable third party sources. The sites that I sent are reliable based on wikipedia rules and what Woodroar said. How do you call this inflated? By guess and what you think?! I think USA Today is more reliable and we are able to use that information.

Comment: Unfortunately all English sources reporting Martin's sales of 70/75/80/85 million records/albums are primary sources from Wikipedia vandalism. Doesn't matther how reliable are the sources according to Wikipedia's guidelines, this is what I call a "woozle effect" in music sales. Attached with Wikipedia's vandalism we can see the method of fans and record's companies inflating figures (We can see "general" examples of this like Michael Jackson's overall sales or his album Thriller). We don't need to judge all cases but evaluate each separte case. For this particular case we can see all of these examples from article's history. For example, a quick view from October 2019 version saying 70 million (+ 85 million in total) without any reference or this other one using a reference of HuffPost which confirm "70 million" but also with the similar statement used in Wikipedia's article: "95 platinum records" etc. Contrary, in Spanish wikipedia we don't see too much vandalism in his article about sales (but it had same problems) and from today, lead in article used 60 million records. We can see "reliable sources" (not old at all) using that amount like this or this. Even, I know 60 million is a "old" figure, like since 2006 or 2009 but is thanks to the Wikipedia's vandalim again. We have older sources (at least in Spanish) with 50 million "records" like this from 2009. 50 million record is not old at all specially if he released just 2-3 albums and primarly in Spanish since then. My two cents: with this background and multiple versions of "truth" we can use 50 or 60 million (70M too high at all based in his available certifications)- --Chrishonduras (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Chrishonduras: 50/60 million records sold is the ideal. USA today also said Thriller sold 100 million copies worldwide and it's not used here, as I said before certifications is the most reliable and we have to use it to make the article more accurate.--88marcus (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐😐 Are you kidding?????!!!!!!! First of all you can check that wikipedia didn't mention anything about his sales before about 1~2 years ago, it wasn't anything about his sales in 2015 or 2017. Second, if you are talking about "records" his songs in this decade has sold more than 10 or 20 million copies obviously, "Vente Pa' Ca" was such a big latin hit. You can check the charts and compare it to "Fiebre". Fiebre which is much less famous than Vente Pa' Ca has certified for 1 million copies in the US. From the streams and views to digital sales, it's obvious that Vente Pa' Ca and La Mordidita has sold much more than it. So if you are talking about 60 million records of eleven years ago, at least 70 million would be ok for now 😐 Third, I told you a hundred times that certifications needs the label record to pay for the updates. Vente Pa' Ca and Fiebre was a simple example. You should be blind to think that as Fiebre has sold 1 millions, Vente Pa' Ca hadn't even sold 30k to receive a latin gold 😐😐 why are you insisting on the certifications! Forth, so no source is reliable and only what you think is seems to be accurate can be written in wikipedia. It's literally vandalism. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Even sales figures such as 85 million records (not albums) for Ricky Martin would be absolutely inflated, let alone 85 million albums. Martin's worldwide available certified album sales stand at 22 million units, while his entire certified records sales stand at 30.5 million. It's true that sometimes certification process takes longer than expected since either labels or parent record companies should submit proof of sales along with a fee, but surely 60 + million albums in this case have not gone uncertified. Only small fraction of records sales go uncertified. Record companies often use the number of Gold and Platinum awards received by their artists for promotional purposes, so there is no reason why they wouldn't be encouraged to pay the fee and get their records certified. And no, we should not blindly state all across wikipedia what news outlets report including sales figures. Wikipedia does not forbid fact checking. The statement about the 85 million albums should not be used anywhere on wikipedia as it's clearly incorrect. His records sales should only be supported by sources that put his records sales at/about 60 million records such as this. If wiki community doesn't reach a consensus of any kind on this matter, perhaps Martin's records sales should be left out, and not mentioned altogether.--Harout72 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

First Assume good faith with statements like that "only what you think is seems to be accurate can be written in wikipedia. It's literally vandalism". Due an edit-conflicts I just lost some links about proofs. Anyway, you may consider that we have more articles linked with record sales that suffers vandalism. After all as I said we have many "truth" here about his record sales. Because you can see one part saying 60 million, other 70 and so on and all with similar range of years. Also, remember that certifications give us an idea about sales of an artist. And I understand your point, but even If i'm fan of some-artist and one "reliable source" said a certain amount I don't will put inmediately. Before I can consider discuss in the talk page etc etc. For WP:NOTTRUTH 50/60 million can even applies. After all, I can accept 70M, but not 80-85, that's not a majority. --Chrishonduras (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras: Ok, 70m , but I think our friend's suggestion about not mentioning his sales is also a good idea. Now that we don't have any source that everyone agree on it, we can just do that. It's not necessery to mention his sales. As it wasn't for years. What do you think about it? آرمین هویدایی (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, we have to included the 60 million claim, only you are complaining about the sales and insisted and keep the 85 million album claim. Many lies you said:

• "First of all you can check that wikipedia didn't mention anything about his sales before about 1~2 years ago" fake, sales are there since 2006 link
• "his songs in this decade has sold more than 10 or 20 million copies obviously," he has less than 2 million certified sales and charted only in countries which are little markets and you get a platinum certificate for 10,000 copies sold.
• "Vente Pa' Ca" was such a big latin hit." Vente Pa' Ca" was not a big hit in US, it doesn't even appeared in Billboard HOT 100 and peaked #48 in the Year end chart of latin singles of Billboard.
• " Another lie: "Fiebre is a spanish language song it was certified platinum by RIIA for 60,000 sold not 1 million like an english song. see here.
• "From the streams and views to digital sales, it's obvious that Vente Pa' Ca and La Mordidita has sold much more than it." Actually not and you don't have source for such claim, in the streaming era 1,500 streamings means 1 copy of the album, if an album has 750 million streamings it actually sold 500,000 copies.--88marcus (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hzh: No problem with the certs of Eagles at all, both Thriller and Eagle's album were certified through the years and now Eagles has the most certified album and best selling album in US, Thriller is the best selling worldwide.--88marcus (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: Check RIAA again and it's clearly written 1 million for Fiebre, it didn't recieved Latin platinum, it's the original platinum. And I said records, not albums. 1500 streams equals one album, but for single sales, 150 streams equals 1 single sale. Vente Pa' Ca itself has 1.6B views in youtube and 400m streams in spotify so 2 billion streams only in these two platforms. Also there are other platforms and pure sales. La Mordidita also has 1.1 billion views on youtube and etc. The least acceptable thing is 70m. You were just ok with that a few hours ago and now I said ok, even the one who first mentioned of 60m is ok, but you still disagree! I don't understand why do you try to discuss more. We are discussing on it for a year. I'm really exhusted. Whatever I say, you are still against. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@آرمین هویدایی: No, you're wrong. Below the Certified units there's: 0,06 million. Those streamings you said of Vente pa'ca are worldwide not US and it was certified for that in Mexico, Spain... Consensus means generally accepted opinion, you're the only that disagree here. I'll include the 60 million in Martin's article right now.--88marcus (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned in 2017 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Martin&oldid=812463098 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Martin&oldid=792825338 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Martin&oldid=782213972

@88marcus: I told "Check RIAA again and it's clearly written 1 million for Fiebre, it didn't recieved Latin platinum, it's the original platinum." Can't you read this? It's not only the language of the song. RIAA has certified it with the original platinum. Despacito, Bailando, and Taki Taki were also certified by original platinums not latin. And about Vente Pa' Ca streams, I didn't say in the US, we are talking about worldwide sales not US only! And neither did I say 2B streams=13.3m sales (as of 150 streams=1 song sale) I said whole his records this decade can at least make that 60m records to 70m records. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: I don't understand you, if you only wanted to decrease the sales and do whatever you want, why did you came here? Why did we discuss? If finally we are not going to agree on sth, why did you discuss at all? آرمین هویدایی (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

50/60 million looks fine for me based in previous research, comments and Wikipedia's guidelines at least for now. I mean with 70M it was just like a "last option", but preferably not include it after agree with Harout's research (edit-conflict and I didn't saw his message). Also agree with his statement "If wiki community doesn't reach a consensus of any kind on this matter, perhaps Martin's records sales should be left out, and not mentioned altogether" just in case we don't reach a consensus. --Chrishonduras (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras: Ok so let's do that, but please convince Marcus 88. I don't want to discuss anymore and don't want a drama. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you doing? Why don't you answer me? If you wanted to do this, why did you take our time and discuss, if you're trying to do whatever you want and don't agree, I will do the same. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on a previous edit here, 88marcus said "we have to included the 60 million claim" and he already change it in the article since. For me it's ok as I said before 50/60M. Cheers, --Chrishonduras (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@آرمین هویدایی: I'm trying to show to you that I am right about his sales, if I only wanted to do what I want I'd only change his sales there, this will be a form of vandalism, I tried to discussed to you since last year, you don't care to certified sales, you don't care to the fact that if we count his album sales we're not even near to the 85 million albums you claimed, you seems only like to include the sales of yur favorite artist as the maximum possible. We're not here for that.--88marcus (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chrishonduras: No we don't have to, as I said it wasn't mentioned at all in 2017. Literally I myself added this section last year! You can check it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/879426043 He also said I'm lying and you can see that explain that I didn't lie. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@آرمین هویدایی: If you change the sales after a consensus here you can be banned for vandalism, only you insist in the 85 million claim.--88marcus (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: Ok we discussed and we should first agree on sth. Ok, I have the source and I can change it to 85 million albums, and you too. You can change to 60 or whatever. But we are here to solve our problme. I said ok, I will agree to 70m that you were telling just whole last year! But suddenly you said No, 60!! Again I told you that I myself added this part to the article. For sure it's not nessecery. Why try to discuss, we can just ignore it and not mention it. Please Please Please choose between these choices. But if you are trying to only write 60m records and go, I will say 85m albums and the same! We want a final result, not a discussion forever. As you never won't accept 85 million albums and you think it's not correct, I won't accept 60 million records neither. We should agree on sth (70m for example) or totally remove the part. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@88marcus: Why should I be banned? I think you are the one who is trying to do Vandalism. You said come here to ask adminstrators and when they answered against you, you asked your friends in their personal talk to help you here against me! That's why you are calling me "only you"... And actually "only you" don't agree on removing the part. If we can't agree on sales number, we have to do that. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sanity check. Surely nearly all of the discussion above is about content, so belongs on [an] article talk page[s]. What is anyone asking an administrator to do on this page? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I'm sorry can an adminstrators tell us what should we do when we never agree on sth. I said I myself added that part last year and so obviously we don't have to include the part, when we can't agree on. Am I wrong? I even said ok to what Marcus 88 said a few hours ago, but they changed their idea and Marcus 88 doesn't even accept what was insisting on for a year! I don't understand. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@آرمین هویدایی: I used the 70 million claimed because I couldn't find nothing less at the time and always said the 70 million claimed is already inflated. What's your probleam with the 60 million claim? It's twice the amount of certifications he has and it's a lot for a latin artist. And what about the Fiebre sales? Did you saw in the RIAA site that it's included 0.06 million after click on "More details"? link Adminstrators didn't answered against me, they pointed that Forbes is not reliable to sales and the 70 million claim info (2014) was outdated compared to yours (2017)--88marcus (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep calm. 88marcus you mentioned 60 million figure and I also agree with it. Even آرمین هویدایی accept it after all. Both need to stop threat or raise the voice each other- It's not necessary because discussion should be over after all. --Chrishonduras (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@آرمین هویدایی, Chrishonduras, and 88marcus: Phil Bridger is right that this is not the place to resolve content disputes. I can't see anything here that requires administrative attention. Administrators do not rule on content dispute. This discussion should be held on a suitable talk page most likely Talk:Ricky Martin. Since you can't seem to resolve this among yourselves, look into some form of WP:Dispute resolution. For example, if there is dispute over whether a certain source is reliable for album sales, you could try WP:RSN. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: thanks, but I don't iniciated/argued almost anything in this discussion. I just commented like others users after 88marcus and آرمین هویدایی concerns. For me this is closed. --Chrishonduras (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: thanks, but the problem is solved, we're not discussing about it anymore. آرمین هویدایی (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Calton - complaint about uncivil edit

I would like to complain about User:Calton who seems to have taken some issue with me for additions I made to the Heston Blumenthal article. Another user moved it to a BLP discussion which I'm happy to let finish (and I reverted my own edits pending the outcome of that discussion), but his editing is just rude and uncivil, particularly this case in point here. I can see he has just been warned in an arbitration request asked to engage civilly with others, and yet has gone and done the opposite to me. Bookscale (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, where the reporter is here to try to weaponize this board against an opponent. This bit about being "rude and uncivil" is amusing, considering their reaction to another editor's opposition was to say, "You haven't even read what I posted above, have you?".

In a nutshell, the editor is trying to violate WP:BLP by connecting the Blumenthal to the current business practices of a restaurant that the chef shed all interest in other than the use of his name ten years ago -- a tiny detail that Bookscale forgot to mention and was forced to include.

Finally, @Bookscale:, relying upon Springee's failed attempt to weaponize WP:AE is, at best, ill-advised. Perhaps, instead, Bookscale might provide some actual evidence -- other than a ten-years-past proximity -- justifying his attempt to shoehorn this into a BLP? --Calton | Talk 14:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's forget the content dispute. And return to the incivility. @Bookscale: where's the dif(s)?-- Deepfriedokra —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Bookscale provided a diff, but it didn't seem to involve any incivility: merely disagreement. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridge: Ach so! No beef then; it's a veggieburger.-- Deepfriedokra 02:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I partial blocked Bookscale from Heston Blumenthal for 48 hours for slow motion edit warring --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm only going to comment here because Calton mentioned me by name. Taking Calton to AE was suggested by an admin[[93]] and was an attempt to get them to follow CIVIL and stop edit warring. The AE closed with a reminder to that end[[94]] and I will be satisfied if the issue ends there. Springee (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Sm8900's refusal to get it.

Sm8900 (talk · contribs) has gotten into their heads that ... something (see also samey-thing they proposed a few weeks before that one) has to be done about... I don't even know what. The idea is half-conceived, unclear, and has little-to-no support because no one even knows what it is they're putting forward, or what problem they are trying to solve.

Last night, they went on a spamming spree at multiple Wikiprojects (e.g. [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], and that goes on for a while), effectively promoting the idea that 'Town Halls', whatever those are, could/should be implemented. This was for the most part reverted (by me), with a notice to not do that again until the idea has support.

They've also recently self-appointed themselves as the WP:HISTORY co-ordinator, implemented a "Town Hall" at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/History Town Hall, (which is now at MFD), created WP:Town Hall (redirected to WP:Community portal by Moxy (talk · contribs), got told by just about everyone to slow the hell down (User_talk:Sm8900#So sorry, User_talk:Sm8900#Town Hall spamming on WikiProjects), and recently being 'adopted' by another user User_talk:Sm8900#Welcome aboard matey! (@CaptainEek:)

Last night, before going to bed, they have promised to 'refrain' from such edits (User_talk:Sm8900#Town Hall spamming on WikiProjects), but this morning, what do I wake up to? A message on my talk page and more spam notices at WT:PHYS). And I'm not the only one either [100], [101], etc...

This incessant spamming about this underdeveloped/dead-on-arrival idea has got to stop. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

well, as you requested, I created a draft in my own user space. I thought I was complying with your request. Additionally, I thought that voluntarily letting you know about my new draft page, and my request for comment at that draft page, would be a positive step. I was trying to contact you directly, as a gesture of respect and a willingness to adhere to any requests that you might have. I appreciate your note on this. I hope that helps to clarify things. I do appreciate your note and your insights. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

here is the page that I linked to, based on your request to me to retain it simply as a user space draft. as you can see, this is a draft in my own user space. link: User:Sm8900/Community forum and bulletin board re WikiProject. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The request was for you to stop spamming your half-baked idea. The VPR discussion is going on, stick to that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Competence seems to be a real issue.... here they are welcoming a blocked user. There main contributions to our project as of late is to make redirects and user drafts copying talks from other pages. They have been asked to stop this on multiple occasions by many editors but to no avail. Moxy 🍁 14:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

He means well. I like the idea of scaling up a noticeboard to involve more people but the problem is that very few people bother with community pages and a lot of the wikiprojects listed in the council directory are inactive or barely have a few contributors and a lot of those are often not consistent so you're unlikely to get much support Sm8900 from people wanting to regularly put up notices. Focus on the millions of articles we have needing work, breathe some life into one of the US state ones or something which already exist would be my advice. I don't want to comment on the issue any further now, wish you the best of luck Sm8900.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

sounds fine, Dr. Blofeld. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

at this point, I would prefer to discuss one-on-one with any admin who wishes to address this. there is no need to mix in every other one of my edits from the recent past. I copied a talk page just now to a draft page, so that I could refer to it. it was simply a single colloquy, where someone from the Help Desk explained how to do some formatting details. it was not actually a debate, or any type of contention, or even a controversial talk page topic.

is it possible to bring this ANI section to a close? I have already replied to and accepted all of the original points made by the editor who initiated this item. I appreciate your help and understanding. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been brought here because of the disruption across the project. I am aware of 2 this month....may be others Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Restored page or Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#Should we say something about etiquette in moving and page creation?. Slow down.--Moxy 🍁 15:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Slow down" is fine. thanks for replying. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how to describe this situation. I acknowledge that (at least on Wikipedia) Sm8900 is in many ways 'more' intelligent then myself. Thus the reason why I can't figure him/her out or what it is he/she is doing. IMHO, he/she might be over-reaching, with too many balls up in the air. Definitely a positive bloke & quite polite. But also has a tinge of a Patrick McNulty approach. I confess, he/she has left me bewildered. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Though likely not important here. I peeked at Sm8900's edit pie chart & up until around December 2019, he's been virtually non-existent on Wikipedia. It's as though a different individual took over the 'account'. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Behaviourally, something happened in 2019, and I don't see this level of disruptiveness/newbie-ness before then.. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

well, ok, but it is still me over here. I would like an admin to come along and provide some positive resolution. I think GoodDay did make some positive statements in their comment above, which I highly appreciate. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sm8900 has been around for a long time and been a valuable contributor. I'm not sure what their current rash of ideas is about, but they are at least excited about contributing. They are engaged, which is a good thing. They are just perhaps moving faster than Wikipedia can move. I think that they could probably slow down a bit, but with a little guidance they could keep on keeping on. Sm asked for adoption by me recently (which to be honest bewilders me a bit, but I think Sm realized they needed some help and thus reached out for it), which I accepted. I haven't actually had the time to engage much with Sm, its a very busy period IRL, but the adoption was quite recent. I agree that the widespread...spreading of the townhall idea wasn't super helpful, and should stop. But it was done in good faith. I have more thoughts on the matter, but I'm typing this hurriedly before I run out the door, so I'll reply more later. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks, CaptainEek. I think your insights and your overall summary are totally accurate and correct. I appreciate all your insight above, and all your feedback. thanks very much. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, if I have any further ideas, drafts etc, I will be sure to run them past you, and to proceed slowly and deliberately, and make sure I am using one forum to present the idea. if the idea is for an existing resource or talk page, I will be sure to use that page's talk page for any proposals or changes ahead of time. but again, i will proceed slowly. I did not mean to step on any toes. I do welcome the important feedback that I have received here. I will be sure to keep these important points and concerns in mind. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Headbomb: I checked their old contributions and can attest with a high probability that it's the same editor. Sm8900 might be seen as overeager (your use of the term "disruptive" is absolutely misleading), I think they are primarily a mainspace editor and projectspace is new to them, indeed the ones who do a lot of the content work often face a disconnect with the meta aspect of projects, so I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the case here. At the very least, not one time have they been uncivil or intentionally disruptive, so please, let's have the decency to give this editor the benefit of doubt instead of dragging them to ANI. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruption made in good faith is still disruption. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am open to all your feedback, and I value your views. I do appreciate the feedback of everyone here. may I please point out, though, even if "disruption made in good faith is still disruptive," we do attach some importance to the distinction between "good-faith" edits and "disruptive" edits. however, with that said, I am still totally open to and interested in absorbing your feedback, and acknowledging your valid points and concerns. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• My experience has been that this editor responds very politely to criticism but then doesn't take a blind bit of notice of it and carries on behaving like a bull in a china shop. Politeness and apparent good faith are not enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly; WP has been played before. The editor seems very "young" to have been around since 2006. Sleeper sock? Miniapolis 23:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: A sleeper sock who is overeager with virtually no bad-faith editing. And and and, they have been around since 2006 but have appeared in 0 checks among the thousands conducted each year. I rest my case. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have been debating whether not to comment here. In addition to the areas that Moxy referenced, this editor had a somewhat cacophonous entry into User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace, where after having made only a few prior comments on the page, he had a burst of over 120 edits in a three-day period, which other participants in the page found disruptive to the point of describing it as "taking over this workspace discussion". I also find this behavior confusing coming from a fourteen-year editor, and I think that perhaps some serious throttling of his edit rate would benefit him by forcing him to think harder before hitting "publish changes". BD2412 T 01:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm just perplexed by what's changed in Sm8900's contrib history, beginning in December 2019. From 2006 to that date, for the most part he/she was nearly invisible in terms of edit count, then suddenly BOOM. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

They do seem to have had a similar burst of activity in March 2007, but that's quite an interesting quieter stretch. BD2412 T 02:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Going Boom with edit count isn't that odd - no odder than when my technically 8 year old account went boom a little under 2 years ago. Their actions are in no way indicative of a sleeper sock. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I keep running into @SM8900:'s pushing various suggestions in this vein (firstly Spore, now Town Hall) at multiple fora, which is and has been a little wearying. However, they definitely seem to be in good faith, and so I'm inclined to see whether the adoption above can help, coupled with the rap across the knuckles ANI, work, rather than needing to trot out any more drastic a method. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Sm8900 asked me on my talk page to look through this ANI thread and comment. I don't really understand what the Town Hall proposal is all about - management of WikiProjects really isn't something I've ever involved myself with, and I haven't been sufficiently interested to look into it. It seems apparent that they are trying to do something in good faith; it also seems apparent that it's not really garnering much support, and they should probably listen to what people are telling them and slow down, or perhaps just drop the idea and do something else. I'd add a very quiet, non-meant-to-be-threatening note of caution - a bit further up, Sm8900 says that we attach importance to the distinction between good faith and disruptive editing. In fact, per the second paragraph of WP:DE, no such distinction exists - Sm8900 is perhaps confusing this with VANDALISM, which by its definition cannot be done in good faith, but if good faith editing becomes disruptive, it must be stopped. Hopefully this won't turn into that. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your input above. I will definitely discontinue the edits referred to above, now that I realize and understand that they were intrusive. I really appreciate your help with this. thanks. I would be willing to delete any such notices that have not already been deleted. I'm sorry for these edits, which I realize were intrusive. I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, here are some of the previous discussions where Sm8900 was asked to adopt a more deliberate approach with proposals and discussions: WikiProject Council talk page; WikiProject Council talk page; my talk page; Sm8900's talk page; portal guidance workshop. isaacl (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Townhalls? Sounds likeKarmafist -- Deepfriedokra 18:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been brought to my attention that I could be seen as casting aspersions. That is not my intent. Just an observation. But if you were here for Karmafist, it sounds like his ideas. I mean someone one could come up with the same/similar stuff independently. Sorry to bring it up. There was much upheaval and Wiki drama surrounding Karmafist. You had to be there.-- Deepfriedokra 19:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Now canvassing for a new idea User:Sm8900/portal draft. What can we do here?--Moxy 🍁 22:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not done any canvassing at all on this. this is simply a draft in my own user space; I only contacted around three people, who had expressed some support for this idea in some form, and who had previously communicated with me directly about it, including my mentor. I have not and will not canvass any WikiProjects, or any editors associated with them, or anyone else, as I indicated and agreed to above. I have indicated closure for this topic discussion at Village Pump for this. I appreciate your inquiry. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, a bit of advice from me, that you probably won't take, would be to concentrate on editing individual articles for the next few months rather than make any broad suggestions as to how Wikipedia should be run. The reason that Wikipedia has become the world's foremost encyclopedia is that people have created it one article at a time, rather than made any organizational proposals such as you are so fond of. Just get some idea about what Wikipedia is before telling everyone they should be doing things differently. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with you. I am done making broad proposals. the draft above is simply based directly upon a comment that one user made to me. I only contacted one or two people who had provided with actual, direct, explicit written input on some ideas, of their own accord. I am not going to canvass anyone in the community at large. I do agree with you, and that is what I plan to do. that is it. I appreciate your note. --Sm8900 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Incivility and Hounding by User:ජපස

Hello, I'll try to be as brief and clear as possible. The situation is a bit messy so I'll probably fail but here is my best shot...bullets in approximate chronological order

First Incident

• I've spent the last week editing pages relating to UFO sightings and Conspiracy Theories. I identified a page Bob Lazar version at the time that was in pitiful condition. We are talking of a conspiracy theorist which is being defined as a "criminal" first and foremost (definitely NOT his claim to fame...)

I started modifying it and trying to source and improve it. I also introduced some innocuous links such as the glaringly missing UFO conspiracy theory

e.g. [102] and [103]

Nothing major certainly... one could disagree with the wording for sure. Nothing a quick edit can't fix especially since most of the content was already on the page.

• Given the topic, several new editors joined in and some discussions arose. I engaged in those discussions with civil results: we achieved some compromises and moved forward working step by step to source and improve the page.

See: Talk:Bob_Lazar#New_Sources where I ask for a second opinion regarding some new sources I was examining.

And: Talk:Bob_Lazar#Los_Alamos_Monitor/Lazar_"Jet_Car"_article_as_a_source

And: Talk:Bob_Lazar#Revert_Spree where I try to ask editors to WP:ROWN (User:Keldoo was new and a bit too revert trigger happy so I explained the 3 revert rule https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keldoo&diff=940614782&oldid=940612574 and we worked together from there on with no issues achieving consensus and posting a small reorganisation of the page content to make it more readable/clear)

• And here comes User:ජපස our hero. Without participating in any of the ongoing discussion he reverts the WHOLE WEEK: REVERT

This multi edit revert claiming POVPUSH is completely indiscriminate. It goes over all discussions trampling all consensus. It's so broad I can't even understand which version he reverts back to. Even useful links are removed.

• Me and other users complain and restore. And one of his aligned friends replicates the blanked revert supporting him. :[104]

• I find a noticeboard Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Bob_Lazar,_Whistleblower? where accusations to me and the other users of spreading WP:FRINGE theories and of being tinfoil hatters abound. This seems the origin point of this merry group of friends. I try to engage in a WP:CIVIL way but am immediately greeted with a nice WP:PA "You are the problem"

My edits were minor in any case, not worth fighting over nothing.

I try to move on.

Second Incident

• I start editing another page in terrible conditions: USS Nimitz UFO incident my first edits

This time I try to prevent any problems by opening a discussion myself on the Fringe_theories/Noticeboard asking for opinions. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident and some editors review and confirm my work. Some of my edits are challenged and we try to discuss them by continuing existing discussions and starting others Talk:USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident until...

• Our hero User:ජපස follows me here too and without participating in any discussion he reverts everything once again: REVERT

Another indiscriminate multi edit revert without engaging in discussion that rolls back on everything blindly.

Simple proof of how indiscriminate the user's reverts were: of the -2,344 characters removed +2,050 belonged to an entire paragraph that he was in favour of and that I and other users were discussing in detail in the talk page. I pointed this out to the user and he promptly restored it saying "This is worthy of inclusion!" [105] He didn't even read what he was reverting....I guess he just had to look for my name in the edit history...

At this point he starts editing the page as he sees fit suppressing all of the other editor's contributions and ensuring that the page will be just as he personally likes it.

• He still doesn't participate in discussion on the talk page but only on the Fringe_theories/Noticeboard where he dismisses a peer review paper from a reputable journal I had presented and that we were discussing because he doesn't agree with it's contents and suggests I should be reported [106]

User report and hounding on surviving pages

• At this point I realise that no amount of discussion will dissuade his uncivil behaviour and decide to report him myself for edit warring behaviour believing it was the correct place to do so [107]

Almost immediately User:Oldstone James reads my report and confirms that this behaviour is a pattern and has happened before to him [108][109]

• I inform the user and wave white flag on the fringe noticeboard [110]

• User starts blatantly WP:HOUNDING my last surviving edits from the week. He reverts covertly all of my other CLEARLY sourced contribution and Admin El_C warns him not to follow me around [111]

REVERT is particularly egregious. I had placed TWO reputable sources (incident was front page NY Times) so why remove it? This is just a list and there are definitely worst sourced cases included. He didn't correctly revert (what a coincidence) so no notification for me and no discussion on the talk page.

EDITS I had added a link here as the last editor but he didn't have the courage to revert it thank god

Those were tiny edits so the absurdity and vindictiveness of his reverts are clearly on display. Not to mention the sneaky manner in which they were done.

• El_C closes my report as "This goes beyond the scope of this noticeboard" and suggests I pursue here if necessary [112]

MY FINAL STATEMENT:

I hope I have accurately described the destructive pattern of behaviour of this editor. Unfortunately his MO rejects any discussion and stifles any WP:CIVIL collaboration with indiscriminate and vindictive reverts. The user has only presented a facade of discussion once I presented my official complaint and relies on the other users on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard to support him squashing the contributions of any new editor in the fringe theories area. I repeatedly pointed out that WP:ROWN would immediately solve all of our problems and that we could work collaboratively together simple editing each other's work but to no avail. I even was asked pointedly if I was aware that WP:ROWN is "just an essay".

I'm sorry it has come to this. I never had to post any kind of report on anyone before in 10 years of participating in various Wiki projects. But User:ජපස, supported by the group over at fringe theories, has lost touch with Wikipedia:Five_pillars and is damaging the project.

I'm sure similar incidents have happened before as this seems like a systematic approach that is applied to pages discussed in the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard (the fact another user confirmed the MO in less than 1 hour is pretty astounding). And I worry it will continue if left unchecked.

Thank you for your time. I hope I was sufficiently clear (it isn't easy). If not just ask for any clarification! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggest WP:CIR block (for Gtoffoletto) Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Could you clarify my incompetence please? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

P.s. you added a random "G" in my text above braking syntax. I have corrected your mistake. Your welcome. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Our hero follows me here too (bold is my emphasis) — please avoid unnecessary innuendo, Gtoffoletto. El_C 15:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Frustration showing sorry. Definitely unnecessary... --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. This is problematic forumshopping by Gtoffoletto, which I warned him against here. There's a bit of a pattern emerging in Gtoffoletto's use of noticeboards: an admin need only hint that another board might be better and he rushes there; but no matter how clearly the same, or another, admin advises him to, say, stay away from an irrelevant noticeboard, as I also did here — "I can tell you for free ... that it would be useless to post this conflict [at AN3]" — he doesn't seem to notice. Nor does he apparently care how many experienced users tell him jps is not hounding him (here for instance is El C trying to explain it).

Another pattern is that this user prides himself on being civil, in contrast to his "unhinged" and "deranged" opponents[113]. Illustrations above: "and here comes our hero", "this merry group of friends", "our hero follows me here too", "one of his aligned friends" (that would be LuckyLouie) etc, above. A striking example of passive aggression is this post on the Fringe noticeboard, where he is apparently proud of his readiness to compromise, as he refers to it as "waving the white flag". I recommend ANI surfers to read what he has to say there about the "gang", consisting I think of jps (who has been admirably mild and encouraging throughout his engagement with Gtoffoletto), and LuckyLouie — a gang that according to him stifles all constructive editing and forces him, Gtoffoletto, to file what I had already told him was a pointless report on the edit warring noticeboard (wasting some more admin time). And Gtofoletto, looking above again, where do you get off complaining like a maenad about being reverted, and then insulting people for not reverting you, also above: "he didn't have the courage to revert it thank god". Eh?

I have blocked Gtofoletto for 31 hours for disruptive editing, in the hope that he will take my advice more seriously if it comes with a block. Please reboot your style when you return from the block, Gtofoletto, because passive aggression and failure to listen to experienced users won't help you to a good experience on the English Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, in fairness, I am the one who told Gtofoletto to submit a "Well-documented" report to AE or AN/I, if they feel they have a valid, verifiable complaint. But if you found that this report was sufficiently below par (rather than forumshopping), I have no immediate objection to the action (short block) you've taken. El_C 17:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's below par, and also it's the straw that broke the camel's back. It's not just the report. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

Okay, Bishonen, fair enough. El_C 17:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Post block statement and clarification

I accept my punishment as I recognise I was out of line several times (as I have stated above and elsewhere to USer:El C and as my edits to the above report prove).

I am clearly frustrated with User:ජපස's behaviour (and at the time was also dealing with a high fever that didn’t really help my temper and coherence of expression). So while I disagree with some of Bishonen’s statements and don’t fully understand some of her arguments in her decision to block me I choose not to argue and apologise to all involved. My first block. So be it. There’s a first time for everything right? :-)

Back to the case in point, (am I correct in thinking my being blocked does not automatically dismiss my case?) I have spent this block reading up on what is going on and to understand how better I could have handled the situation.

It is clear I am facing a much more experienced group of users that has cemented themselves as “model” editors in the eyes of some admins even. Who knows how long this behaviour has been going on.

This experience disparity is why (after she contacted me during one discussion) I have requested help from User:Bishonen twice in the last week on her talk page. However, she misinterpreted my help request as a request for involvement in the editing while what I was asking was for the correct APPROACH in dealing with such a situation. Unfortunately it seems I didn’t explain myself properly and the subsequent misunderstanding ensued. At the time I felt I didn’t have the proper tools to “fight” this destructive behaviour which is extremely sneaky and much easier to overlook than my petty and obvious incivility.

What I have found recently is that the behaviour I described in my report fits exactly the behaviour described here: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (curiously the user has even edited this page in the past).

I would argue it hasn’t been particularly WP:Civil (as I think my report proves) but this short description summaries the situation quite well:

Civil pov-pushers argue politely and in compliance with Wikipedia civility principles, but also with bad faith, which discourages or upsets the other contributors. In a discussion, blame is often assigned to the person who loses their temper, which is even more frustrating for fair contributors trapped in such discussions.

Most of the behaviours indicated in the essay describe exactly what this editor is doing. I would argue that without an admin taking the time to examine the substance of this user’s edits it will be very hard to understand what he is doing. And that subject matter knowledge is probably also required. The way he is dismissing sources that don’t conform with his POV is particularly worrisome as he is is doing so with a facade of “civility” and “compliance with regulations” which is clearly fooling most (but not all).

Will someone take the time to read the report with the necessary attention? I worry the time and attention necessary to properly familiarise with the case is excessive for an admin here and unfortunately this behaviour will continue. The silver lining: the overwhelming amount of reputable sources that are emerging (which the user is bizarrely dismissing in what I believe to be a POV push) relating to some of those cases should make this much easier. We are talking about a first page of the NYTimes story after all. A lot of resonance obviously across all major newspapers, congressional hearings, documentaries, etc.

TO CONCLUDE: I reported that the user engages in multi edit reverts that result in suppression of other user edits in an attempt to evade discussion and POV push. And has been doing so with WP:HOUNDING characteristics towards me. I have presented evidence to the best of my ability but am available for clarifications if necessary. Is this approach to reverting accepted on Wikipedia and as indicated above considered “admirably mild and encouraging”?

I consider this my final appeal and will accept the verdict without presenting any additional evidence unless requested by an admin evaluating the case as I feel "the facts" have been already sufficiently linked above. Thank you for your time. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I recommended that Gtoffoletto advances their position with a well-documented report. The above is, not only too lengthy, more importantly, it has zero documentation, so its usefulness is in question. It does the opposite than to serve Gtoffoletto's interests. El_C 18:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am facing a much more experienced group of users that has cemented themselves as “model” editors in the eyes of some admins even. Who knows how long this behaviour has been going on. That's quite a bold claim to be making, especially without any documentation to back it up. Anyway, if consensus is against your edits for whatever reason, then the onus is on you to persuade editors otherwise in a civil manner. Resorting to innuendo and aspersions is actually a form of tendentious editing. Again, content disputes are to be resolved through dispute resolution, not administrative intervention. El_C 23:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User: Brockhold

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

Could an admin take a quick look at this user's talk page and recent edits. [114]

They have been deleting content from this page today and the talk page does rather suggest WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I need to add more here, as thus far no one has commented. I note that this user has continued to edit multiple articles and every edit has been reverted. A lot of the reverts yesterday are by Vif12vf (talk · contribs) who asks in an edit summary that Brockhold stop disrupting articles.[115].

I have looked at the user's edits and they are not clearly malicious. Yet the editor continually makes these small edits that are, in practice, disruptive - leading to many talk page warnings and several final warnings - and the editor does not engage in the article talk pages. This may be a case of WP:CIR, with the editor unaware of how disruptive their edits are. It would be good if the editor could respond here. I did notify them of this thread, but pinging Brockhold (talk · contribs) for comment. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Brockhold has possibly used several IP's in the past, and has never responded to anything. Basically this editor ignores our very excistence! I think some of the IP's have gotten blocked, but somehow this never acctually happened to the main profile! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:LaraGingerbread

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

---

The editor in question has made several edits to Murder of Tessa Majors listing the name(s) of individuals who have been named in the media and by law enforcement as suspects [116], [117], [118], etc. After some editing conflicts, she was encouraged to come to the article's talk page to get consensus. Overall consensus was to redact the names per WP:BLPCRIME, with the exception of this specific editor.

The editor then made a series of edits to the article [119] [120], using edit summaries which contained phrases such as "NO SUSPECTS NAMED" and "NO SUSPECTS NAMED SO DON'T UNDO" - showing an understanding that the names should not be in the article and asking that her edits not be reverted. The problem is that they were adding references to articles which contained the name of the accused in the article name, meaning not only the underlying text had the names of the accused, but the names were clearly visible at the bottom of the article in the references section, since it was in the name of the quoted newspaper articles.

I find this problematic behavior on the part of the editor in question, as it's flaunting WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CONSENSUS, and behavior points to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Also user reverted this ANI report. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Mr. Vernon

Mr. Vernon keeps undoing edits I made to the Tessa Majors page. There is nothing wrong with my edits, as I give important information and do not use any suspects names (though using the names should not be considered inappropriate). He complains that I am using sources that use the suspects names. But ALL of the recently published articles about the case use the suspects names. The only articles with certain important facts use the suspects names. If we don't use those sources, that information cannot be put in Tessa's page. I think that having an informative and accurate article is more important than not naming suspects. Additionally, I wold also like to point out that one suspect is charged as an adult, and, along with the other named suspect, is named in many articles by many sources. Readers WILL NOT know the suspects names by reading the article. However, if they are interested enough to read it, they are probably interested enough to google the case, and will come across the many articles which name the suspects. If you don't want these sources in, then just put new ones in instead of taking important information out of Tessa's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 23:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

How about I take the article names out of the reference tags? If I do tat will you please stop reducing the quality of Tessa's page by taking out important information? I will undo your reversion and redo the reference tags. How about that? LaraGingerbread (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread

I will defer to the decision of the admins in this case. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

LaraGingerbread, I hope that you are adhering to Wikipedia's living persons policy (including BLPCRIME) closely, because that is of paramount importance. El_C 00:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I am adhering to it. No suspects are named (even though they are certainly guilty). And I am using the same sources as other users. I am being bullied by users who want to protect thugs more than they want to create informative and accurate articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

they are certainly guilty – I would say someone needs to review BLP again, more closely this time. EEng 02:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

LaraGingerbread, many editors have politely told you about the WP:BLPCRIME yet you kept reverting and editwarring.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No, they weren't. The last two edits I made were completely fine. I used a source another user added and gave relevant info that did not identify attackers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 00:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

In LaraGingerbread's defense, they did not add the suspects' names after my revert and message on their page and they did engage in the discussion. Adding sources with with the names in the titles was probably not the best idea but they have agreed to amend that. They clearly are not neutral in regards to this subject based on their own statements but hopefully that can be all resolved through the discussion and consensus process. In a nutshell, this is largely a content dispute. S0091 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with closing this out (I think both Lara and I would need to agree.) I think the point has been made. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Wallie at Talk:Caroline Flack

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

---

I am reporting this here rather than dealing with it administratively myself, as I have been (minimally) involved in the article. I protected Caroline Flack yesterday as it received a major influx of editors as the news broke that she had died (and then, subsequently, that she had taken her own life). After unsourced additions continued to be made I participated somewhat in the editing to the point where I'm no longer comfortable acting administratively there.

User:Wallie has been highly active on the talk page, and has been quite combative about what they seem to view as inappropriate details in the article (sourced content about a trial Flack was facing for alleged assault against her boyfriend). I just left a warning there now, but I see that other editors have already done the same and the behavior has continued. I also went to leave Wallie a BLP DS alert, but I see Doug Weller did so in June: [121]. They've also been around the encyclopedia for quite some time and really ought to know better.

Some examples of the type of very personalized attacks against other editors there include:

• It is outrageous that the girl is being smeared in this way after her death. The attacks on her character by this sort of comment on Wikipedia and other social media, prior, is what helped cause her death. It seems that evil conquers good in the 20s. [122]
• You are the one who reverted me, and are determined to crucify this girl's memory. You are aiding the work of the tabloids. Much of this conjecture you and they support is clearly biased and causes great pain to her friends and family. You may be able to publish this nasty stuff within the Wikipedia rules, but I certainly question your humanity. [123]
• You are the one being judgmental. You seem to think that some argument she had is relevant, because the tabloids reported it. Anyway, I never questioned "our humanity". It was your humanity I questioned. I think you are nasty to keep up this attack Caroline's honour, wven after she has died. In fact, I find it reprehensible, but I doubt you care anyway. [124]
• The reason is that it not encyclopedic. It is a tabloid generated attack on Caroline's character, and should certainly not be in the article. The fact that you support these attacks, even after she has died speaks volumes for both your personal charatcer and your opinion on Caroline. [125]
• Alex. You obviously didn't like Caroline. You will no doubt continue to trash her memory. [126]
• I am sorry, but this Wikipedia article could very well have contributed to Caroline's death. [127]

Thanks in advance for any uninvolved admin who wishes to review the situation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have partially blocked Wallie from that article talk page for one week due to repeated personal attacks that border on provocations. El_C 00:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've also added the Caroline Flack article itself to the partial block, an article which I mistakenly thought was fully-protected. Basically, Wallie needs a break from this topic in no uncertain terms. El_C 00:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Concur with El_C. Wallie is clearly overwrought.-- Deepfriedokra 02:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Wallie is still being disruptive after the partial block, including now going around talk pages of other users blocked by El_C to... give them support? ([128], [129]) They have also posted ramblings on several users' talk pages related to this issue. I've extended the block to a sitewide one for the duration of the original block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ethics breach by Zandxo

User Zandxo was furious in his insults and extremely provocative:

1. "nationalist"
2. "nationalist"
3. "nationalist"
4. some kind of name in his own language
5. diminutive familiarity "Arsene good boy
6. calling me with other nicknames "Arsene de Koumyk"
7. calling me "Arsene de Koumyk" again after I asked to call me my wikipedia nickname

I warned him on his talk page about WP:Ethics and WP:PA — here. He continues insults anyway:

1. WP:NPA again "you're victimizing yourself", "You stated things that are common among Kumyk nationalists"--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• While you raised your concern with them, you did not notify the editor of this ANI case, as it says you must in massive font at the top. I've dropped them a notification on your behalf. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• As a follow-up to the above, there is a prior ANI case from 2 days ago, non-closed, which includes part of this (but also some edit warring issues, for which the object of this accusation was blocked for). Unclear whether this needs to be separate or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"Furious in his insults and extremely provocative" is this some kind of a joke? Lets have a look through those "insults"

1. "nationalist" is no insult and I clarified why I said it, you are spreading Kumyk nationalistic agenda. For example, "here" you are claiming North of Chechnya as part of the Kumyk plateau because (following is a quote of you) "Braguny and Vinogradnoye are Kumyk villages in Chechnya". Second, claiming "Imam Shamils" family being of Kumyk origin, despite this being a controversial topic people have not agreed upon. I edited it to a neutral sentence and clarified that "which according to some sources was of Kumyk descent". 2. see above 3. see above 4. Ghumki means "Kumyk" in Chechen. Also, that wasn't a reply to you, unless you are admitting of using a VPN to distort the image. 5. "krasavchik" means "nice man" and is used in Russian like a "oh, cool". Thats a furious insult for you? 6. Thats literally your name. 7. see above Now to my statement, saying that you are victimising yourself, you did it again. I have not insulted you even once, yet you claim here I did and even worse, "in a furious way". Also, "You stated things that are common among Kumyk nationalists" is true, I explained it above. If all those things are insults, then you have insulted me the worst way. You called me "blind and fanatical, and understated my claims and sources just because I am a Chechen. Isn't this racism? --Zandxo (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought you were still blocked so commented on your talk page before I saw this. The editor's name is Arsenekoumyk. I have no idea where you are getting Arsène de Koumyk. The only place I can find that term on the entire Wikipedia is Talk:Uchar-hadji and this talk page. If you have got it somewhere other than Wikipedia, even from another WMF site, it could be consider WP:Outing for you to bring it here. In any case, wherever you got that from it's a moot point as I mentioned on your talk page. The editor's username is Arsenekoumyk. They've asked you to refer to them as Arsenekoumyk. You should do so. If you continue to call them by other names, especially names they've explicitly asked you not do use, I will support an indef block of you. You should cut it out with the nationalist stuff as well. Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I replied to you on my talk page. His name is Arsenekoumyk, and "koumyk" is the French version to write "Kumyk", so I added a "de" infront of his name which makes it to a "Arsène (the correct way to write his name) the Kumyk". Discussing with him really is nerve-racking, which lead to me playing around with his name (not intending to insult him). --Zandxo (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(EC) @Arsenekoumyk: the comment highlighted by Zandxo is concerning. While Zandxo did explicitly mention they were Chechen, I see nothing to indicate "you're from the blindly fanatical, OK then, if you see everything through Chechen prism". You need to cut out on the incivility and personal attacka as well, or you too will be blocked. It doesn't matter if Zandxo has been uncivil or personally attacked you, it's not an excuse for your behaviour. Concentrate on resolving this dispute, seeking help where necessary not on commenting on the other editor. If the other editor's behaviour is a problem, bring it to an appropriate place like here. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne after his multiple provocations and name calling I gathered all my patience not to tell him "go f.. himself". he misinterprets everything he sees, lies in his edits constantly while flooding talk pages with trash talk, then calls me names multiple times, then starts edit warring on multiple pages with litter edits such. but I managed not to address him that way, even though he continued calling me names several times again and saying "it's not an insult". the editor ie inadequate, and also I told him multiple times that any talk to him is gonna be via a mediator, I don't want to engage with that kind of editor ever again.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thats a straight up lie. You calling me like that is from the 13th, today is the 17th, 4 days. I started "calling you names" later on, please provide proof for your claims "he misinterprets everything he sees, lies in his edits constantly while flooding talk pages with trash talk". I provided sources for my edits, translated and clarified what they say. "litter edits" is a lie as well. I ask you to stop such accusations and either seek the conversation with me (your side still not providing proof) or let me edit the Uchar-Hadji article with actual sources. --Zandxo (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

after your disgusting edits, ONLY VIA MEDIATOR. what do you not understand from these words? neutral mediator who will be seeing what you write and how.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not gonna read any more of your trash talk if there are no witnesses! I told you around 5 times. what do you not understand?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

and after we have a mediator we will see who is nationalist or who is not, and how you'll be allowed to sing insults in your every edit!--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I will edit the Uchar-Hadji page tomorrow and add several sources. You can call a mediator who will look through my sources, and then read our conversation on talk. You are straight up refusing to debate with me, I might have called you names but you are not showing yourself as willing to work with me. I can't seek consense when you are blocking off anything that doesn't fit in your beliefs. And please restrain yourself from labeling my input as "trash talk". Thank you. --Zandxo (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Zandxo you should have thought about it before trash talking. you'll edit whatever you want when there is a mediator who will approve it, until then you can go and say "nationalist" looking into mirror thousand times, here on one is willing to hear your debased insults any more.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Arsenekoumyk what you call "trash talk" has started quiet late, I have debated you normally prior to that. Everything is written down on the talk page to Uchar Hadji. Also, I asked you to stop calling it "trash talk", you have insulted me by now way more than I have "insulted" you. Nil Einne are you in the position to become the mediator for this matter? If yes, could you please have a look over "here" and read the conversation I had with Arsenekoumyk. --Zandxo (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

why didn't you start with this discussion? goes against your continuous lies?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Because I am new to editing on Wikipedia? You started the discussion, I provided sources for the edits I did. You kept being stubborn, denied and falsified a translation for it. Also, you are accusing me already in that of being "disruptive" and "going against the sources". You are the one who made that to an "edit war" (which breaks the rules) by asking others to undo my edits. It's always the same IPs, 2 or 3 from Dagestan and 1 from Kazakhstan. --Zandxo (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

you were blocked for edit warring and I was who made that war? wow!! when you find someone from administrators who will bear your edits, I'm happy to discuss your "proposals" via them. goodbye for ever I hope--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was blocked because you were the one who reported me like 10 times. I will re-edit the Uchar-Hadji article tomorrow, provide sources and everything. I don't want you undo it, if you do I will report you. You need to find consensus with me first. Thank you. --Zandxo (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

you will insert your delusions nowhere--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Famous Kumyk historian and author Devlet-Mirza Shikhaliev is "delusional"? Don't worry, I have looked and read through the sources given on the article rn. I will rewrite the article properly tomorrow. --Zandxo (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thats not the only thing he said to me. He accused me of "obviously having an agenda", and "here" he downplays my input as "fantasies". I can't reach consensus with someone who blocks off everything I say. --Zandxo (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The very first discussion comment from Zandxo

this comment shows the very first intention of this flooding editor. from the very first messages - insults.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Where exactly is the insult? I am genuinely confused. Zandxo (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Pursuant to the reported conduct, the refusal to rectify it here, and the ongoing hostility and threatening approach taken by Zandxo, I have reset their existing block of 72 hours to be site wide. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User keeps calling vandals at those editors not in agreement with their edits

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

---

For the record, Ian 1975 (talk · contribs) keeps calling me and other users ″vandals″ just because they are not in agreement with others' edits. The latest message from them at my talk reaffirms their position regarding this [130]. This message came after I left a post at the user's talk [131]. This, this and this may be of help too. The user's attitude goes against one of the basic purposes of Wikipedia, namely building the encyclopedia in a collaborative environment, and shows a total lack of knowledge of WP:VANDALISM. It has to stop.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Does appear that Editor Ian1975 is quick to assume vandalism, when it's content dispute/good faith editing. Slywriter (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I am Ian1975 and I would like tostate that Jetstreamer has been repeatedly undoing factual entries without explanation or sourcing. Furthermore he is spending way too much time bulling me and other users who are making factual contributions to various Aviation related entries. Jetstreamer kindly stop it and try to be a useful member of Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian 1975 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for personal attacks, including those in his response here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Constant introduction of false information (reposted)

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

---

• Juansantos123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Microsoft Translator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Google Translate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Extended periodic table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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)

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

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)

This was archived with no action or even further commentary, yet the pattern of problematic editing continues. I am thus reposting in hope of a more thorough review, and stand by my comment from 9 February. ComplexRational (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption to John Schwada (journalist)

• John Schwada (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John schwada (talk · contribs)

I requested page protection to stop this; it wasn't sufficient. Now I'm asking that the article be reverted to the last neutral version, and the COI account be blocked. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Final Warning issued. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

User:John schwada might need more than a final warning: diff 1 and diff 2 (I reverted them). Narky Blert (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

GergisBaki, and enforcing discretionary sanctions at the Milo Yiannopoulos article

With this and this edit respectively, GergisBaki (talk · contribs) added "ridicules" and "transgender people" to the Milo Yiannopoulos article. But these aspects are not sourced, and "ridicules" is his personal POV. There isn't even a Transgender section in the article. That was removed, as made clear in this section on the talk page. So the "transgender" part doesn't even summarize the article per WP:Lead. Because of this, I reverted and noted why I on the talk page. The article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions. When one edits (or attempts to edit) the article, the edit notice clearly states, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." I challenged GergisBaki's edit (including taking the matter to the talk page where I pinged him), but he reverted anyway. And when warned on his talk page that he should revert, he ignored it and made this edit today, where he engages in more POV editing by removing "political commentator."

If discretionary sanctions are not going to be enforced on the article, then what's the point of them being in place? Yiannopoulos not being considered (by many) to be a good person doesn't mean that editors should get to repeatedly violate BLP at the article about him. And I get the feeling that editors continue to let BLP violations happen there just because they don't like Yiannopoulos. I already had to get a BLP matter taken care of regarding that article.

There are a number of other issues with GergisBaki's editing (as is clear from his talk page, including this section I started there), but that will take a separate ANI thread on him. Typing up a thread about that will take up a significant amount of my time. So in the meantime, will an admin enforce discretionary sanctions regarding the issue at hand? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Discretionary sanctions may only be enforced if the "awareness criteria" have been satisfied. With some exceptions, this usually means a formal {{alert}} needs to be issued. The user has not breached the page restrictions since being "made aware" via an alert template. If you think they should be actioned for their latter edit, you can make an AE report, however as it stands the edit has not even been contested. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

::Swarm, although I didn't use the discretionary sanctions template to warn GergisBaki, I did warn him (very clearly telling him that "The Milo Yiannopoulos article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions." and pointing him to the "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." aspect). And he reverted anyway. GergisBaki knows what discretionary sanctions are. He's been templated before. GergisBaki simply does not care, and has not reverted even after Doug Weller suggested he should. If I'd alerted him with the discretionary sanctions template, I'm certain that he would have reverted anyway. And if he wouldn't have or one feels that he wouldn't have, then I feel that he has gamed the system because he felt that he could simply go ahead and revert since I hadn't properly templated him. In addition to GergisBaki having been alerted to discretionary sanctions before, one cannot edit that article without seeing the warnings. I've never been templated about the article, but, since I'm aware of the discretionary sanctions that have been put in place, I don't think (regardless of being an experienced editor who knows better) it means that (WP:3RR issues aside) I can revert away until a discretionary sanctions alert is placed on my talk page. And as for a challenge, I challenged the edit -- on verifiability and BLP grounds, not just on discretionary sanctions grounds. I'm not sure if I should revert again or just take this matter to the BLP noticeboard. But since even admins watching the article haven't reverted, I'll take the matter to the BLP noticeboard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I struck my above post because I just remembered that I didn't warn GergisBaki until after his revert. He still has yet to revert his challenged edits since being warned, but this is a BLP issue and I've taken the matter to the BLP noticeboard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf ANI Interference

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

I am here start a ANI against Jtbobwaysf for deliberately interfering with another ANI report for another user. Throwing that ANI off the chart with 1 big edit. Very inappropriate and want Admin to really do something about it. Regice2020 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Users are allowed to comment on threads about others here, and I don't see how anything he did is inappropriate or really outside of the norm other than the allegations of PRC allegiance (which aren't kosher sans strong evidence). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 02:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 is clearly not here. A boomerang is in order. Wp3Strikes (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Question & Reply @Jéské Couriano:

1. Wp3Strikes a Admin or something? the things the user cited was kind disruptive.
2. Jéské Couriano - Jtbobwaysf directing it to @Sleath56:. It was throwing off the ANI inappropriately. Why not create own ANI for that? Regice2020 (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I honestly concur that Regice2020 is either WP:NOTHERE or is a case of WP:CIR. See #199.66.69.88 may have connections with Wired Article, and Regice2020's other posts in the thread to which that's attached (disclosure: I'm the subject of that thread). Here are some select diffs: (edit summary and post) (diffless accusation of socking), (claiming that issuing an ANI notice is evidence of socking), (claiming I opposed a RM in order to generate material for a Wired article), (diffless accusations of canvassing/socking to influence the outcome of a RM), (proposing that IPs shouldn't be allowed to "vote" in RMs), (claiming a particular pagename is tantamount to accusing the people of a particular province of deliberately causing a disease outbreak). I'd also like to draw attention to Regice2020's almost total refusal to use edit summaries. As of right now, in 774 live edits Regice2020 has used edit summaries only 98 times. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Add to that Regice2020’s now-deleted response to this post: Sorry i can see right through this. Competently [sic] WP:BIAS. What? 199.66.69.88 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The 774 figure seems to be misleading. Only 224 of Regice2020's edits were to main space. [132]. 244 were to Wikipedia, but I think most of those were to ANI or similar i.e. effectively talk pages. While editors are still encouraged to leave edit summaries for talk edits, in reality many editors do not. It's rarely considered a big issue if all the editor is doing is leaving a new reply. If the editor is modifying their existing reply, it's probably encouraged more, especially if they are deleting something (so people don't have to wonder why the editor's edit removed bytes) but even then still often not considered that important. On a talk page, only when the editor is doing something other than leaving a new reply or modifying their existing one is it probably expected an editor will leave an edit summary. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s just part of the pattern. Non-use of edit summaries (often omitting even section heading links), strange accusations made without evidence, nonsensical arguments about policy... this is a WP:CIR situation, assuming good faith. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the speedily conducted indef block by @Bbb23:, and I'd support an investigation into the ownership of Wp3Strikes (talk · contribs), a blatant fresh WP:SOCK which laces this entire AN/I thread with suspicion when their only contrib was that statement above. I guess since this has been opened by @Regice2020: on the same editor, I might as well reiterate my obvious request for a WP:BOOMERANG for @Jtbobwaysf: for the out of nowhere WP:CIV breach of WP:PA and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. They've done so above here:1 and also first in a local Talk here: 2.

I've never been a party to such instant lack of WP:AGF in a first conversation with an editor before. The uncivil comment of "I think if you cannot stop this WP:POV pushing you should get a ban"2 is frankly further compounded by their attempts in my view to recruit an admin user publicly on the Talk page (whom in respect, did not rise to the appeal), instead of appropriately opening an AN/I here, who by the tone of their pitch ("have a look at this, you tend to patrol the political arena")1 implied they have prior relationship/contact with is highly inappropriate and seems like WP:CANVASSing for a WP:TAGTEAM to me.

The whole thing seems like it was conducted as a disruptive sideshow for a content dispute as it came out of nowhere with no prior discussion between me with that editor, and when I've requested them to open an WP:ANI for such severe accusations, and they buried the requested accusation in the middle of another protracted and lengthy AN/I rather than a new thread, in my view to avoid WP:BOOMERANG scrutiny for those extreme accusations and sanction aspersions. I've requested they elaborate ("I'm sure you'll be willing to provide an explanation on how this is 'POV-pushing' rather than just stating ipso facto without elaboration.") for when they post at AN/I on their reasons and evidence for such maximal accusations and sanction threats, including 'paid editing,' but they declined to do so in their post here, instead adding further accusations of being a "paid editor working for the PRC" and that when the admins give me a 't-ban,' it'll "likely do little to prevent from creating another account" implying that I'll attempt to WP:EVADE and WP:SOCKPUPPET to skirt it. Sleath56 (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sleath56 is not my tag team partner and the user has opposed things i did in the past. It was simply inappropriate for Wp3Strikes, a sock, suddenly defending (Jtbobwaysf) as the first edit after starting this ANI report against Jtbobwaysf for interference. The current focus on why did the sock suddenly defend Jtbobwaysf in the first edit of that account. Who that sock? Regice2020 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing and possible block evasion at Mikozi Network

The article has been nominated for speedy deletion with a G5 rationale. Multiple accounts are removing that template. Article needs protection, and the likelihood of block evasion is decent. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing needs doing. The article has been deleted twice by two CheckUsers (including me) and all the accounts in the history are blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yep. I saw that it was taken care of soon after this report. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

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

This editor is making disruptive edits on Sergey Kovalev (boxer), Canelo Álvarez and Canelo Álvarez vs. Sergey Kovalev. They have been informed that the fight result is a KO in this edit summary and also on their talk page here. They again changed the result. After reading their talk page and viewing their edit history, I saw they have been warned multiple times, and subsequently blocked, for the exact same kind of disruptive editing (changing the fight result on the same article for a different fight). I left a final warning template here, after which they changed the result again. – ².O.^Boxing 12:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on your description this sounds like it merits a block. In the future, however, if an editor persists in making disruptive/vandalistic edits after a final warning, you should just report him or her to WP:AIV for faster service. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I wasn't quite sure if their actions constitute vandalism or not. – ².O.^Boxing 13:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, typically if there’s a tiered set of warnings for it, repeating after the final/immediate warning makes it actionable by WP:AIV. While “vandalism” is in the title, AIV handles a bit more than just that. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Continuing after final warning and notification of this discussion [133] [134]. I'll stop reverting until the conclusion of this report. – ².O.^Boxing 16:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for one year. Their previous three-month block for edit warring on these same articles had just expired. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Misuse and bias of Administrative Powers

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

---

The administrator Doc James is threatening to block me from editing for disagreeing with his reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJV479 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Doc James posted a standard edit-warring notification template on your talk page. That is a warning that your behavior could lead to a block, not a threat by Doc James to directly block you (which would be inappropriate per WP:INVOLVED). Your responsibility is to discuss your proposed edits on the talk page and gain consensus for the proposed change. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Given this is clearly an attempt at asking the other parent on your part, I'm personally inclined to block you for disruptive editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) No, Doc James sent you a message that if you continue to edit-war you may be blocked. Please heed that warning. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: I believe he was biased because he was the one reverting those edits. I believe finding another solution rather than attempting to bully me out of editing the article would have been more appropriate. MJV479 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@MJV479: Quite the contrary. Doc James was inviting you to discuss the situation at the article's talk page. Further, his caution about edit warring was done to prevent you from inadvertently violating WP:Three revert rule, which is a brightline rule and cn be strictly enforced by admins. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) And he was quite within his rights to revert you. The thing to do then is not to make the edits again but to discuss the issue on the talk page. That is standard practice, not bullying. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I had tried to resolve the dispute in the talk page but he just keeps pushing the same narrative. His "reasons" were assuming a source is wrong because of the date it was published and claiming his source is better. MJV479 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: He was within his rights to revert the edits yes. but instead of attempting to find a dispute resolution he threatened to block me from editing. MJV479 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

MJV479, its a fucking template, read what everyone else is telling you. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@MJV479: As NorthBySouthBaranof has already explained to you above: "Doc James posted a standard edit-warring notification template on your talk page. That is a warning that your behavior could lead to a block, not a threat by Doc James to directly block you (which would be inappropriate per WP:INVOLVED)". Did you not read that? Paul August ☎ 17:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

His reverts were actually just nitpicking my edits and such. You can see that in his edit summaries for Monosodium Glutamate. MJV479 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I have explained my concern with User:MJV479's edit here.[135] Basically they are using a bunch of old/primary sources. Some of the sources do not even mention MSG from what I can see.

They need to use only high quality recent sources and provide EXACT quotes of the text that supports their desired wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

(after more edit conflicts) Just ignore the fact that Doc James is an administrator and wait until agreement is reached on the talk page for your edits before reinstating them. The warning that he gave you could have been given by any editor. And, on the underlying issue, science, including medical science, is progressive, so things that were formerly thought to be true have been found by later studies not to be. That is why recently published review papers are the best sources, especially for medical claims. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@MJV479: His criticisms of the sources are good-faith. WP:MEDRS is a messy area. This might be a good time for you to request a third opinion, reach out to a WikiProject for assistance, or just continue the discussion on the talk page, rather than escalating this to multiple administrators' noticeboards. I do not see anything that calls for administrative action, however. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: The source you are referring to that "does not mention msg" is actualy a study on glutamate in general, not just MSG. Also writing articles in "EXACT quotes" is not only ill advised for obvious reasons but it may also go into plaigarism if done poorly. MJV479 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:MJV479 the request was not for you to put the exact quote IN the article but to indicate what by quoting what you are basing your text on.

Exactly, your reference is about glutamate not MSG. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: I will revise my edit. If you do not agree with my edit then just go ahead and revert it. (seeming as the admininstrators only see your side of the struggle) So if you disagree, thats fine. it will be my last edit on the topic. Just read what my edit is instead of going ahead and blocking me from editing or whatever, alright? MJV479 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User:MJV479 suggest it on the talk page maybe, in the section that it is being discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Kenji1987 WP:NOTHERE

Kenji1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their entire contribution history consists of attempts to whitewash articles on a small number of problematic academic publishers, except for a small amount of pointy argumentation (e.g.). Talk-page contributions consist of endless piles of civil POV-pushing. Essentially everyone they have interacted with has ended up querying them about COI/whether they are being paid -- whether or not that's the case, they are a pointless drain of energy on other editors in the academic journal space. I request an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. --JBL (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Kenji1987's same pattern of civil POV-pushing has also spilled over into my talk page, to the point where I explicitly gave up on responding, only to have Kenji1987 continue to try to extend the argumentation: see User talk:David Eppstein#Accusing me of whitewashing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "WP:NOTHERE" applies, but there's certainly a problem with WP:IDHT and WP:CLUE an a general obsession with the questionable publishers (mostly Frontiers Media and MDPI). A topic ban around academic publishing might be warranted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am trying in all honesty to contribute to improving the pages related to open access publishing. I might be overdoing it at times, but I find the general athmosphere quite toxic. If you look at the Talk page of MDPI, you can see that I am open for discussion about restructuring the pages, but its either ignored or I am accussed of whitewashing. JBL repeatedly asked me to "go away", and from day 1 I joined Wikipedia, I never really had the chance to join a discussion without being accussed of whitewashing. Whatever the result is of this proposed ban, its all documented, and while we can never see someone's true intentions, I am just an academic trying to do my part making information on scholarly publishing on Wikipedia a bit less biased. MDPI's page is graded of C quality, and there is a reason for that. There are a group of editors trying to discourage other users for making changes, upon we end to having this situation: a total ban. Im willing to have an open discussion about improving pages on open access publishers, and refrain from making further edits in the meanwhile, but then I need constructive arguments, and not discussions about me or my integtrity. On the other hand, if it is decided that I should be banned, then there is a lesson here to be learned, the reader is able to decide what lesson that is. Kenji1987 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, a topic ban would also be fine with me; since Kenji1987 has made 0 edits to articles or article talk pages outside that topic area, I'm not sure I see any difference. --JBL (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User:142.166.158.233

142.166.158.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This ip address has been continuously disruptive editing and adding WP:OR nonstop despite several final warnings. In addition, the ip address has also failed to communicate on their Talk page. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: can you explain what the problem is with this IP's edits? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This ip address continuously adding WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH on multiple articles again and again such as [136] and [137]. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look at some of this editor's contributions and the thing that strikes be most is that the articles seem to be formatted as tables rather than prose, which makes it more difficult than it should be for anyone to edit them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)