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

Aspersions at ARS

• 7&6=thirteen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User is continuing to re-insert personal attacks at WP:RSL#Lessons learnt after they were reverted by me. Another editor reverted my removal and advised me to simply redact the offending portion, which I did, but 7&6 once again undid my redaction to reinsert the personal attack. In this case, the attack was the casting of aspersions on "the usual suspects" who showed up to "stealth delete" an article. This was an assumption of bad faith on all the participants of the various AFDs (three in total I think; the actual situation was a bit complicated).

This further goes against the general principle of focusing on content (or even process) rather than contributors. And it's not in line with the ostensible purpose of the project page it was posted on, which is for improving articles at AFD to the point where they can be kept, not for kvetching about an outcome you missed and didn't like.

I'm requesting that the attack (and yes, it's an attack) be removed, and for this to be kept in mind in case there are any similar problems in the future. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Simple statement of facts with appropriate links. This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process. No one is mentioned by name.

If the shoe fits, you must be Cinderella. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Or it could be argued it is a good thing about the process as it allows fresh views/consensus to emerge. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't make WP:POINTy comments and not own up to it when challenged. I don't even care about the underlying issue but all this pointless inflammatory comments you make like "agenda fulfilled" and "stealth deletion" is what gives ARS a bad rap. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush: It only works one way - for deletion. You can put an article up for deletion often- I have seen 12 AfDs on one article. However one recreation of an article brings a G4. Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

But 7&6=13 was talking of deletion, so recreation isn't the issue here. On the other hand, G4 won't apply if the article is significantly different. The bar for deletion is pretty high usually, and that "no consensus" defaults to "keep" increases the sense of that and is contrasts weirdly with the spirit of BURDEN etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Calling people the usual suspects to push an agenda in secret is a personal attack. You have now added yet another with these edits, alleging that people are trying to act in secret. As I attempted to do with the redaction, a simple notification of the events is one thing, but assigning nefarious motives to the "usual suspects" is not. Please revert your personal attacks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand what happened. The article Yoast was nearly a SNOW keep with lots of participation. Then someone moved the page to Moz (marketing software). Followed by a new AfD just months later with a unanimous delete result by a small number of participants (no Keep voters from the original AfD were there). It is strange. How did this happen? It's not like consensus would change that radically in a few months, or so many Keep voters would suddenly all loose interest in participating. -- GreenC 18:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  @GreenC: Trying to figure out what happened is fine. We also have WP:DRV for reviewing in case something went wrong. The personal attacks are not fine, and this is why I brought this up, not the odd sequence of deletion/move events. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a big nothingburger, in that there is not a PA to be seen. It does seem like Deacon Vorbis has been edit warring over the comment in question so perhaps a boomerang is warranted. DV made 4 refactoring edits regarding the comment (here are the four: One, two, three, four). Additionally, GreenC is correct about the article's somewhat-stealthy deletion. If it walks like a duck... Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  For the record, I made 2 full reverts and one redaction; I undid a third revert of my own to err on the safe side of 3RR (which frankly should be granted a little leeway for personal attacks anyway, but that's another story). Accusing people of behaving stealthily and to promote an agenda is a personal attack. Canvassing for like-minded editors at WP:RSL for a purely behavioral issue as 7&6 did is problematic as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not accurate, I listed four times you refactored. Your fifth edit was a refactor of your fourth refactor of the comment, after you were warned for edit warring. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  You don't get to count a fourth when someone immediately reverts himself. I reverted the fourth one of those immediately, before any warning was made (check the timestamps, I reverted myself 13 minutes before any warning was left, and even if it were after, that's still usually good enough). That leaves me at 2 or 3 (depending on how you count the {{rpa}}, which was even advised in place of a full revert). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't see much different from something like I'm still baffled at your obdurate refusal to acknowledge policy and the present state of the article....I WP:AGF and your befuddlement (or deliberate blindness) is irrelevant, or No thanks to you and this wasted exercise, Keep your mask on and your head down (while at the same time reprimanding another editor for an ad hominem). All in a days work. ——Serial 18:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  Not sure why you'd "meh" after finding more examples of similar problems. Maybe some sort of (partial) topic ban? Just spitballing, maybe something like "no personal comments at ARS/AFD/other deletion-related venues"? This would allow 7&6 to still list articles at RSL and participate in AFDs as long as they don't get personal about anything. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I talked about process only.

There was no WP:PA.

Unlike User:Deacon Vorbis who has been blocked three times for them, and know what he is talking about.

He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress. Bad policy; slippery slope. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Statements like He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress are uncivil. That you don't understand that is mind-boggling. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Levivich That you don't understand Prior restraint seems to befit you. So my mind is not boggled. But I am bothered by the policy implications. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO the "worst" part is that you make your uncivil comments, which are sometimes outright personal attacks, in separate edits, and you just keep on compounding them. These are nine of your most-recent fifteen edits:

1. "Stealth deletion is for real. "
2. "The usual suspects voted delete."
3. "An agenda fulfilled."
4. Restoring the above, twice (with an assist)
5. Describing the above as "Simple statement of facts" and asserting "This should not be a secret, and should not be kept that way. That they were able to accomplish this is a defect in the deletion process.", while excusing it because "No one is mentioned by name.", and then ending with "If the shoe fits, you must be Cinderella." - You're contradicting yourself: are you exposing a secret, or was no one mentioned by name, or does the shoe fit?
6. "There are those who want this series of transactions kept secret. The Star Chamber will brook no contempt."
7. "He just wants to stifle any dissent from his choochoo's progress."
8. "That you don't understand Prior restraint seems to befit you." - That doesn't even make sense. I'm complaining about things you've already said; that's not prior restraint (which is stopping someone from saying something before they say it). It would be good if you exercised some restraint though, prior or otherwise. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just another example of the ARS types being allowed to say what they like about other people, while everyone else has to walk on eggshells. Let's be clear: when you badmouth someone and everyone knows who you're talking about, it's still a personal attack even if you don't mention their name directly. Reyk _YO! 20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you have any examples of this? For years you have insulted the ARS everywhere you get a chance to. And no one knows who he was talking about, no one went there to look at all the names and try to figure out who these people were. Dream Focus 22:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Right...^ like that time Reyk called me a pathetic loser. you have been quite insulting. Why not post an article on the ARS page and lets work together? This animosity is quite uncomfortable. Lightburst (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Here are four recent examples of AFDs in which (1) 7&6, LB, and DF all !vote keep (twice joined by AD), and (2) at least one or more of them accuse the nom and/or delete !voters of violating policy in one way or another: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination). There are many, many more like this. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)The first one has ten keeps and no deletes but the nominator. The second one has 9 people voted keep, not just us. The third had six keeps and no deletes and the nominator withdrew their nomination. A lot of people voted in the fourth one. What's your point? Where exactly did someone accuse someone of something that wasn't true? Post some links. I certainly don't do that. Dream Focus 23:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's just talk about one behavior: accusing noms/delete !voters of, e.g., not understanding policy, failing to perform a WP:BEFORE search, etc.:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall
   • 7&6: "No compliance with WP:Before."
   • DF: "Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion."
   • LB: "obviously a WP:BEFORE fail. WP:TROUT to nominator"
   • 7&6 again: "Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project ... This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers"
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot)
   • AD: "The nomination seems to misrepresent the content of the article." and "The fact that this is not understood, further demonstrates the invalidity of the nomination." which aren't uncivil or personal attacks, but are still comments directed at the nominator.
   • 7&6: "And there is an obvious and obdurate refusal to read the sources and the article and references, so that WP:Before is being flaunted."
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III (I'm thinking of changing my username to this)
   • 7&6: "Proving WP:Before ignored."
   • LB: "Strong Keep WP:SNOW WP:PILEON Ouch! WP:BEFORE yields a notable WWII Ace." (If a pile on is "ouch" then why are you piling on?)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination)
   • 7&6 (emphasis in the original): "WP:SNOW Wikipedia:Speedy keep broke a 55 year old record of the Nigerian Airforce to become THE FIRST NIGERIAN FEMALE COMBAT HELICOPTER PILOT ... Given the present sourcing, this AFD is a travesty. Clearly no compliance (pretended or otherwise) with WP:Before."
   • 7&6 again: "But it won't satisfy the die hards. We will have to agree to disagree, and let the process play out. She should be in WP:ITN as a recent death, but we have this wasteful sideshow going on."
   • AD: "So, [delete !voter's] case rests on a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of WP:1E. Essentially it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT with a veneer of flawed Wikilawyering."
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Gregory
   • 7&6: "Rather than doing the AFD wrecking bar/crowbar — AfD is not cleanup, and this subject rather clearly meets GNG — you might try a different tool I suggest that this would be a good candidate for this week's article for improvement. Get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project ... This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. Cheers."
   • 7&6 again: "Proving there was no compliance with WP:Before. The article creator's WP:SPA status is now an irrelevancy. Argumentum ad hominen fallacy."
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation room
   • 7&6: Same stock line about TAFI, "misbegotten nomination", etc.
   • 7&6 again: "Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before."
   • 7&6 again: "And not even pretended compliance with WP:Before."
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul (2nd nomination)
   • 7&6: "Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem."
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowbrook Country Club (Chesterfield County, Virginia)
   • 7&6: "Not the article it was when we started this AFD. See WP:Before. Further, the alleged WP:COI of the article's creator is an irrelevant fallacy; Argumentum ad hominem."
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey
   • LB: "[delete !voter] was canvassed to this AfD." - this is an amazing statement, given that in every one of the AFDs on this list (and many more), LB, 7&6 and DF voted !keep, often joined by other ARS members.
   • DF: "you deliberately canvassed someone you knew would agree with you on this" <-- that's what ARS does!
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freimann Hotel Building
    • LB: "I always find it to be bad form for a nominator to constantly diminish the article during an AfD. Please stop. and allow the AfD process to complete. It is clear that you favor deletion so diminishing the article to favor your desired outcome is not good form."
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cary S. Cox
    • The closer, Spartaz wrote, "I see this was listed for rescue by a COI editor and a bunch of rescue regulars voted to keep with assertive arguments. I'm not going to give those votes much weight."
    • Followed by User talk:Spartaz#Cary S. Cox:
      • LB: "You had a disturbing statement in your close. ... I am not going to leave a slap like that unchallenged. ... I did not just turn up and reflexively !vote. the other ARS members did the same, ... If you have a problem with the ARS and feel like publicly dismissing their participation perhaps you should recuse yourself from the AfD. I ask that you relist or back out the closing and allow an uninvolved admin to deal with the AfD."
      • 7&6: "Oh yes. You've admitted your bias. WP:ARS takes articles and improves them. ... You need to rethink your bias. ... I've been the subject of personal attacks, which claimed I "always" voted Keep. I know that isn't true. ... But if you are thinking about discounting my votes in the future, you might bear that in mind. You ought to choose your jockeys, not just your horses. ... And there are those who habitually start WP:AFDs without an effective WP:Before; half-assed observance (I WP:AGF) is often found. You need a list? In short, it is easier to delete articles than it is to create and improve them. There are those who actually brag about their body count of deleted articles."

These are just some examples, and I'll note they have much in common. What's my point? My point is this ANI report has merit. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You should write some articles. You have only written a few and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS. You should look closer at the McWhorter article. I WP:HEYd that article. After that I wrote about three articles for other aces - and other notable articles about organizations related. What have you done? Following and poking people and gathering diffs of nothing - sending up walls of text. I wrote these articles after McWhorter was improved... Cecil G. Foster, Clayton Kelly Gross, Dean S. Laird, Distinguished Flying Cross Society, American Fighter Aces Association, and an article about an acrobat Andrii Bondarenko. Also after my talk page discussion with Spartaz, they had this to say about me. You really should edit the encyclopedia instead of following and lurking around the drama boards. You have also AfDd some articles that I started out of spite. Honestly...edit the encyclopedia...look at my edits from the last two days, I was on vacation last week so my productivity fell off, but since then I have been an editing fool. One might say....as was discussed in this ANI about you...that you are tendentious. Now lets get to work on the encyclopedia Lev. And quit following and harassing, and typing walls of texts. This is going nowhere. Lightburst (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

and from what I see you spend all of your time doing this ^ and casting aspersions against the ARS. Considering how frequently I see Levivich's edits on my watchlist on a variety of topics (which often disheartens me, because their arguments are typically civil and well-written and in complete disagreement with my stance politically), I am very puzzled how one can claim they go on wikipedia solely to harass ARS editors. The rest of this comment is a pretty unambiguous PA. JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably thinking of the many times he's done this in the past such as at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/S.W._Randall_Toyes_and_Giftes in the hatted section. Dream Focus 04:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That AFD follows the same pattern as the previous 11:

12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes (2nd nomination)

• LB: "... misleading characterizations of the RS by the nominator. The nomination is vexatious ..."
• 7&6: "Snow keep for reasons already decided at the first AFD. YGBSM! This is just serial disruption, akin to WP:Vandalism. Indeed, this nominator User:Levivich chose not to participate in the last AFD. He slept in the weeds and now uses an ambush. Instead he wants a do-over. The alleged sock made one edit amounting to a short paragraph. Essentially, this is an argumentum ad hominem and is irrelevant. There is no "guilt by association" recognized in Wikipedia. And there is nothing other than coincidental editing of the same article; and no proof of anything beyond that. Moreover, he ignores the WP:RSsourcing of this article, including the books" - I discussed every source in the nom statement.
• 7&6 again: "Hopefully this nominator will internalize this lesson for future use and stop wasting our time on pointless exercises." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• You did nominate an article for deletion the same day the previous AFD closed as KEEP. Most people in the AFD who said KEEP this second time around weren't from the ARS. That should be taken into context with their statements there. Dream Focus 04:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  13. The first AFD followed the same ARS pattern: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts, with 7&6 writing, "Q.E.D., no compliance with WP:Before". Here's another more recent one:

  14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta - Stuff 7&6 said:

  • "WP:Speedy Keep WP:Snow Keep Keep Lots of sources here and there. Meets WP:GNG. This is an example of language-based systemic bias in Wikipedia. No compliance with WP:Before. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve."
  • This exchange is great:
    • Cavalryman (the nom): "As opposed to casting aspersions can you indicate any of these sources? ..."
    • 7&6: "These dogs have similar make up, disposition and mission. ..."
    • Cavalryman: "That sounds a lot like WP:Original research, do you have any source indicating these dogs are in any way related beyond your statement that they have similar make up, disposition and mission?"
    • 7&6: "Do you have anything that says they aren't?" <-- I mean, seriously? It's notable because you don't have any sources that says it's not notable? What do you call that kind of an argument? "Ninedentious"? "Elevendentious"? I don't remember. Back to stuff 7&6 said:
  • To a delete !voter: "I assume you read the article, but maybe not."
  • To Cavalryman, another statement that shows incredible lack of self-awareness: "You are attempting to pollute and dictate a result by purging legitimate sources. Let the article stand or fall at AFD on its merits, not your wrong-headed analysis. Your response also appears to be a breach of WP:Civil. It is a curious blend of stereotyping WP:Personal attacks and Ad hominem fallacy. It appears you are unfamiliar with WP:Civil; can I suggest you take the time to correct that."
  • "That "the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion" is a fact. It is happening here. You make it your practice. If you are right that the article as it stands should be deleted, then your point is made. But if not, what you are doing is poisoning the well and skewing this process up."
  • "As I predicted earlier, you don't like Spanish sources, and can't read them. Wikipedia systemic bias. I know you won't withdraw this misbegotten nomination; and I know there is no pleasing you. We will have to let the process play out. Walls of text and nattering won't make this clearer."
  • "Glad that the nominator has withdrawn this. His serial edits are self explanatory, and deserve scrutiny. Res ipsa loquitur"
  • To another delete !voter: "Here's a novel suggestion. Fix the articles yourself. You have time to delete them, but not time to improve them. Or get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW. We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia; not tearing up the tracks. It's on you; it's your moral choice"
  • "CM, Your opinion is duly noted. For what it is worth. My opinion stands. No thanks to you and this wasted exercise"

  That's all from just one AFD in July. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  One take-home message is that if a delete voter participated in a previous AfD that's bad and wrong. If they didn't, that's also bad and wrong. Reyk _YO! 07:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) Out of context. What I said was: "KEEP Reliable sources have been found proving it passes the general notability guidelines, and the article has been massively expanded since the time it was nominated for deletion. Also click Google news at the top of the AFD, and the first page of results has a New York Times article discussing first a single Beer Hall, then the Beer Hall in general. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/world/europe/germany-beer-halls.html Please remember to do a brief check for sources WP:BEFORE nominating something for deletion." That was not rude in any way, just pointing out how easy it was to find sources for that particular one, and politely asking them by saying the word "please". Dream Focus 02:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"Easy" is relative. Eg: despite what some people in the US seem to think, not everyone in the world can access the NYT in quite the same way and it is this sort of arrogance that can really piss people off. - Sitush (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Many US newspapers are inaccessible online in Europe because of US concerns about the effect of the EU General Data Protection Regulation - link. Searching is not as easy as you might think. Narky Blert (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sitush and Narky Blert: I have just written Wikipedia:How to access US news websites for this. As the title is impossible to remember I also created the shortcut WP:EVADEGDPR. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Alexis Jazz, and I will take a look. However, my point still stands: the arrogance of assuming everyone has access to everything is bloody annoying. There are loads of sources and repositories that are not universally accessible. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Thanks. Your #1 is my standard trick; it's especially good if you have a headline. I'll have a look at the others. Narky Blert (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have been pinged so I will give my 2c, the above mentioned AFD was a particularly robust discussion, but I wasn’t particularly concerned by any insults thrown at me. What I have observed is during an AfD (or Merger) discussion, Thirteen bombs articles with clearly self-published and unreliable rubbish sources as well as clearly irrelevant or erroneous information cited to reliable sources. If another editor raises this issue or removes these sources, Thirteen reverts then either refuses to respond to any discussion meaningfully or denies what is clearly articulated to them, this can clearly be seen by their interactions with me during Talk:Livestock guardian dog#Livestock guardian dog and Mountain dog, the above linked AFD and Talk:Ratonero Murciano#Quality of the sources as well as Thirteen’s interactions with Peacemaker67 at Talk:Hamilton McWhorter III#Unreliable sources which they chose to take to User talk:Peacemaker67#Fix it Hamilton McWhorter III. I am unsure what the solution is, but this kind of behaviour is clearly not constructive. Cavalryman (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC).

As a touch point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO has been relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• People have been raising issues about ARS for literally more than a decade. The page has been MfDed over and over again, there have been RfCs, there have been noticeboard threads. Sometimes it's about one member that inevitably turns into a discussion of ARS; sometimes it's about ARS and then focuses on one or two members. There's always evidence of battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, and canvassing, and there's always evidence of articles improved and sources found. There are fingers pointed back at the "deletionists" and the discussion always sprawls to be about deletion process, notability, behavioral issues of several different people, and eventually the purpose of Wikipedia. The most common outcome goes something like this: "The fundamental ARS idea is good, there are good outcomes, and there are also problems. Knock off the battleground stuff and be more careful about how you use the project or someday something might happen." Then we're here again. At this point I'm doubtful any of these threads will result in any sort of action. It'll probably require an arbcom case to do a full accounting of evidence. That's where complicated, sprawling behavioral issues can be separated from good projects. The problem (problem?) is, I don't know if it never quite gets bad enough to merit an arbcom case, so I'm torn. An arb case could probably help this years-long constant low-level issue, but does arbcom want to be involved with relatively low level issues? I don't know (and to be clear, I'm not actually suggesting anyone open a case at this time). For historical context, there was actually a case request in 2013 which was declined. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I participate in a lot of AfDs, and only vote when I think an article should be kept, so I'm sympathetic with the goals of ARS, although I'm not part of that group myself. That being said, the quotes listed above are pretty shocking. There really isn't a good reason to talk that way in an AfD — it's nasty, it promotes an unhealthy environment, and most importantly, it doesn't actually make you any more successful at achieving your goal.

I don't always live up to that myself; I've had moments of frustration and posted snarky personal things that I wish I hadn't. If someone were to go through my AfD contributions and pick out my worst moments (note: please do not do this), then I would have to look at them and say, yeah, that was unhelpful and unproductive — and most of the time, it didn't work and I lost the argument anyway. I would apologize, and I would say that I'm going to try to be better than that. That's the kind of mature self-reflection that I would expect to see from someone confronted with a big list of borderline-mean things that they'd said. I'm surprised to see people looking at those examples, and saying that it's someone else's fault. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

Given the overall WP:BATTLEGROUND-mentality of the original comments that prompted this thread, as well as the subsequent ones listed by Serial and Levivich, along with the general WP:IDHT response to a behavioral complaint with not only a refusal to admit that something might be wrong, but also making more of the same kinds of comment, I propose:

7&6=thirteen is banned from commenting on anyone's behavior (explicitly or implicitly, broadly construed, including, but not limited to, speculating on motives) in any discussion or edit summary involving article deletion. They may still contribute to deletion discussions, WP:ARS, etc., as long as comments are focused on articles, sourcing, and so on.

• Support as proposer. Tweaks to the language are certainly welcome. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support- this user's snide and erroneous aspersions are becoming habit. Reyk _YO! 20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. It is easy to find cases of DV getting into slanging matches with other editors such as this. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There was nothing uncivil and there was no PA. This is Deacon Vorbis getting all worked up and engaging in an edit war. DV is upset that there was a warning for their edit war. Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose No basis for any sanction. No personal attacks. Simple statement of fact. Indeed, the emperor has no clothes.

Indeed, that they are characterizing some of my defenses at this very proceeding as 'misconduct' shows the paucity of their argument and their desperation. There ought to be an evidentiary privilege against use of such arguments.

If such a rule does not exist, and the statements are used, the compilation of such an accusatory list should itself justify a WP:Boomerang. WP:SAUCE.

The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions (which they generally lost) in a new and different forum. That they did not like those results is no reason to let them rule here. And they have been hostile to me for years. I could cite to these, but Ad hominem arguments are irrelevant on both side of this proposal.

No reason for a Prior restraint. Bad policy. We ought to be able to comment on AFDs, and artificial, ambiguous and evanescent lines won't help. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• OPPOSE Someone was upset that an article they worked to save got deleted without anyone noticing. This happens all too often. This time none of the people who voted to delete it voted in the previous AFD for it, so it is not the same people gaming the system, as does happen quite a lot. Was the AFD mentioned on a wikiproject discussion for company articles? Anyway, no reason to blow things out of proportion here. No one should edit war to erase someone's comment though. If you have a problem with it then enter a discussion about it. Dream Focus 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Lightburst and Dream Focus. Darkknight2149 04:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - all the !votes above seem to be very tribal. If you don't like ARS, support; if you're part of ARS, oppose. Not sure they have anything much to do with the person or proposal terms. - Sitush (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• When this type of sanction was tried with other editors, it caused more trouble than it cured. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify, are you suggesting that we get rid of topic bans? Darkknight2149 05:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  No. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per my diffs above. I also support the closing admin dismissing out of hand the comments and/or !votes here of ARS regulars (they have self-identified through the WP:BLUDGEONing of this discussion which is microcosmic of many of the AfD discussions they pile in to). ——Serial 13:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Lightburst. And please...the t-ban proposal is ridiculous. A behavioral issue (and in this case, one that doesn't exist) cannot be a topic ban. Topic banning is for topics. Our admins can make much better use of their time than wasting it here. See WP:Thicker skin sanction. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

−

• Am I the only one amused that in an discussion accusing ARS members of voting en bloc that a group of ARS members vote en bloc to oppose a sanction? More seriously, its not entirely the case that the ARS is a canvassing page for keep votes but there was a serious attempt many years ago (IIRC correctly and I can't be bothered to do any research to back up my assertion with evidence) to close it down because of that concern and as a response ARS members adjusted their approach and made a real effort to make more detailed & policy based arguments that defused the concern to a large degree. I have a sense that recently some votes from ARS members responding to rescue requests have drifted away from this. While I had some thoughts about this after the discussion cited above it hadn't felt like we were anywhere near the point where we needed to look at this. I do agree that some of the personalised comments need to stop and I would ask ARS members and those opposing their mission to step back a bit. It would be a good thingb if there was a bit less righteous indignation on both sides and a bit more remembering that everyone here is a volunteer with the aim of making the encyclopaedia better. Maybe its time that AFD closers simply discarded votes from users ascribing motivations to other users instead of discussing the merits of the article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• If we did that, then there would be a tonne of comments that are just repeats of each other. Sometimes other people either beat you to the punch, or say what you were going to say in better or more concise terms. It's not just one "type" of user that does this, it's basically everyone in any discussion - people who want it kept, people who want it deleted, people who want chocolate, people who want vanilla, people who want pink, people who want yellow, etc. Selectively discarding votes just makes it easier to game discussions and I don't think that's a precedent anyone wants to set. (For the record, I have absolutely nothing to do with ARS. Most of my time on Wikipedia is spent helping out with comic-related topics, getting horror articles to GA or FA quality, monitoring articles and removing chunks of original research/uncited material, and occasionally dealing with disruption or vandalism). Darkknight2149 05:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• The bloc/tribal voting is kind of helping prove Deacon Vorbis's case for him. I don't think that qualifies as "irony", but it's still pretty amusing. --Calton | Talk 12:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing nefarious here. I follow those I respect - and I respect those who work on content...7&6 is just such an editor. My interests are in content creation and improvement and the ARS and 7&6 have the same interests. If we take those who are snarly to ANI there may be quite a few among you here in the soup. I could jam up this ani of diffs of Levivich casting aspersions, following, pooping on DYKs, AfDing articles of mine, and !voting to delete articles out of spite...and serial# often cosigning. Reyk - I do not understand the extreme dislike of those who improve articles. Reyk had an editor friend who was recently indeffed and I think that they blame the ARS. I think Reyk is a fine editor - unfortunately Reyk thinks I am a pathetic loser. These discussions are brutal and they can be cathartic - yet they are also time wasters. We have articles to write and improve. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Cheers. Lightburst (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is nothing nefarious here. Nothing, other than the standard bloc voting that has always been ARS's stock in trade since it has existed.
• Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Coming from you and the other ARS tribalists, that's pretty hilarious. Thanks for helping me make up my mind here on how to vote. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• I believe we all noticed the edit warring Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list and came here. Dream Focus 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Which, as you well know, is one of the reasons why ARS gets so much bad press: you work as a team through that list. Perhaps not co-ordinated as such but nonetheless it is like a honeypot. It is why all the accusations of gaming canvassing restrictions have flown around for years and it is showing again in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It was already shown previously that some things on that list get no one to go there and vote keep. Someone even did a comparison chart for everything listed and how many people from the ARS showed up each time and what the result was, and how many made improvements to the article or found sources to mention in the AFD. There is no canvassing, it nothing different than all the other Wikiprojects who list things in them. Dream Focus 17:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is very different. No other project is centred on AfD participation. As an example, again from my experience, the delsorting that goes on for the India project only rarely seems to attract experienced contributors from the project. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I wouldn't exactly call this a topic ban. WP: TOPIC BAN states that topic bans relate to pages on a certain subject, so they have nothing to do with making comments about other Wikipedia users. That would be an IBAN. In this case, I could support a warning to both sides for mutual personal attacks, but this strange, fake "topic ban" is quite unnecessary. Naomi.piquette (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reply I stand by what I said. WP:Before is something that can and should be implemented before making an AFD and before deleting an article. The various quotations are taken out of context; and what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD, as verified by the results and the comments of the closers.
  

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W Randall Toyes & Gifts Per the closer: "The result was speedy keep."
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratonero Murciano de Huerta Per the closer: " The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator."
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meadowbrook Country Club (Chesterfield County, Virginia) Per the closer: " The result was no consensus. No further comments after the article was improved"
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul R. Gregory Per the closer: " The result was Speedy Keep. Nominator has withdrawn, unanimous consent to Keep, helpful advice has been given, no reason to keep this up any longer."
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolulope Arotile (2nd nomination) Per the closer: " The result was no consensus. I'm not seeing obvious evidence of mass canvassing here to discount opinions from experienced and long standing editors."
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beer hall Per the closer: "The result was speedy keep. The German Wikipedia also has a couple useful sources."
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Henderson (pilot) Per the closer: "The result was keep."
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton McWhorter III Per the closer: "The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn."
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recreation room Per the closer: " The result was keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)"
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suparatana Bencharongkul (2nd nomination) Per the closer: " The result was keep."
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey Per the closer: " The result was delete."
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freimann Hotel Building Per the closer: " The result was keep."
    

They don't like the comments because they were true and effective.
This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support based on the above "what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD" and "They don't like the comments because they were true and effective. This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions." I'm still not sure this sanction will be effective though. ^Lev!v^ich 15:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Gosh, @Lightburst:, maybe someone should drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, don't you think? --Calton | Talk 03:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It is bed time for me. Zzzzz. Apologies I find it difficult to have so much animosity directed at the ARS, and 7&6 does as well. Constant accusations, and even an admin calling us ARSHOLES... it is not your fault and you have never been WP:UNCIVIL so apologies to you if I offended. Have a good night, I am going to unfollow this sh&t show and edit articles. Makes me happier than this thread. lol. Lightburst (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Constant accusations? This thread has dozen of quotes of accusations by 7&6 and their response -- just above -- was that because the articles were a keep, "what I said was fair appropriate comment and argument at an AFD, as verified by the results and the comments of the closers ... They don't like the comments because they were true and effective. This is all about sour grapes by persons who were on the losing side in these discussions." And you're saying it's ARS that is the target of the accusations? Where in those 14 AFDs in which 7&6 makes accusations against the various noms does anyone make any accusation against ARS? Nowhere. ^Lev!v^ich 03:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am sure 7&6 is defensive just like I am tonight. Remember when you thought I gave you a PA and I struck it? But you will not...says a lot about you Lev. You rub your hands with glee when drama starts. Maybe 7&6 is spoiling from a bunch of "jerks" or "a&sholes" not doing their due diligence before AfDing. 7&6 is a net positive to the project. I have been a part of many saves and dyks with him. He may be a acerbic but he makes policy and guideline arguments and he is an expert at improving the articles. If you want an article whipped into shape, ask him to help. check out Bertha Boronda I did this a while ago and asked him t help. It is a winner now from his editing. Anyway...you guys talk amongst yourselves....I am out. I will go write some more articles. The project needs 7&6 - not sure it needs...? Lightburst (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Go to bed Lightburst, you're not helping anyone or anything, even with your coy .... ——Serial 03:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Gracias (Personal attack removed) Lightburst (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) You mean this one from January? I'd forgotten all about it. Must've been distracted by the recent ones: ☹ ☹ ☹ ☹ ^Lev!v^ich 03:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Lightburst, I am finding your claims that your being here is distracting you from building the encyclopedia hard to swallow. You and Thirteen teamed up in the above mentioned AfD to fill the article with completely unreliable sources, as well as utterly irrelevant information and equivocation intertwined with a little original research to blatantly WP:REFBOMB. And you did it together, working as a team. Most charitably it could be described as attempted WP:GAMING, I would argue it was WP:NOTHERE. Neither of you did a single thing to establish the subject’s notability, when called out both of you refused to discuss the issues, instead you chose to cast aspersions.

You wonder why there is so much animosity directed at the ARS? It’s because some of you deliberately disrupt legitimate attempts to improve the encyclopedia, and you do so as a team. As Thirteen’s comments in this thread attest, you see some AfDs as contests to win. Such an approach detracts time from those that ARE HERE to build an encyclopedia. Cavalryman (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

Very strange claim @Cavalryman:. You are a difficult person. I see you turned the article in question Ratonero Murciano back into a stub when your AfD failed. Nice. You generated no consensus do so...and thanks to you unilateral move, the article sucks again, just like when we found it. A clearly notable subject that you nominated without a before... and after the article was referenced, and built, up you withdrew. Next you waited a short, while and stripped out everything - going against talk page discussion. You removed: origin of the breed, appearance section, health, the See also section, the further reading, and 12 of the 14 references. Such a shame... and again, it does not serve the readers. So is there animosity directed at ARS? yes - and quite a bit comes from you. The article was a keep in that form - the talk page generated consensus not to make those changes, and you destroyed the article anyway. Congrats. Oh, and I see you changed the name of the page - also unilaterally. We saved the article because it was notable, you made a mistake..yet now you are still grinding over it, even after you have ruined it. congrats. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

As to the Ratanero article, it was "The result was keep; withdrawn by nominator. BD2412" and the nominator was User:Cavalryman. And after he does that he maligns the sources, and removed them. Doing that by indirection he could not do by direction. And y'all thinks this is fine behavior? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I made this comment when Cavalryman was deleting things during the AfD: Comment every once in a while I came to an AfD. I improve the article, and then the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion. I did quite a bit of work to the article, and the work of editors should stand until this AfD completes. If anyone disagrees lets discuss on the talk page. Lightburst. And it looks like I was being prophetic... the evisceration happened after the AfD concluded and the article was name changed. I am sure none of this makes those who refer to me as some sort of problem and or (Arshole) will think better of me, however it should raise your eyebrows. I mean, what are we doing here? Are we building an encyclopedia-or diminishing it. Lightburst (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Can either of you point to a single thing you added to the article that does not fit the above description? I note Thirteen is continuing their belligerent attempts to introduce clearly unreliable or irrelevant "sources" [1] whilst they still have not responded to any of my very clear attempts to discuss their & Lightburst's unreliable and irrelevant contributions, both during the AfD [2][3] and afterwards [4].

Further, as I clearly stated multiple times during the AfD, if reliable sources could be presented I would gladly withdraw the nomination, Neodop did so [5] and I immediatly withdrew the nomination [6]. Cavalryman (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

And now Lightburst is continuing the BATTLEGROUND behaviour [7] after again being called out above, I await the arrival of Thirteen's !vote. Neither have given any response in the preceding TP section about their "sources". Cavalryman (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

Getting consensus is the opposite of battleground, - here is an idea, which I do not think is my own. Lets not display WP:OWN behavior. We do things by consensus, like we do during AfD. You are acting alone in opposition to consensus. Consensus is a policy. It may be messy and not as quick as doing as you please, but it is policy. Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, with a caveat If there are repeated personal attacks, they can be dealt with via normal sanctions. I do not see much rising to that level here (although I do see evidence of BATTLEGROUND behaviour, even in this discussion - "The proposers of this are simply carrying on AFD discussions (which they generally lost)" If you're seeing AfD as winning and losing, you're not treating it for what it is - a method of improving Wikipedia by both saving articles which are worthwhile, and deleting those that aren't). Any admin who is experienced in closing AfDs will know that there are certain users whose comments at AfD can generally be taken with less weight; without mentioning names, there is one long term user whose entire AfD modus operandi is to find any Google reference to the subject and say "Keep - it's been written about", but then equally there's another one whose votes are inevitably "Delete - not notable". AfD is not a head-counting operation, and any admin who treats it as one should not be closing them. Black Kite (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support The examples provided by Levivich and Reyk illustrate a pattern of assume-bad-faith accusations that are not positive contributions to the consensus-building process. There are occasionally AFDs that should not have been nominated in the first place, but "SNOW KEEP" and "should not have been nominated" !votes should not be showing up in discussions that have already received a range of responses. Likewise, "No WP:BEFORE Compliance" is thrown around way too much; perhaps the nom didn't have access to all sources, wasn't impressed by the sources they found or maybe they just overlooked something. It's also concerning that 7&6 uses "Keep" outcomes to justify this behavior "They don't like the comments because they were true and effective" (they're not) as if that makes it all OK. Regardless of the good work done by ARS, we need to address the battleground-style personal attacks, conspiracy theorizing and refbombing. Articles that have been improved should speak for themselves with no need for these aggressive tactics at AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

These were keep votes because the articles should be kept. And the unwillingness of editors to do their homework before trotting out an AFD is problematical. Additionally, most if not all of those articles I helped build and source; and if the sources were available to me, and resulted in keep, the ends and means are coextensive. We were building a better encyclopedia. And as debates go on, it becomes apparent that they are a WP:Snow candidate, which I might note. Indeed, the AFD nominators withdrew several of the articles complained about above.

As to the perception that this is a battleground mentality, I only used the word "losers" to make plain the conflict of those who appear here, and acted in an outwardly hostile and unbending manner at the AFDs. Indeed, there are those editors who boast on their talk page about the number of article the helped delete.

The primary goal at WP:ARS for me was and is always article improvement. If I didn't think that the article should be a keep: I would have said so, or I would not have participated in the discussion.

That you can blink away an Admin telling an editor that he is an "ARShole", with the support of others, says a lot. We are all volunteers here.

The confluence between my votes and the outcomes is because the articles deserved to be kept, and should not have been nominated in the first instance. I choose my articles to improve carefully. I have been told that I had an 87% rate where I was with the majority and the outcome. I do not personally know if that was (or is) true, as I do not scoreboard.

Finally, I have managed to take many articles from AFD to DYK and appearances on the main page.

Thank you for you consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I recommend all parties involved get away from the keyboard for a while & clear their heads. Wikipedia will still be here while you're gone. It's Summer in the Northern Hemisphere, a good time to do something else for a while. -- llywrch (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This was the beginning of this brouhaha.

Yoast

It may be kept; it may be deleted later.

Kept. Per the closer, "the outcome was is now inevitable."

Think about it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't take my words out of context to justify your battlefield approach and to purport a view to myself that I do not ascribe to. Dial it down. It's rude and childish and should really stop right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I accurately quoted you and put in the context. Spartaz I was not trying to make you take sides here. You ought to consider carefully the use of your attack adjectives, as I don't think I gave you cause for that reaction; but I have broad enough shoulders that I can bear the weight. Sorry for any offense given; it was not intended as such. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I accurately quoted you. Except you didn't. Spartaz said "the outcome is now inevitable". You transformed that update into something that was always the case, "the outcome was inevitable". BTW, though I'm sure this will just be filed under "sour grapes from losers", perhaps a promotional article about a search engine optimization product kept on the basis of a download count and coverage in how-to books is not a stellar example of ARS's benefit to Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have corrected the quote. Sorry for my error, as you are right about the timing. It should have read the Keep "outcome is now inevitable" File this under good faith errors and apology tendered. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, there’s a lot of blame to be shared and little to gain by blocking everyone who’s stepped over the personally abusive line. ARS would be wise to caution its members about staying cool and not focusing on other editors, BUT the deck does seem stacked against them for dealing with tendentious editors and accusers who constantly poke at their efforts to identify and “rescue” articles on notable subjects. If anything ARS seems to hone in on problematic patterns of deletion that do need further attention. And BTW, it’s all largely thankless work done with a deadline. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. You hit the nail on the head, there is a lot of muddy water stirred up in this discussion but this is clarity. -- GreenC 02:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Watching this circus play out, I am strongly considering changing my vote to support sanctions on both sides of the fence. There is plenty of WP:BATTLEGROUND to go around here (some of which is bleeding into other sections), and the deletion/re-creation topic area in general seems to breed a lot of toxicity. Here we have the works - battleground/tag-teamy bickering, uncivil back-and-forths, personal attacks, WP:LAME edit warring over someone quoting a personal attack in a civil context, people using alleged tribalism to try and get certain votes dismissed, etc etc. There are a few individuals here that have replied persistently (and forcefully) enough that they would be better off leaving the conflict and doing something more constructive. Darkknight2149 00:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and sanctions. While I think that the "inclusionists" or ARS people sometimes save articles that probably shouldn't have been nominated, most if not all of the time they (including 7&6=thirteen) treat AfDs as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and unfairly attack nominators. Whatever their percentages are, it doesn't justify the constant personal attacks. Which they have been repeatedly asked to desist in. I don't see any of them, including 7&6=thirteen, taking responsibility for their bad behavior or doing anything to curb it. Maybe 7&6=thirteen apologized in this ANI, but I don't think it means the behavior will stop. Especially since he has mainly blown the whole thing off at the same time. Although I think we could look through anyone's AfDs edits and find instances of them attacking someone, the problem with 7&6=thirteen and other "inclusionist"/ARS people is that it's a specific, targeted, and tactical way of doing things, like Darkknight2149 points out in the comment above this one, and needs to be dealt with as such. So, I think a topic ban/sanctions is appropriate. Since I don't really see it changing otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, my "tag-team" comment was referring to people on both sides of the aisle. I have seen a lot of deletionists that are equally guilty of this sort of thing and there is even an entire essay on it. I have seen radical deletionist use tag-teamy tactics, intimidation, dishonesty, and accuse anyone who opposes them of being on the "other side," just to delete as much stuff as possible for deletion's sake (telltale signs - these users will have a history and are generally aggressive, one-note, always assume bad faith, and never oppose a deletion for anything). And yes, there are also people who are vehemently against anything being deleted for any reason, and I think we're seeing some of that here. I wish there was an easy way to weed out people with battleground tendencies, because the deletion/article creation area in general attracts a lot of this. Darkknight2149 05:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support- The sanction is actually quite mild and is tailored to specifically address the problem (and not be punitive), so I don't really see why anyone would oppose it. This has gone on far too long. While I'm of the position that the ARS needs to be disbanded since it is nothing more than a canvassing club, I find at least some of its members to be civil. This not the case with 7&6=thirteen, who is clearly the worst offender. I have been subject to his personal attacks in the past (see Canvassing and other disruptive behavior by 7&6=thirteen). One of my first interactions with the user is when he staunchly defended keeping an article that everyone else agreed was pure plagiarism (see William Foster Nye). When you are start an ANI discussion over a plagiarized article being speedy deleted, that shows a pure lack of judgement. Its this keep at all costs, no matter how bad an article is attitude that is harmful.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support an extremely mild sanction that is well-tailored to address genuinely problematic behavior. --JBL (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose These don't really rise to the level of direct personal attacks requiring sanctions per Black Kite. Most of his comments do cite policy and even if some of the insinuations were wrong, they don't really interfere with editing and can just be ignored. Patiodweller (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal: Maybe 7&6 and Deacon need to step away from ARS for a little while (say, a couple of months?). They both seem to have gotten over-invested it and overheated. A little rest and editing elsewhere could restore perspective. Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Tempest in a teapot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang

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

---

User:Deacon Vorbis made 4 refactoring edits regarding the comment on the ARS page: (here are the four: One, two, three, four). Then DV reverted their fourth edit with a fifth edit. DV was warned about their edit warring and then came to ANI, to complain about this comment that does not rise to this level. We have now all spent valuable editing time about this nothingburger. Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- silly retaliatory nonsense. Reyk _YO! 22:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Some suggestions

ARS seems to be a reasonably fertile breeding ground for battleground behaviour, and a current nexus for the perennial inclusionist / deletionist wars. I think ARS could materially improve their image if they were to refine the process for selection of articles. Am I alone in that view? Specifically, if there was some kind of gate that excludes articles with promotional and likely paid contributions, prioritises under-represented subjects (in the style of Women In Red), and includes a rationale for rescue, which some of the better nominations do (e.g. Roger Treat: "American sportswriter, mainly in newspapers. Wrote a monumental history of American football and was an advocate for racial integration in sports").

I'm concerned that right now anyone who has a pet article that's at AfD can just list it, and have a reasonable hope of attracting a group of editors who will only vote one way. A refinement to the selection criteria would make this less like an end-run around WP:CANVASS, which is how ARS is often perceived right now.

The constant lameness obscures the fact that parties on both sides of these perennial disputes are sincere and committed Wikipedians who are trying to improve the project. I see little evidence that the partisans are spending much time trying to understand each other's perspectives, which is a shame. Guy (help!) 09:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

AFD is a "reasonably fertile breeding ground for battleground behaviour, and a current nexus for the perennial inclusionist / deletionist wars." :FWIW, your concerns about WP:ARS is not supported by the facts. Thousands of articles come up for repeated deletion. Few get listed at ARS, and even fewer still get a response from members. And when I participate, it is to improve the article. And the correlation of any success I have at AFDs is related almost totally to those efforts.

You are quick to stereotype ARS members. If criticism is warranted, you need facts. And if such generalizations are to be indulged, you ought to consider looking at both sides. WP:AGF is sometimes suspended or unevenly applied. Just look at the above discussions.

Serial AFDs are a real and overlooked problem. It is hard to create an article; and it is far easier to delete it, especially when it is a rigged game. In fact, the AFD proponents only have to succeed once. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I intimated somewhere above, if "no consensus" didn't bizarrely mean "keep", there would probably be far fewer serial AfDs. If ARS are involved and something scrapes by because of a "no consensus" then it would probably be worthwhile for those involved in the project to bolster that article there and then but in my limited experience what tends to happen is the thing gets left more or less as it was. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

As a touch point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO has been relisted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And in connection with that AFD, we now have an article about the company's founder, Joost de Valk. Almost all of the sources are completely unreliable, it's pure advertising. ^Lev!v^ich 05:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, A subject with which I am familiar - and I agree. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, your reply is a perfect exemplar of the problem.

I am minded to move a topic ban from deletions based on this obvious paranoid behaviour. It is bringing out the absolute worst in you, when normally you are a decent person to be around. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"No consensus" just means "no consensus for change." If you are trying get an article deleted and there is no consensus, then it would stay deleted as well. I don't really see an alternative other than not closing the discussion. It's not like we can send articles to purgatory and keep them there indefinitely until a consensus arrises. Darkknight2149 23:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight, your comment makes no sense to me. I'm guessing you mean that if someone goes to DRV for an undelete and there is no consensus then it stays deleted. But it would not have been deleted in the first place unless there was a clear consensus to do so, so the situations are not comparable. My point has always been that we have things such as WP:BURDEN but the spirit of these does not apply at AfD in a no consensus situation and, in many cases, the article does in fact end up in a state something like purgatory because it is neither one thing nor the other. That is why I suggested above that if the ARS people are particularly frustrated with serial AfDs then surely a reasonable course for them to take would be to actually make substantive post-AfD edits to "no consensus" keeps in order to minimise the chance of re-submission to AfD. I've lost count of the number of articles where I have revisited the AfD to locate the alleged sources that satisfied GNG etc but which were never actually inserted into the article itself even years later: sometimes they were valid, sometimes not, but in either case it really doesn't help matters and does increase the risk of a further AfD. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that's been my finding over the years: that ARS is far less about bringing articles to a viable standard than to Thwart The Nasty Deletionists By Any Means Possible. Quite aside from those who obviously don't believe that notability standards should exist, it's too often a matter of throwing up obstacles, or complaining about more prods/XfDs than their numbers can oppose. What I see far less often is the surest way to shut the deletionists up: source the damn articles. Ravenswing 00:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your aspersions. Collaborating to improve the encyclopedia is the mission of the project. And your efforts are decidedly in the other direction. Your statement is an aspersion ...apparently aspersions only matter if they are not leveled against the ARS. This whole wall of unrelated text should be hatted. The ARS have saved a few articles that you have wrongly tagged, and you should thank us. Here is another notable subject that you failed to investigate before tagging. Getting mad that ARS improves the encyclopedia and saves content with RS is outrageous, indefensible and ridiculous. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You accuse Raven of casting aspersions and {{rpa}}'d Iri's "ARSholes" comment below, but you have yet to say anything about 7&6's aspersions and personal attacks, which are the subject of this thread. ^Lev!v^ich 01:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your aspersions You misspelled "accurate and concise history". --Calton | Talk 03:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a very simple rule. Criticism of inclusionists = personal attacks. Criticism by inclusionists = devastating truth bombs. Reyk _YO! 11:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no love at all for the ARS—I believe I was the first person to use the term "ARSholes" to describe their tag-team—but I'd strongly oppose any attempt to deem particular classes of articles more worthy of saving than others. (The most important article is the article on whatever topic you happen to be looking up; it's not for us to condemn readers for not reading more or writers for not writing more about topics we happen to consider under-represented.) FWIW I think their impact is minimal and at most a slight nuisance; every admin who works the deletion backlogs knows to disregard all comments from the ARS regulars unless they're making an actual valid point rather than the more typical variations on "keep, it exists", in the same way we all know to disregard the usual "delete, I haven't heard of it" regulars like TPH. ‑ Iridescent 15:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, I think the problem is that it's open to gaming. Any spammer can list their article for ARS to "rescue" and have a squad of obsessive inclusionists mob an AfD to protect what is in the end often advertorial. I am also extremely disappointed in the quality of sources that are sometimes being added: the result of ARS efforts are often to provide superficial referenciness that doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny when you're familiar with WP:RSN.

As currently constituted, ARS gives an extremely strong impression of believing that nomination for deletion is prima facie evidence that the article should be kept. And that contributes to the drama. If they want the drama to stop, they could show signs of being less inclined to go to bat for obvious spam. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hundreds of articles are nominated for deletion every day by multiple processes including speedy deletion, prods and AfD. The ARS gets involved in very few of these -- only about 1 article per day, I reckon. It would be good if the articles nominated for rescue were those with the most promise but there's a chicken-and-egg problem with this – you often can't tell how promising a topic is until you've done a fair bit of work on it. Consider a topic like Burry's, for example – my most recent nomination. I had a quick browse for sources and my intuition was that the topic had promise. But it's an American topic, while I'm British, so I listed it for rescue in the hope that American editors would pick it up. This seems to be working out reasonably well. In other cases, a comparatively no-hope topic will be listed in desperation, hoping that the ARS can perform some magic to save it. I usually ignore these myself as I have better things to do. But you really can't tell till you try and I am often surprised what a thorough search for sources will turn up.

Anyway, if Guy or others think they can do better then they are welcome to try. The ARS has hundreds of nominal members but few of them show up up to do anything at all. The real problem with AfD and related activity such as AfC is that they are dying for lack of attention and effort. The bickering doesn't help. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, I am happy for AfD to run its course, I don't see a need for a flying squad of militant inclusionists to rescue articles based on zero selectivity. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I spend a lot of time in AfDs and in article rescue, Here is my record. Lightburst (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's been my observation as well, Guy. What I would love to do is be able to trust the work of ARS regulars, but I can't: just in the last week, I've seen a myriad of "Hah! You lazy bastard, you didn't follow BEFORE, here are several sources!" that turn out to all be namedrops and casual mentions ... when they reference the subject at all. See enough of them, and you just can't help but feel that the editors who resort to that are acting in deliberate bad faith, hoping that no one actually examines the evidence. Beyond that, a couple have made clear their belief that the entire deletion process is illegitimate and that notability guidelines are optional at best. As may be, but sorry, this is the encyclopedia you've got. Ravenswing 22:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ravenswing is the editor who proposed that Burry's be deleted without any discussion or examination of the evidence. That's not working out well for them ... Andrew🐉(talk) 22:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• (scratches his head) That's not working out well for me? Since when was this a competition? I did my research, I found no sigcov (using Burry's as a search term instead of "Burry," which other editors seem to have done), and other editors made the save. This is a win all around. But if you insist on keeping score, according to AfDstats, a full forty percent of your votes at AfD go against the consensus result. (I've got a 93% match rate, by contrast.) Sounds like you could stand to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia standards, and not view AfD/prod as a war zone. Ravenswing 14:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User: Ravenswing Apparently you do not accept that whether (or not) there was sigcov is a judgment call. Indeed, going back into the history of 137 year company (well before the internet) has its own unique set of problems. The subject matter an intrinsic relationship with the ability to find WP:RS. To be sure, these can lead to WP:AGF disputes on that issue. And Your mileage may vary. That you think that a statement that you got it wrong WP:Before is a "personal attack" — and not a defense to an AFD — suggests you need to reevaluate your perspective. To be sure, this is about improving the encyclopedia, and we ought to recognize that goal in everything we do. But silencing those who have a different analysis and conclusion is, IMO, bad policy. See you next time, I am sure. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That "I think a statement that I got it wrong is a personal attack" is entirely in your own head, not in mine: obviously I did, in that AfD. That I'm somehow "silencing" those who disagree with me is also entirely in your own head: if I somehow have supernatural control over what you and your cronies type, I'm sure mucking that up. I've nominated several hundred articles for deletion at AfD, and even with a match rate around 94% on that, 6% failure means I've gotten some of those wrong, or that I'm simply outvoted. This has happened before, and it'll happen again. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus. I'm comfortable with that. Perhaps you're not. (Sorry that the argument you were wanting me to make wasn't the actual one I was making, but eh.) Ravenswing 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• A suggestion that would forestall any claims of not following instructions to perform searches for sources before nominating articles for deletion would be to link to such searches and comment on the results in deletion nominations. I don't see what would be so difficult about that, as it only involves copying and pasting a few URLs that the nominator would have to hand anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That would become ridiculous and time prohibitive with anything that has more then a few search results. AfDs aren't about Google hits anyway. It's also worth mentioning that doing a search for a term in the Google search bar will sometimes give complete different results then if you search for something by clicking on the search links in AfDs. I've had it happen a few times myself with Google Scholar. I think search results can be different depending on the users location and their prior search history also. It's not the job of the nominator to provide sources showing why the article should be kept anyway. That's on the "voters." It's not like the same personal attacks wouldn't occur if nominators did what your suggesting anyway though, because it's just a tactic that isn't based on anything already anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Needless to say, asking people to prove a negative is unreasonable. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't propose that anyone should prove anything, just that they should say what they have done so the discussion can be a consensus-seeking exercise rather than a battleground. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

How is it time prohibitive when it just needs the nominator to say what they have done, which we are asked to believe is to follow the instructions for nominating an article for deletion? The time-consuming bit is following the instructions, which I am sure every deletion nominator already does, not saying how they have been followed. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s AfD that is the fertile battlefield not just ARS, and this idea is worth implementing in some way. It would help confirm that the Nom did indeed follow Before, then if a pattern of bad noms surfaced maybe they would get coached in more successfully adhering to Before. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Saying what was done in general terms might not be too time-consuming, but logging every step can be tedious. I've searched archives via my local library web site and while of course I can write all of the details down regarding archive names and search criteria, it is definitely additional overhead. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Whoa, there, cowboy. You lost me with “fertile battleground”. We have policies for that. Kleuske (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

This section’s first sentence tries to lay the battlefield mentality at ARS’ door when AfD itself is a contentious area filled with strong opinions. Anything that might make the process more smooth is likely worth consideration. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Like Isaacl said it would be time consuming because saying what steps the nominator took is tedious and nothing is good enough for the ARS people anyway. Even if you say you did a before they attack you for not doing a before. You say you did a before that involved a Google search and a Google scholar search, and you point out specific sources that you found and they still attack you. That's what they do. The nominators shouldn't have to bend over backwards by saying what they did just to be treated with a little decency. There should always be a presumption of good faith that the nominator did their due diligence. If someone isn't willing to grant them it, then that's on them. Just like it's on the people who call nominators sexist for doing an AfD about a women or a racist for doing about a person of color, etc etc. We shouldn't do anything to bend over backwards to accommodate the ARS people's cynicism anymore then we should do it for those people. It wouldn't matter if we did anyway though. We'll still be accused of things. So screw that. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You ask for their good faith while simultaneously accusing all members of the group of acting in bad faith.

I think a simple step somewhere in the process confirming Before was done is needed, especially with some editors who seem to struggle with identifying sources that others point out. Then the issue becomes helping serial misusers of the process in finding sourcing rather than being frustrated by process. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not accusing all members of the group of acting in bad faith. I'm accusing the ones that have acted in bad faith of doing so. Which is who this discussion is about. This discussion is not and never has been about every person that has ever had anything to do with the group, no matter how minor their role in it is. Everyone here knows who the bad actors are. I'm not going to list all of them every time I want to say "ARS." so some random member, who isn't a part of this discussion or at fault, won't feel like I'm talking about them. Thanks though.

Anyway, more importantly there's zero way to "confirm" a nominator has done a BEFORE. Except for the nominator to say they did one. Which, as I've said before, they are already doing and no one from ARS is ever satisfied with. So, making it obligatory for us to say we did a BEFORE isn't going to deal with this. having consequences for badgering users like Andrew will resolve it though. Things have calmed down quit a lot already since this incident report was opened. Whereas, there's tons of AfDs where Andrew and his cohorts (obviously I'm not talking about every damn member of ARS)have accused nominators of not doing a BEFORE when they explicitly said that they did one. BTW, their the only ones that ever bring up a BEFORE or accuse nominators of not doing one. It's a non-starter IMO to make a policy about something just because three users have a chronic personal problem with it. Instead we should deal with the three users who have the personal problem. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

+1. It's not about AFD and it's not about ARS, it's just about a few editors. ^Lev!v^ich 16:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

+1. Yeah, there's a bad actor or two whose accusations of bad faith are chronic, who are plainly operating off from an agenda that the whole deletion process is illegitimate, and for whom it seems that any tactic, stunt or reversal of tack in its service is justified. (Except, of course, gaining general consensus for their extremist philosophy.) Ravenswing 06:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

+1, particularly per Levivich. This is not a systemic issue with either AfD or ARS, in my view. It's a specific issue with a few AfD regulars. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Update As an update, note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burry's, which was highlighted as an example above, has now been closed as Keep. The subject is a maker of biscuits, especially Girl Scout Cookies. The topic was listed for rescue and got good attention. For an independent view of the topic, I suggest consulting Eddie891 who contributed good comments and article updates during the AfD. As it happens, this is the same Eddie891 that is currently to be found at RfA.

My own view is that this example demonstrates the value of prod patrol and article rescue. If I had not intervened, this topic would probably have been deleted without discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

And yet that is completely irrelevant and doesn't excuse any of the problems raised in this thread. That you think the AFD's outcome is relevant is the problem itself. Lev!vich 03:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Burry's was cited as an example because it was my most recent nomination and, at the time, unsettled. It was relevant then and it is relevant now that the AfD has now been closed and we can see the outcome. It is also topical in that one of the main participants is now at RfA. The claim that Burry's is "completely irrelevant" seems to be completely false.

My most recent nomination for rescue is now Hasdeo Arand. This topic is the second in an attempt to innovate. It occurred to me that topics in the news often need timely improvement because they are getting lots of attention by our readers but often need citations to help them through the formalities at WP:ITN/C. This hasn't achieved much because the real problem with the ARS is that few members do anything. While Eating Out to Help Out recently I saw a sign. It's an old chestnut but seems relevant still:

That's Not My Job!
This is story about four people named: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.
There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did.
Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody's job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realised that Everybody wouldn't do it.
It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Somebody might be angry, but Everybody couldn't care less, because while Anybody could have done it, Nobody had to do it, and now it's done. Lev!vich 05:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s fair that the issue is the longstanding tension between deletionists and inclusionists, and that AfD is a relatively easy system to game.

ARS looks to be the only real watchdog that looks for systematic corruption of the process. And it’s truly thankless work.

Unfortunately the burden is to prove someone is abusing the deletion process which seems at best to be an uphill battle. Maybe someone can think of a way to help ensure that AfD isn’t abused, I’m not so sure. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No. There are no deletionist. There are no inclusionists. Nobody needs a watchdog. We need people to work on articles and we need people to evaluate notability at AFD, but that is not "work" (thankless, necessary, or otherwise), it is a hobby, and no articles require "saving" because nobody is attacking articles. This whole viewpoint is just in the heads of a few ARS members who perceive themselves as fighting a war. Well, WP:Don't be a hero. Lev!vich 14:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I sharply disagree with that assertion. An easy look at the list of AfDs at ARS suggest there are articles on notable subjects that editors have been attempting to delete, for whatever reasons. If there are serial deletions I have no idea. But it’s hard to argue that no watchdog is needed when it’s obvious ARS is doing at least some good work on article building. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, that is patently untrue. There are clear deletionists on Wikipedia. It is also a fact (particularly in recent years with AfDs being automated via Twinkle) that most articles get AfDed without the nominator having done any WP:BEFORE; they generally have only glanced at the existing citations in the article's current iteration. It is also a fact that cogent and thoughtful participation (checking carefully and thoroughly and at length for coverage) at AfD has lagged way behind the speed and ease with which the glut of articles are AfDed. Articles are not rescued from "attack" (your word); they are rescued from deletion. Cullen328 for instance, is a world-class article rescuer. Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that I am a "world-class article rescuer", Softlavender, although I take some pride in improving and thereby saving articles listed at AfD. If I had more time and stronger motivation, I am sure I could have saved many more. Thanks anyway for mentioning my work in that area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: I'd love to know how 7&6=thirteen saying I was thin skinned because I asked him not to write personal messages in his votes, or ToughPigs calling me incompetent multiple times is just you guys being "watchdogs that are looking for systematic corruption." I'm just some random volunteer that does this shit in my spare time as a way to deal with insomnia and I started doing AfDs because I felt like some articles weren't notable. There wasn't anything more to it. I've been attacked by you guys since I started doing AfDs though. You guys can't claim your just being "watchdogs against corruption" when your indiscriminately attacking anyone who does AfDs. Even if the user hardly does them and they aren't using Sparkle. I'm not personally using it and most of the people you attack aren't either. So, putting things on Sparkle is kind of a straw man.

Also great that you guys save a few articles sometimes, but that doesn't make you some kind of noble crusaders against a corrupt system as your acting like it does or justify how you behave in AfDs. It's not like there aren't processes for saving articles that shouldn't be deleted (closing admins reading the votes, REFUND, article recreation, etc etc) that your completely unnecessary to either. You all must have zero faith in the system. Otherwise, you'd put your collective energy into improving the notability guidelines so less articles get deleted. If you really think to many articles are being deleted, changing them would be the way to solve it. Personally, I think they could be a little more moderate sometimes. Especially for companies. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel this is more we vs. them mentality which seems unconstructive. We are all volunteers but if things are getting heated or personal then disengagement might be helpful.

It’s also worth repeating that the ARS folk still have the deck stacked against their efforts, they have to prove notability in a system designed to remove articles.

Hopefully everyone will take some of the constructive comments on and apply them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

How do you say "this is more we vs. them mentality which seems unconstructive" and then follow that up with "ARS folk still have the deck stacked against their efforts" and "a system designed to remove articles"... aren't those "us vs. them" statements? And then you say, "Hopefully everyone will take some of the constructive comments on and apply them". This thread is about 7&6's comments, quoted and diff way up at the top... anything in here give you the feeling that 7&6 "will take some of the constructive comments on and apply them"? This thread has been open all month, let's see if there's been any change in behavior: Aug 5: User:Cavalryman is simply gutting the article for reasons extraneous to the worth of the article. Aug 12: This version of the Wikipedia article (before it was expurgated by Cavalryman establishes that. Breed denial does not make it so. Aug 15: this ill-conceived nomination to delete a clearly notable subject ... that last one is one of 7&6's "copy-and-paste" AFD comments; I quoted that copy-and-paste comment in this very thread weeks ago, but they're still using it. To my view, nothing, nothing, has been taken on board by 7&6. I'd like to see a close of the proposal above, personally. Lev!vich 16:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m sure most everyone has said things in heated moments that don’t come off well, ANI seems to be about seeing people at their lowest moments. Given the general context of AfD I’m not surprised that quotes showing someone acting undiplomatically are found. In context they might be more tame.

It doesn’t seem likely that any action will be taken at this point. I agree though it may be time for a close. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you get a couple "heated moments" for free, but if you're getting heated and posting things that others find aggressive and unproductive on a regular basis, then you can't claim "heat" as an excuse anymore. People who regularly participate at AfD shouldn't have "lowest moments" three times a week. At AfD, being polite and focusing on sources is more effective anyway; getting aggressive makes it less likely that you'll achieve your goal. It's unnecessary. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Late Comments

I haven't commented until now on this discussion that has gone on for more than two weeks. At this point, I think it is clear that there isn't a consensus to impose sanctions on 13, and there isn't a consensus to impose boomerang sanctions. There is a vague consensus that deletion discussions are unpleasant, and often uncivil. The questions are whether anyone should be admonished about their conduct in deletion discussions, and whether anything should be done to maintain civility of deletion discussions.

Conduct during deletion discussions has been a problem often enough that the community or the ArbCom might choose to look into it. I have previously proposed general sanctions for deletion discussions, which are similar to MOS discussions and infobox discussions in having stubborn editors. Other editors have disagreed with this idea.

I would suggest that the community has the following options:

• 1. Close this thread with no consensus, but with a recognition that civility is the [[WP:5P2|second pillar of Wikipedia.
• 2. Close this thread with no consensus, and with the understanding that editors can request ArbCom to conduct a full evidentiary case, which would identify and sanction editors who have disrupted deletion discussions or disrupted the deletion process, and which could determine whether discretionary sanctions are required. An ArbCom case would also review whether the Article Rescue Squadron is disruptive, and whether sanctions on it and its activities are needed.
• 3. Close this thread after authorizing community general sanctions for conduct in deletion discussions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

D.Lazard and Differential geometry of surfaces

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

---

• Differential geometry of surfaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• D.Lazard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Russ Woodroofe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blanking: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

The article Differential geometry of surfaces (DGS) is one that I helped prepares twelve years ago in February 2008. For some time I have known that DGS has not been in am imperfect state. While writing the article, I added further content which became a separate article Riemannian connection on a surface (geared to graduate students). The original paper has many imperfections largely because, like other parts of wikipedia, it still remains unwritten. There were many gaps in the article, particular at the beginning and the lede, because it had broken off as a fork. However I decided recently to make the long overdue improvements to the article, knowing bits that were glaringly missing: first to symmetry of second derivatives and then to inverse function theorem. I just summarised very briefly a page or two out of Lars Hörmander and Henri Cartan (world experts).

Then User:D.Lazard decided he did not like some of the new introductory material which he blanked five times. I believe that this kind of blanking is extremely uncommon on wikipedia. D.Lazard did not seem to have give any coherent explanation of his blanking. He wikilwawyered and criticized the title "Differential geometry of surface."

D.Lazard has been told that the brief preparatory section is needed for the new section "Regular surfaces in Euclidean space". At the moment the paragraph of requisites is just a brief summary without proofs. The new content on "regular surface" is in the course of being written. The sources are the lecture noteds of Nigel Hitchin and Eugenio Calabi, as well as text boos by Pelham Wilson, Andrew Pressley, Manfredo do Carmo, Barrett O'Neill and Dirk Struik. D.Lazard's repeated blanking is unhelpful. In addition he has not made any attempt to discuss the proposed new material, which seems to me straightorward. He has accused me of WP:OWN, but he knows that there are certain prerequistes are needed for telling the story of Gauss and his remarkable discoveries. Most of contributions in mathematics have been to harmonic analysis, symmetric spaces, representation theory, etc. Differential geometry of surfaces is an undergraduate article: in the UK that is the case (e.g. in Oxford and Cambridge) and also for honors undergraduates in the US. D..Lazard's blanking is incredible. He has no authority to prevent standard content being created. As far as I am aware, he does not produce any such content himself. Other blanking by Russ Woodruffe has also happened (using WP:BRD as a pretext).

I have created an even shorter summary, now placed only in the "Regular surface" section. D.Lazard's blanking has been disruptive. It seems to be a combination of WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE. Very little to do with content creation, which requires calm and careful thought. Mathsci (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Boomerang This is a content issue and it seems that only Mathsci refuses to cooperate with the consensus of other editors on that talk page. The so-called blanking is explained by edit summaries and talk page comments, so I'm not sure why Matshci thinks this drama board will support their ownership claim. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I have removed the section Differential geometry of surfaces#Calculus in 2 variables that mathsci added recently, because it was out of the scope of this article. When I saw that mathsci started edit warring, I stopped reverting after my second revert, opened a discussion on this section on the talk page, and asked WT:WPM for help. Three established mathematical editors posted to Talk:Differential geometry of surfaces#Calculus in 2 variables with comments agreeing that this section should be removed. Mathsci participation to this discussion did not addressed the question of the relevance of this section for this article. I have considered that four against one (mathsci) is a clear WP:CONSENSUS. So, I reverted again this section (three times), and each time I was reverted, with personal attacks in the edit summary ("rvv - WP:BATTLEGROUND by edit-warrior - WP:NOTHERE - there has no been attempt to discuss the relevant mathematics and certainly no attempts to find "consensus" - OP seems not to actually seem ti have write very much content editing on wiipedidia recently" [14]). Finally (for the moment?) Russ Woodroofe reverted this section again. The fact that Russ Woodroofe was not among the editors that have commented on the talk page enforces the consensus.

About the accusation of WP:OWN, it suffices to read above mathsci's post to be convinced that it is a problem for mathsci.

IMO, WP:BOOMERANG should be applied here. D.Lazard (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• This edit appears as a tentative of mathsci for escaping from WP:3RR by restoring the disputed material in another section. D.Lazard (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) In principle this involved updating and improving the article, I looked at it in 2008. During that updating period, I noticed that the article was incoherent, because of missing sections. The first task was then to add a few preliminary sentences, needed for surfaces: content on diffeomorphisms; and content on Taylor series expansion, needed for the first fundamental form and second fundamental form of a surface. A few minutes ago I added content related to the "first fundamental form". I wrote about the matrices ${\begin{pmatrix}E&F\\F&G\end{pmatrix}}$. It was blanked.[15] At the moment material that should have been in the article along while back is being added. That was my initiative. The material is standard, but requires care. I think in my experience editing, I have never before seen blanking like this. At the moment this anodyne neutral topic is hardly race and intelligence when legendary folks like Mikemikev were trying to remove all references to Jensenism. This is just undergraduate mathematics. I have some vague memories of D.Lazard being difficult about Euclidean Jordan algebras in the past, when I was editing material on hermitian symmetric spaces. I cannot see where WP:OWN comes into here. Mathsci (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathsci: You need to respect editorial consensus. At the moment, the consensus of editorial opinion seems against you. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: I have noticed that you have been one of the very few editors to actively edit this particular article: many thanks for that! Originally this week I added a proof of the the inverse function theorem in this article; it only gradually became clear that it could be transplanted to another wikipedia article, where it belonged. Then step by step, I have tried to reduce the sentences about derivatives and diffeomorphisms to the very minimum, both to clarify what's going on with regular surfaces, while making it accessible to a general readership. From my own edits, I hope you can see that is what has been happening. In the article, there are still problems in defining principal curvature, Monge patches, etc. I am trying my best. Mathsci (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you are trying your best. But this is not the place to discuss article content. This board is for discussing editorial conduct. Paul August ☎ 21:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted Mathsci because I saw them (following a post on the Math wikiproject) ignoring talk page consensus about the article -- WP:BRD seems relevant, but the pattern appeared to be more BRRRR. I also tend to agree that their additions are of WP:UNDUE length, although I don't believe that they are intending to be disruptive, and I actually do think there is room for including some small connection with lower-level material. I am concerned that they are continuing to edit the article in a way that is out-of-line with talk page consensus, while other involved editors are waiting for this ANI situation to play itself out. I agree that there may be cause for concern regarding WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
• One of ANI's more esoteric reports to date, to be sure. EEng 10:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Here are the main points for which, in my opinion, WP:BOOMERANG must apply.
  • Edit warring after a consensus was reach on the talk page: the three first edits that are linked above are reversions of the same Mathsci's contribution from August 3. The last three are reversion from August 5 of the same contribution, after that a consensus was reach on the talk page.
  • Tentative to escape from WP:3RR by adding the same material in another section [16]
  • Personal attacks in edit summaries, for example [17]
  • Removal of a heading in the talk page, which makes nonsensical other's post [18]
  • Systematic and still continuing use of article's page as a sandbox for preparing their contributions; see [19] as a typical example. This is disruptive by making very difficult to others to review these fast changes, and fixing/improving/reverting them.
  • Contributions on the talk page that consist mainly in attacks on user conduct and summaries of sources that they think the most relevant ones; see Talk:Differential geometry of surfaces#Recent edits by mathsci, and more recently Talk:Differential geometry of surfaces#Theorema Egregium

Although, IMO, none of these items is sufficient by itself for opening a thread here, all together, they form a highly disruptive behavior that must be stopped. D.Lazard (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I hadn’t realized that this content dispute had escalated so far. The consensus at Talk:Differential geometry of surfaces#Recent edits by mathsci was very clearly against the inclusion of the disputed section. Mathsci has good intentions here, but should recognize that they have been edit warring against multiple editors and that they have made inappropriate and often tangential accusations against D.Lazard. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I stopped following the page because it was stressful, but I came back today and was shocked further. Every editor outside of MathSci has been unanimous that his edits are not appropriate for Wikipedia, reading more like a textbook and using a level detail not appropriate for a high level article. There have been 300 edits since he started editing the page in late July, with 250 edits since Aug 3, and as far as I can tell there have been reverts back and forth every day for the past week. I don't know if its a thing you guys do, but I suggest the page be reverted back to the state it was in July 9 before any of the edits and locked for a time.Brirush (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Postscript to the above comment: I think MathSci is intelligent and eloquent, and I think the material has use somewhere, but not in this article in this fashion. Others have suggested moving the new material to a new page and summarizing it on the main page, and I think that's a great solution. I post here not to condemn MathSci, but to admit that I'm not sure how to proceed; outside observers could see clearer, IMO.Brirush (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I am biased as an editor who has made some major changes in the last week, but I believe there have been vast improvements to the article since July 9, and I think it'd be a very bad idea to revert it. I know there is at least one other editor (D.Lazard) who thinks my edits have made a positive impact. In my opinion, mathsci's edits to the page have been highly confusing and in need of clarification, which in part explains the number of edits - in my own opinion, he's also made it rather difficult for me to improve the page. In essence, I think the article needed an almost complete rewrite for it to be clear. The (current) end result of the major edits, in section 3, is in its majority written by me and not by mathsci. It may look long and over-detailed, but it is very much not written as a textbook, it is just a summary of the main points. (There is one section on isometries, written by mathsci, which I think is unclear, as well as two paragraphs, also written by him, which are in discussion on the talk page.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to restore an old version such as the one of mid July. At this time, the first technical section of the article was not as usual the definition of th object of study or the needed background. It started directly by the sentence "Informally Gauss defined the curvature of a surface in terms of the curvatures of certain plane curves connected with the surface." In other words the article could be understood only by people who already know its content. After Gumshoe2's major edits, the article is much better and useful for a much wider audience. It would be a pity to destroy this good job. My contribution to this improvement is minor, because, while I know enough of the subject for understand and reviewing edits, I do not know enough for writing sections and chosing the material that deserve to be added (or kept). D.Lazard (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In summary, the problem here is that although Mathsci edits of the article and his contributions to the talk page are clearly done in good faith, they are very disruptive, and this would help to improve the article if they are stopped. D.Lazard (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Holy WP:TLDR! This is ripe for a cool down and RfC to get more uninvolved eyes. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I would really like to have some extra observers. What is an RfC? Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gumshoe2:, See WP:RfC, they need to be written neutrally. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately I'm not very familiar with the wikipedia bureaucracy... it says there "The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued," are you sure it's the appropriate way? It is also a little unfortunate that an observer might have to be somewhat knowledgeable in math to understand the situation Gumshoe2 (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gumshoe2:, don’t focus on user(s), make it on how best to treat the contested content. Gleeanon409 (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Gleeanon409: This page is not about article content, it is about user conduct. It is also clear in WP:BOOMERANG, that the behavior of the opener of the thread has also to be considered. D.Lazard (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Further comment. The discussion at Talk:Differential geometry of surfaces#Section on orthogonal coordinates is a newer example that is rather surrealistic. It seems that Mathsci discusses from another spacetime Universe. To administrators: It is time to stop Mathsci's disruptive editing, even if they are disruptive with good faith. D.Lazard (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree. Mathsci makes it extremely difficult to improve the page. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

If the section has been repeatedly removed by blanking against consensus then simply take the issue to WP:3rr for edit warring. If they are doing this across content on the article then make the case for a topic ban on the article itself. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Remark. I have no idea what D.Lazard means by "rather surrealistic"? Here I had to check WP:V and WP:RS in a specific source, a book of Eisenhart written in 1909. There were two formulas that needed to be checked. I also performed WP:V using a second source (a book of Dirk Struik written in 1961). So this was the standard process of WP:V and WP:RS that happens in all wikipedia articles (or should do). The verification is here in the diff and it is rather tedious.[20] I am stil editing articles on Bach organ music, where the same rules apply. Similarly articles on France where the same rules apply. Even very infrequently updating the early history parts of History of the race and intelligence controversy where the same rules apply. Mathsci (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Remark. I would like to be very clear. I think Mathsci is trying to be helpful and understands part of the material, but does not understand all of it, and is not himself able to draw the line between what he understands and what he doesn't understand. He is highly combative about presenting the material as he sees fit, mostly by drawing directly upon textbooks and authors he respects. This would of course be ok (and even in many cases very good) if he understood the material well enough. The discussion on the talk page about the Theorema Egregium, and newly, about a "derivative formula" of Gauss, shows that he does not. He is not able to respond to technical questions about what he is claiming, always just deferring to "standard sources" which he often misinterprets. Surely there is a wiki procedure that could directly deal with this, without locking the whole page? Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with several users above (Chris Troutman, Paul August, Russ Woodroofe, MarkH21, Brirush) that there is already a clear consensus on the article talk-page, and that MathSci's behavior in ignoring it is disruptive. There is no point in holding an RfC when discussion has already included a significant fraction of editors who might be expected to weigh in on a mathematics article, with unanimity except from MathSci. If MathSci will not voluntarily agree to recognize and abide by the consensus on the page, it might (regrettably) be necessary for them to be blocked from editing that article -- but I hope they will acknowledge that their approach is not an acceptable mode of collaboration. --JBL (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

(WP:tl;dr) What is disruptive? RfC's on user conduct no longer occur. I am not aware of a mathematical expert ever being topic-banned on wikipedia. There have been arbcom cases involving mathematicians (e.g. Michael Hardy and Arthur Rubin), but never remotely concerning elementary undergraduate material. At the moment there has been very little activity on the article page. The article was created by me in November 2007 and has been very stable since July 2020. In the 13 years of writing the article, everything I have edited so far has been accurate. I have been careful with WP:V and WP:RS. Content has been carefully paraphrased and summarised. In July 2020 I noticed that very easy material had been missing from the article: looking at how it was treated in real life, I tried to add it on wikipedia. Definitions of regular surfaces, Monge patches, examples, etc. Perhaps part of that change—a crash course in 2 variable calculus—was against consensus, not sufficiently user-friendly; that material was quickly suppressed, completely reasonably.

Gumshoe2 has made a number of changes to the article. Apart from checking some sections, I have encouraged him to improve the sections on geodesic polar coordinates. I have also made it quite clear that others, including Gumshoe2, can make any improvements that they want. That has always been the case. Why would it be otherwise?

On the article talk page, some content has been checked using WP:RS. That is normal. There was one painful but ultimately correct calculation: I had to refer to a Princeton treatise by Eisenhart from 1909 and then double check with a 1940 text also by Eisenhart. So far none of the mathematics has been problematic. Perhaps some editors have been impatient that checking for WP:V and WP:RS have taken longer than anticipated. It has been exhausting. Salix alba is a mathematical wikipedian and an administrator who has edited the article: he has not recommended that any action be taken now. Paul August also comes into the same category of mathematical wikipedian and administrator. He advised that I should adhere to consensus. I don't think he ever told me that content shouldn't be checked: that's part of the five pillars. In the humanities, it is a rule that articles are checked quite carefully for WP:RS and WP:V. As far as I'm aware the same rules apply in mathematics articles. Mathsci (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

In response to "In the 13 years of writing the article, everything I have edited so far has been accurate," here is a list of some of Mathsci's edits which contain parts that are either wrong or incoherent, from small mistakes to fundamental misunderstandings: ex 1, ex 2, ex 3, ex 4, ex 5, ex 6. There was a discussion of example 4 on the talk page, where Mathsci showed his failure to understand the relevant result. I encourage anyone, even those who are not familiar with the technical material, to read the thread to see the nature of Mathsci's non-responses and superficial use of "reliable sources" and "verifiability". I'll try to avoid any further comments here until admins respond. Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User Mathsci on the page "Differential geometry of surfaces"

This has been partially discussed in a previous ANI thread D.Lazard and Differential geometry of surfaces, where Mathsci (talk · contribs) accused D.Lazard (talk · contribs) of inappropriate edits to the page Differential geometry of surfaces. It seems to have been ignored by admins since the conversation shifted to accusations against Mathsci, who has been (in at least some of our opinions) a corrosive presence on the page. I am not aware of anyone who has defended his comments or edits.

I'll copy my comment from there: "I would like to be very clear. I think Mathsci is trying to be helpful and understands part of the material, but does not understand all of it, and is not himself able to draw the line between what he understands and what he doesn't understand. He is highly combative about presenting the material as he sees fit, mostly by drawing directly upon textbooks and authors he respects. This would of course be ok (and even in many cases very good) if he understood the material well enough. The discussion on the talk page about the Theorema Egregium, and newly, about a "derivative formula" of Gauss, shows that he does not. He is not able to respond to technical questions about what he is claiming, always just deferring to "standard sources" which he often misinterprets. Surely there is a wiki procedure that could directly deal with this, without locking the whole page?"

This recent talk thread on the subsection "orthogonal coordinates" is particularly conspicuous. It was in reference to this section of this version of the page. As I showed by links to edits in the talk page, this entire section was written by Mathsci. To briefly summarize the talk thread: I found a precise reference to the material in Eisenhart's book, in section 88; Mathsci insisted that the material was a trivial consequence of section 63 of Eisenhart's book; I showed him that the formulas in section 63 were, in context, trivial, and logically could not possibly be the source; Mathsci now seems to be claiming that the material he wrote into the wiki page is in error, despite the fact that it is explicitly present in Eisenhart's book and I identified where it came from. In response to D.Lazard, in the previous ANI thread, calling the exchange "surrealistic", Mathsci wrote (at the time that he was claiming that it all followed from section 63):

I have no idea what D.Lazard means by "rather surrealistic"? Here I had to check WP:V and WP:RS in a specific source, a book of Eisenhart written in 1909. There were two formulas that needed to be checked. I also performed WP:V using a second source (a book of Dirk Struik written in 1961). So this was the standard process of WP:V and WP:RS that happens in all wikipedia articles (or should do). The verification is here in the diff and it is rather tedious. [Link to then-current version of talk thread] I am stil editing articles on Bach organ music, where the same rules apply. Similarly articles on France where the same rules apply. Even very infrequently updating the early history parts of History of the race and intelligence controversy where the same rules apply.

This is highly emblematic for the following reason. Mathsci routinely insists on closely following the presentation of certain references, without being willing to spread material out over different wiki pages, as is common (especially, I believe, on math pages). In response to various disagreements, he routinely says that he's just following the sources, and suggests that others are being impudent for disagreeing with widely acknowledged standard sources; he almost never engages with the actual claims made. As the "orthogonal coordinates" talk thread exchange makes clear, Mathsci is not competent to correctly interpret what is in these standard sources. Another example is in the section on the Theorema Egregium, where Mathsci routinely misunderstood the meaning of the theorem, and was only able to respond to technical criticism by listing various references and standard facts about tangentially related material.

This is a major problem since (as can already be seen from some of his comments on the prior ANI thread) Mathsci seems to feel some ownership over the page Differential geometry of surfaces, and is highly active in controlling edits to the page. This can be seen, for one example, in this edit where the reason given for reversion was "too many changes." He makes it quite difficult to make improvements to the page.

I would like to also note that the accusations I'm making here are distinct from the accusations made against him in the prior ANI thread. They are also based on different (and more recent) material. Gumshoe2 (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Things are still at the level of a content dispute and not bad enough for administrator intervention. Some other form of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution would be a first step. Maybe at WT:WPM, I've been following the discussion but I'm not quite sure what the locus of the dispute is interms of concrete changes to the article. --Salix alba (talk): 12:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know very much about wikipedia policies and procedures. But I agree with D.Lazard when he said in the previous ANI thread that this "is not about article content, it is about user conduct. It is also clear in WP:BOOMERANG, that the behavior of the opener of the thread has also to be considered." I would describe it as a problem on user conduct which has been initiated by article content. Personally, my real problem is not about specific matters in the article; it is summarized by my sentence "He makes it quite difficult to make improvements to the page."

(Also, I have used WT:WPM for some specific article content matters, but it didn't seem to draw any new commentators) Gumshoe2 (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Gumshoe2 (ec) I don't want to be accused of WP:tl;dr, walls of text ... Gumshoe2 has written on this page that he would like to find a "wiki process that stops an article being locked up."[21] At the moment no editing is happening like that—no locking up. There has been a discussion on the article talk page about "orthogonal coordinates", Orthogonal coordinates. It needed clearing up, using WP:V and WP:RS. I used an old-fashioned Princeton treatise from 1909. The first half of the material was fine but in the article there was an error in two statements (due to me), [22] Modern content on "geodesic polar coordinates" also occurs in the article, used for the so-called Gauss lemma. As mentioned to Gumshoe2 (in the above diff), a few more details could be provided for the section "exponential map", using a modern source. All of this is standard undergraduate material.

My 2006 user page self-identified me as a professional mathematician. Gumshoe2's account started in April 2020. He has not made many edits. He started by improving BLPs of eminent mathematicians listed on his user page. He has expertise in non-linear PDEs, geometry and physics, sometimes stringy. To my knowledge, so far nobody has suggested that there is a problem editing this article. It happens in the normal way. Mathsci (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

My comment on locking the page was due to Gleeanon409's comment on the previous ANI thread suggesting "a topic ban on the article itself." Maybe I misunderstood the meaning. Also, you are still failing to understand that there is no "error in two statements" on the wiki page. The material explicitly appears in section 88 of Eisenhart. It is your current statements on the talk page which are in error, not your edits from 2007 (the only problem with those being the vague sourcing) Gumshoe2 (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Gumshoe2: I made an error in the two last lines of the section. The edits in 2007 for the sentences ("If in addition E = 1, so that H = G^1⁄2, then the angle φ at the intersection between geodesic (x(t),y(t)) and the line y = constant is given by the equation...") were just garbage. Mathsci (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe I keep having to say this: check section 88, page 210, formula (57) here. The derivative formula you wrote in 2007 is completely correct. The link I just gave is open-access, anyone can see for themselves. It is the claims you've been making now, on the talk page, which are completely incorrect. Gumshoe2 (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Gumshoe2, did I make these edits in 2007 or did you? My edit history shows that it was me. On 13 November 2007, I followed through my mangled reasoning on time derivatives of x and y. The conditions F = 0 and E = 1 were not realistic. Geodesic polar coordinates are a different matter. Please could you stay on the article talk page? This kind of discussion on ANI is clearly off-topic. Mathsci (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I tried to get more eyes on the article talk page, by posting on Wikiproject:Math, without success. Trying to directly discuss the matters with you took up (and continues to take up) inordinate amounts of time with no progress whatsoever. Anyhow, geodesic polar coordinates are very well-known to have F = 0 and E = 1. That is established, for instance, in the last full paragraph on page 207 (in section 87) in the same open-access link I just posted. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's already recorded in the article that geodesic polar coordinates have the form $ds^{2}=dr^{2}+G(r,theta)d\theta ^{2}$. Its a corollary of the Gauss theorem. The more general result on orthogonal coordinates can be found, not so easily, in a 1909 Princeton treatise and a 1940 Princeton book by Eisenhart. They can be found in (32.14) of Eisenhart (1940) $d\theta /ds=-{\sqrt {g}}/g_{11}\Gamma _{12}^{2}dv/ds$ and (25.7), $\tan \theta =dv/du$. Similarly the same method works for Eisenhart (1909), page 76, (24) and then page 204, (42). The proof (due to Gauss) follows from the formula for differentiating arctan and the Euler equations for geodesics. A lot of the editing of this article happened in Aix-en-Provence in November 2007. Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• I am afraid the real problem is that our articles on math are written in such a way (for example, good luck anybody without a degree in math trying to understand what Leavitt path algebra says) that it is not really possible to apply WP:V to them, since only a few users are capable of verifying the article text with a source. When the number of these users is down to two and they disagree, we have a situation as described above.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's probably true. You mentioned today's freshly-minted article above on Leavitt path algebras: Cuntz-Krieger algebras are not even defined on wikipedia (Cuntz algebras are). On the other hand, even at a graduate level, I have usually tried to write mathematical content directly using sources, e.g. commutation theorem, Butcher group, Hermitian symmetric space, Littlewood subordination theorem. Carathéodory kernel theorem, Grunsky's theorem, Hartogs–Rosenthal theorem, Grunsky matrix, etc, etc. Mathsci (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As Mathsci himself has said several times, this is material from standard undergraduate coursework, and not a specialized (graduate-level) topic such as any of those listed. Of course, I understand that this still blocks out anyone who hasn't taken the class or prerequisites. But there must be a number of people on wikipedia who can verify, for instance, that my summary

"two days of continuous conversation to get to the point where Mathsci will recognize the phrase "classical derivative formula of Gauss" out of three sentences in the section he wrote, to not recognizing that it is proved in section 88 of Eisenhart, to insisting on a false verification of it based on other material, to then saying that the statement is wrong and should be removed, finally to then doing the very simple calculation by himself and recognizing that it is correct."

of this thread is completely accurate. Again, it is undergraduate material, not advanced mathematics; at the end I show how the problem is (after the setup) one that even students of multivariable calculus could carry out.

I think, also, that even those who have never taken a math class can see the structure of this conversation. In the third message, I allege "The link between these [certain two textbook topics] is the Gauss formula, which was not part of your presentation," i.e. that there is something missing from Mathsci's presentation. In the response, Mathsci just lists various textbooks that have proofs. In the next message, I look up one of the specific books and point out specifically that the fundamental point of the work done in the book had no counterpart in Mathsci's edit in question. Mathsci responds by saying that these books are legitimate sources and recommends a different book, a total non sequitur. Then Mathsci says "You are editing too rapidly at the moment and are making errors," and points out another book I should read. My editing error was apparently this deletion, which was clearly explained in the edit summary. I believe it doesn't take any understanding of the math involved to see that I was making specific claims about Mathsci's edits which Mathsci was absolutely nonresponsive to. Gumshoe2 (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Today Gumshoe2 wrote, "And, as I said before, I believe you are editing in good faith but do not have a very good understanding of some of the material. I believe this whole section is proof of that."[23] Gumshoe2 has given some form of apology for this.[24] Eisenhart's 1940 book has a good treatment of orthogonal nets; I used it for checking one of the main formulas. Not really a "total non sequitur."[25] Mathsci (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify for other readers. I was at most apologizing for using the talk page for expressing personal opinion about another user; the place for such comments is here, perhaps not there. Mathsci's talk about Eisenhart's other book is unrelated to the thread I outlined above, and in particular was not mentioned in the post I described as a "total non sequitur". He is confusing two different threads with each other. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• To Ymblanter and other non-mathematicians. This is true that too many mathematical articles are written in a way that they can be understood only by specialists on the subjects, although MOS:MATH says Articles should be as accessible as possible to readers not already familiar with the subject matter. (This probably results from the fact that many mathematical editors have not the competence needed for making their article accessible). But it is wrong that the technicalities here and in the article's talk page are related to WP:V, as all the content of this article appears in many textbooks (probably hundreds), some being listed as reference. So any reader that is able to read one of these sources should be able to verify the content of the article. So, is is completely useless, as does Mathsci, to comment with long technical details on the way that some authors present a material that is well known by mathematicians for two centuries.

The impression that two editors only can discuss the subject results from Mathsci's behavior: for proving that his interpretation of sources is wrong, one has not only to know the subject, but also to have a deep knowledge of the literature.

This Mathsci's way of discussing, and his aggressive behavior make almost impossible to discuss the main issues of this article, that are the accessibility to an audience that is as large as possible, the lack of contextual comments for explaining why each result is important, and for what it is used, and the whole structure of all our articles about surfaces. Personally, I have started to discuss some of these points. I do not continue because Mathsci's disruption makes impossible to have a constructive discussion. D.Lazard (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of any evidence of disruption at the moment, despite D.Lazard's views. References have been checked—sometimes time-consuming. D.Lazard's statements about numbers of sources are misleading. For the article Surface (topology), which D.Lazard page-watches, only a small but relevant references were added by me in 2016. As far as content-editing is concerned, all editors can make improvements, which are normally discussed on the article talk page. At ANI in the previous section, editing has explicitly been encouraged by me. There has sometimes been duplication of content, but that's part of the nature of the material: the Theorema Eqregium has several different proofs. Mathsci (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

One new, small, example of the difficulty of communicating with Mathsci here, in response to this edit of mine. Mostly adding as an illustration of previously-made comments, as there is absolutely nothing technical needed to understand this thread. Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible measures

I really should recurse myself here as I've had my own run ins with Mathsci (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). There is clearly a communication problem here which has been reported by a number of users. But it is falling well short of anything requiring administrative actions.

One possible option would be to revisit the block log. The last but one block was in 2016, and the unblock was conditional on a statement proposed by Bishonen and accepted by Mathsci.[26]

"I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills."

I would propose that Mathsci be asked to reafirm this statement. Some recent edits have fallen short of these. --Salix alba (talk): 16:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No part of that statement addresses my issues with Mathsci, which I view as the impossibility of communicating with him about this page in a rational or coherent way. I've never before had such an experience in talking about mathematical topics with others (whether with non-mathematicians, students of mine, colleagues, or senior figures) Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I can remember the circumstances of the two recent blocks. Fram was the blocking administrator both times. In July 2016 it was for edits related to the 2016 Nice truck attack, just after the Bastille Day attack. I had lived in the South of France for a long period; problems arose because some editors did not speak French. During the 2017 Westminster attack, I helped edit without no difficulties at all. The block on 2 February 2018 happened one month after suffering from a stroke on 29 December 2017. (The stroke happened while I was editing wikipedia.[27]) On 2 February, unaware of the block, I collapsed from syncope and was placed in the cardiology ward at Addenbrooke's Hospital for one week. The 1 week block arose because of a dispute about a spurious cantata, BWV 142, not by Johann Sebastian Bach. It involved Francis Schonken who has been under a two-way WP:IBAN with me since 20 April 2018. Since that period Francis Schonken has been blocked for six weeks for edit-warring on Bach-related matters; and then for a further one year for edit-warring on Bach-related matters.

Disclosure: Salix alba was a graduate student at the University of Liverpool, when I was a mathematics lecturer there (1983-1989).

I have done quite a lot of editing of wikipedia articles, particularly mathematics, but not exclusively. For example I helped create Hanover Square Rooms, Handel House Museum, Chateau of Vauvenargues, Keir Collection, etc. In mathematics I have helped create Singular integral operators of convolution type, Sobolev spaces for planar domains, Neumann–Poincaré operator, Grunsky matrix, Zonal spherical function, Plancherel theorem for spherical functions, etc. I might have written forty or fifty mathematics articles, some of them short. There are also several Bach articles like BWV 105, Clavier-Übung, Orgelbüchlein, Canonic Variations, etc. Mathsci (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Salix alba: I apologize in advance for the walls of text from ANI, 3 August 2016, about the 2016 Nice truck attack.[28] My user talk page[29] shows what happened between the indefinite block on 4 August 2016 by Fram and the conditional unblock by Bishonen on 9 August 2016. (After a clarification request at WP:ARBR&I, I was blocked indefinitely in October 2013. There was a possibility of returning to editing after 6 months, but I made a request only in 2016.) When discussing the block in August 2016, Bishonen asked, "Are you thinking of sticking to uncontroversial articles altogether? Obviously we would be very glad to still have your editing on baroque music and mathematics." In 2017 I made a few edits to 2017 Westminster attack without problems. Baroque music has occasionally been problematic. Since a 2-way IBAN from April 2018, another editor has been blocked for 6 weeks and then a year in 2018.

Mathematics has so far not been a problem. One of the articles I have written has been Differential forms on a Riemann surface; another is Riemannian connection on a surface. I have no plans on contributing very much to Differential geometry of surfaces. As you know from your own editing experience, almost all of the preliminary content has now been covered. Perhaps some tidying up and trimming is needed, but not by me. As I've written here at ANI, all editors, whatever their background, should feel free to contribute to, improve and update the article. Taku has suggested a Draft:Calculus on Euclidean space, as an aid for general readers. I don't think this article is comparable to the Nice attack article. I agree that WP:NPA is non-negotiable: I apologize for making any personal comments towards D.Lazard. Everybody agrees that belittling comments should be avoided. I will certainly try to avoid making any vaguely belittling comments; and I hope that other editors will do the same. The talk page of this particular article, however, is not comparable to that of Talk:2016 Nice truck attack, The article talk page has become a little bogged down. Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I think that's a positive step forward. I didn't really want to drag up past history other than the resolution seemed useful. Hopefully we can close this section now. --Salix alba (talk): 11:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Salix alba for clarifying all these matters. It was a positive step. I hope that this incident can now be closed. Mathsci (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This statement "I have no plans on contributing very much to Differential geometry of surfaces" seems like a rather abrupt shift from the last couple days. Is this to say that if I make more major edits to the page, many of which I believe are still required, I won't have to waste days on the talk page convincing you of basic material? Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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

MinhNhat2K3 and lack of competence

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

---

• MinhNhat2K3 (talk · contribs)
• 123.20.104.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.172.189.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 123.20.107.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Vanished user 3057 (talk · contribs)

MinhNhat2K3 is an editor that specalises in adding lengthy lists of unreferenced, and quite often completely incorrect, people to articles, for example these edits to 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. Due to this edit to the talk page of 113.172.189.190 straight after they were blocked, they are obviously editing as that IP as well, and given the same Vietnam ISP and editing style they are are also the first one.

Right before they made a complete mess of First World War centenary, it looked like this. No big list of attendees (the France section does contain a small list), but after many edits by both IPs we have this disaster. Clicking on the List of officials and dignitaries at the 2018 First World War centenary event brings up a huge unreferenced list with many, many errors. For example

• Paolo Artini, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees is incorrect, he's a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The actual "Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees" is Kelly T. Clements.
• Fatih Birol, Secretary General of the International Energy Agency is incorrect, he's Executive Director of the International Energy Agency.
• Francisco Ribeiro Telles, Secretary General of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries is incorrect, the person who held the post at the time was Maria do Carmo Silveira.
• Tigran Sargsyan, President of the Eurasian Economic Union is incorrect, he was Chairman of the Board.
• Sergei Lebedev, Secretary General of CIS is incorrect, he's Executive Secretary.
• Stanislav Zas, Secretary General of CSTO is incorrect, according to his article he didn't even become a candidate for the job until after the centenary, and wasn't in the position until 2020.
• Thorbjorn Jagland, President of Council of Europe is incorrect, he was Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
• Federica Mogherini, Foreign Affairs Chief of the European Union is incorrect, she was High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
• Klaus Schwab, Executive Secretary of the World Economic Forum is incorrect, he's executive chairman.
• Yukiya Amano, Secretary General of the International Atomic Energy Agency is incorrect, he was Director General.
• Epeli Nailatikau, President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association doesn't appear to be correct, the head of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association doesn't appear to be a "president" and there's nothing in the Epeli Nailatikau article about him holding the post, or any other post at the time of the centenary.
• Lamberto Zannier, Secretary General of OSCE is incorrect, he's High Commissioner on National Minorities at the OSCE.
• Coly Seck, Vice President of the United Nations Human Rights Council appears to be incorrect. United Nations Human Rights Council says he was president in 2019, but I can find no evidence he was ever "Vice President" of the same organisation.
• Guy Ryder, President of ILO is incorrect, he's Director-General.
• Abed Ali Abed, President of the World Peace Council appears to be someone completely made up (or spelled completely wrong, but I can find nobody with a similar name at the World Peace Council. According to the WPC themselves the president is Socorro Gomes, since at least 2014.
• Mukhisa Kituyi, President of UNCTAD is incorrect, he's Secretary-General.
• Jose Graziano da Silva, President of FAO is incorrect, he was Director General.
• George Mavrikos, Secretary General of WFTU may only have his job title of General Secretary reversed, but you have to wonder why the General Secretary of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) in Athens, Greece has the flag of the Isle of Man, a British Crown dependency. (there may be more incorrect flags, it was the only one I noticed and the other errors are bad enough without having to keep digging)
• Yuri Fedotov, Chairman of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is incorrect, he was Executive Director.
• David Beasley, President of World Food Programme is incorrect, he's Executive Director.
• Lennart Bage, President of IFAD is incorrect, he was president in 2002, but Gilbert Houngbo has been president since 1 April 2017.
• William Lacy Swing, Secretary General of International Organization for Migration is incorrect, according to William L. Swing his term ended in September 2018.
• Moussa Faki, President of the African Union Commission is incorrect, he's Chairperson of the African Union Commission.
• Samir Hosny, President of the Arab League is incorrect. You'd think if he was president Google would have noticed, instead he was some kind of regional official but I can't even show he held a post of that nature in 2018.
• Mishaal bin Fahm Al-Salami, President of Arab Parliament is incorrect, according to Arab Parliament he's speaker.
• Mohammad Reza Majidi, President of Asian Parliamentary Assembly is incorrect, he's Secretary General.

Those are just from the first sub-section of the guest list, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS GUESTS, I couldn't face doing WORLD LEADERS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS and Other guests since I know they are probably riddled with errors as well. This has been recently remarked on by a helpful IP editor, who said So many things wrong in the 2018 dignitaries list (fixing them based on references found online as well as general corresponding articles, while also fixing entries placed in wrong continent lists. Other things of course too

You only have to look at the unreferenced, error-riddled monstrosity they are creating at User:MinhNhat2K3/Sandbox (we have an article on the subject at List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Nelson Mandela already) to get an idea of the lack of competence they have. I believe their error-ridden, unreferenced lengthy lists of people are generally unencyclopedic and they are a net negative to the encyclopedia. FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a high error rate, and the inclusion of the list itself is questionable.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I regard lengthy lists as unencyclopedic, but that's probably a side-issue to the error rate, but if that's all they are here to contribute it does demonstrate why I believe they are a net negative, there are no positive contributions to mitigate the errors. Looking at the history of 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 123.20.107.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is clearly the current IP being used by MinhNhat2K3, and their response to the ANI notification is to attempt to get MinhNhat2K3's talk page deleted. FDW777 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So we have an editor who, while logged in and logged out, constantly adds unreferenced content with an unacceptably high error rate, and who apparently has no intention of replying here about this. I'd like to think something needs to be done about this? FDW777 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that these errors are problematic and that the edits by Special:Contribs/123.20.107.34 are probably the same user, has anyone...I dunno...talked to this editor about the issues? There's plenty here for a CIR block, but it's a bit hasty to file an AN/I report or block when there has been no attempt to engage with the editor (who is presumably acting in good, if misguided, faith). GeneralNotability (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Given their less than appropriate response to a warning and "retirement" when their IP was blocked for NFCC violations as well as an attempt to get their IP's talk page deleted, I figured it would probably be a waste of time to try and engage with them. This was probably proven to be correct given the response to this report was to try and get their talk page deleted and carrying on with the same problematic behaviour that I've identified. Look at the mainspace edits by the IP since this report

• Trying to get MinhNhat2K3's talk page deleted
• Unreferenced, and adding a flag with {{Who|date=August 2020}} next to it is bizarre, a delegate without a name?!
• Incorrect change, the reference says They came from 128 nations in every part of the world. This makes the change of figures on the second diff problematic
• Unreferenced
• Unreferenced and similar to the second diff, adding s South Korean flag with {{Who|date=August 2020Ll (sic) next to it is bizarre
• Fixing previous diff
• Unreferenced
• Unreferenced
• Unreferenced
• Unreferenced, and Guy Verhofstadt didn't become Prime Minister of Belgium until 12 July 1999, the funeral was on 8 February 1999. As for Carl Bildt being Swedish State minister, according to his article he didn't hold any ministerial position at the time. The only position he held at the time was leader of the opposition party, which isn't ministerial obviously
• Unreferenced, and unclear that Arnold Rüütel was a leader in 1999
• Unreferenced, and in fact absurd. It's adding the non-attendance of the president (and head of state) of France, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, then later on adding that the US was the only G7 country not to send their top leader when France is a member of the G7.

I don't care what action is taken, providing something is done. As it stands I'm simply going to take the most sensible option and remove any and all content they've added, since there's no guarantee any of it is correct. FDW777 (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The named editor MinhNhat2K3 just got themselves renamed to User:Vanished user 3057 on 15 August. The rename was done by User:Ontzak here. Since the editor was notified of this ANI on 12 August and have not responded, I think the next step is an indefinite block for that account. If they continue to use 123.20.107.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) then an IP block might be needed as well. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, my AGF has run out too. I've requested that their vanish be undone since they're continuing to edit anonymously, and after that I'll be blocking. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Vanishing undone, MinhNhat2K3 blocked for CIR, failure to communicate, and evasion of scrutiny, and the currently active IP has been blocked as well. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by Branstarx3

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

---

• Branstarx3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Branstarx2 has made legal threats, stating Article should be reported to higher Indian authorities at Talk:Violence against Muslims in India [30]. She doubled down on her talk page, asserting author of article has blindly ignored Official Notice and judgement of Supreme Court of India[31] — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be that the user is stating what they think should happen(with the first comment) and their opinion about what the Supreme Court in India has said(the second comment). Are they threatening to perform legal actions themselves? Though perhaps the chilling effect is enough. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Not nice, but not a threat per se.--Astral Leap (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Billhpike 331dot Sorry! I am reverting my edits to Talk:Violence against Muslims in India which as by u could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that i may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Which is not the fact actually, wrong allegations that i am giving legal-threat has been made upon me. Still, following wiki policy i am reverting my edits on talk page of article mentioned above, i am stepping back from issue Branstarx3 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat

While this individual ins't outright saying he wants to sue or will sue, the language he's using looks to be very close to this, by implication:

Likewise, saying I was terminated from two institutions is false - I was never terminated for cause, yet Luke and Wikipedia insist on promoting that libelous and defamatory falsehood made up by Dittrich. If you must insist on continuing to support the libelous and defamatory Esquire article, please just inform Wikipedia readers that it has also been very much disputed, and debunked, and include the reference to Robert Mays' work. Also, the link above for "WMF legal team" failed - please give me an actual link so I can talk with your attorneys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealexander3 (talk • contribs)

It's not like he wasn't ever warned about not making legal threats. He seems to be playing close to the edge here. I haven't said anything to him, and I will notify him about this posting ina moment. Just wanted to bring it to your attention! W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 14:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That is definitely not a legal threat. --JBL (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more - accusing Wikipedia of promoting libel and defamation then asking to talk to our attorneys creates a chilling effect and, especially considering his past behavior, gives every indication that he wants to take legal action. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 16:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill:, from the first para of WP:NLT: A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors. emphasis added I directed Alexander to the legal team because it is the correct potential legal redress a living person has when they feel they are being defamed. It is their job, in fact (or, at least, one of them). Ealexander3 should speak to them but he has not threatened other editors in any of their BLPN postings. I hope that helps clarify. Side note: since when are necromongers "chilled" by legal threats, anyway? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not their job. Any potential defamation, or anything else legally dubious, in a Wikipedia article is the legal responsibility of the editor making that edit, not the Foundation. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger:, please see the actual complaints. Alexander's complaint is not that the article defames him but that the article quotes some-one else who defames him. If Alexander wants a legal opinion on the inclusion of a properly-quoted rs, then he does indeed need to speak to WMF legal. He certainly won't get a definitive response from BLPN. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

And he certainly won't get a definitive response from the Foundation's legal team. Their job does not include handing out free legal advice to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asks them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That is not a legal threat. Those with a clue can read the request and see that the person makes several valid points, none of which included a legal threat. The discussion is here at BLPN, not at the link in the OP. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that technically qualifies as a sanctionable legal threat under WP:NLT, but the repeated use of "libelous and defamatory" certainly seems to be imputing the possibility of legal action, particularly in the manner it is invoked. At a minimum a firm warning should be given here, opening up the door for a block down the line for disruption if the user cannot find their way to making their (otherwise reasonably framed, from what I have seen here) requests without it. If nothing else, it is needless extraneous commentary (of a potentially intimidatory nature) if it is not presented in a fashion which assimilates a valid policy argument. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why "libelous" causes people to stop thinking. The editor is (apparently) the real-life subject of an article where (apparently) a real-life opponent has made certain remarks which can certainly be described as "libelous" in at least a colloquial sense. The editor very reasonably requests that if the attack is retained, could there be a note with an (apparent) contrary claim from a named source. The editor also wants a working link for the WMF legal team so (per AGF) they can explain the issue to them and possibly get a more clueful response. At no point does the editor suggest they are going to take legal action against anyone. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Please moderate your tone towards the more civil and pragmatic: suggesting that others disagreeing with your policy read is evidence that they are "not thinking" is both needlessly inflammatory and not in any way productive--and in fact just undermines your argument with rationalists by making it look like you feel the need to bootstrap it with ad hominems. Returning to the topic matter at hand, without getting into the weeds of that particular request and whether it is warranted as a matter of WP:WEIGHT (a topic that is best reserved for the talk page of the article itself), the request itself is probably perfectly reasonable, if the editors working on that TP agree that the sourcing for his position is acceptable in terms of WP:RS and weight.

However, his request is in no way augmented or improved by his peppering in those litigious buzzwords and meanwhile WKWWK's argument (that the repeated invocation of the phrase "libelous and defamatory" triggers the same concerns that underlay the existence of our NLT policy in the first place--namely that the editorial determinations of our volunteers should not be unduly influenced by the implication that they, or the project, are going to face legal fallout for their activities) would seem to have legs to me. Certainly the party in question did not pull those particular words out of thin air and their use in the quote above is pretty pointed--so using some formalistic argument to try to suggest these implications are fine so long as the person employing them does not use some particular syntactic construction not only defies the spirit of that important policy, if taken to extremes it would become the exception that swallows the rule. Which is precisely why WP:NLT includes the following provision which seems pretty on-point as to our scenario here:

It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention. To avoid misunderstandings, use less charged wording, such as "that statement about me is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected."

And no one is suggesting (well that I have seen anyway), that Ealexander3 has committed a violation that rises to the level of mandating an immediate block. Only that we should, in consistency with the policy wording above, advise them to use words that less imply that they are coming at this from the standpoint of potential litigation. Which I would argue their current wording of their displeasure absolutely does, whether they have types a specific statement in which a lawsuit is the grammatical subject and another user the grammatical object. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And don't think about the issue? Johnuniq (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Dav.tay427 reported by User:TheLionHasSeen

Hello Wikipedia Administration! Recently, the Greater Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, and List of Texas metropolitan areas articles have been subject to a series of seemingly unconstructive contributions by User:Dav.tay427. This fellow Wikipedian collaborator has constantly added onto the official names of the metropolitan statistical areas for Greater Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth, which are contrary to the names designated by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Their initial contribution for Greater Houston's article appears to have begun on the first of August; they determined the name of the metropolitan area was: "Houston–The Woodlands–Sugar Land-Galveston". On the sixth day, they also furthermore determined the name of Greater Houston by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget as: "Houston–The Woodlands–Sugar Land-Galveston-Texas City-Brazoria". In addition, text to the lead infobox's caption was added with no relevant imagery. On August 2, the same person has expanded upon the name for the DFW metroplex, insisting that it's name was "Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington-Plano-Irving". They also changed the Greater Houston name in the List of Texas metropolitan areas to Houston-Galveston, which it is not. I reverted those contributions and left a disclaimer on their talk page. Today, I reverted their contributions again as they seem to continue allegedly insisting that they are more notable than the governmental agency which provides the name for such metropolitan regions within the United States. I allege edit warring and a disregard for notability, and I desire for the team to look into this issue as soon as humanly possible. Thank you. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dav.tay427: has begun their actions again. I reverted their edits. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Dav.tay427 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also been making changes with no WP:ESses in articles about roads in Texas. This is a subject in which I have little verging on zero interest, but am slightly familiar with in general because {{TXint}} and {{jct}} and the like are fruitful sources of DABlink errors which are tricky to fix the first few times you come across them, and US road articles seem rarely to be watched. Narky Blert (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I surely hope for intervention soon. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I left the user a note. Please start a section at Talk:Greater Houston with a brief explanation of why the proposed edits are not correct. Ping me if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. @Johnuniq: it does seem however that they desire to continue their actions again. They forgo any notion of conversation. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen: I blocked for 48 hours. Let me know if problems persist after that. However, when I asked for an explanation on article talk, I was thinking of something much more inviting than Talk:Greater Houston#Reverting Dav.tay427's contributions. We must assume good faith and focus article talk page discussions on content, not contributors. Next time, please say nothing about other editors and restrict the brief comment to why you made your edit. That section is not a place to release frustration—apart from anything else, the explanation is important for third parties trying to assess the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: thank you for your timely response. I apologize for my demeanor with the discussion; thank you for the extended grace in understanding the matter at hand. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: immediately after being unblocked, they have performed the same reverts again without discussion. Personally, I am now quite annoyed. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Persistent accusations of bad faith/personal attacks

Meethamonkey replaced a significant amount of content from Bharatpur State, stating in their edit summary to not "post hear-say purposely to propogate higher castes narratives", that it was a "completely a racist attitude" and to do so is to "vandalise".[32] I reverted their edit and posted a general note regarding censorship on their talk page.[33][34] Meethamonkey gave a response in which they stated "that the changes you are making are malicious in nature".[35]

I gave another general note, this time regarding the assumption of good faith,[36] and then clarified this guideline when it became clear they misunderstood it.[37] However, Meethamonkey once more became aggressive in tone, stating that "your repeated attempts to edit this page, despite various people telling you of the false nature of your edits, clearly suggest malice , Also hypocrisy since by removing my and other edits that are factually accurate or remedial in nature , you are showing bad faith to everyone".[38] (Note that the mentioned "various people" were sockpuppets which have since been blocked.

I finally gave a warning regarding their persistent assumption of bad faith,[39] following which they ordered me to "stop you intimidation" and that I was "not fooling anyone".[40]

Meethamonkey clearly has some very strong feelings regarding the content in question, but I do not know how I can be expected to have any meaningful discussion with them about it when they make such serious accusations and insults against me.
Alivardi (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• Alivardi, I would suggest that you respond to the thread that Meethamonkey started on the talkpage of the article, and ping him so that he will know that you are replying to him. You have not made a single edit to Talk:Bharatpur State. Keep all discussion of content on articletalk, and don't get into matters of behavior. This is a new editor, and your posts on their usertalk are probably not doing any good. Please return to the articletalk and hash out your differences using reliable-source citations rather than personal beliefs or preferences. Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I do not believe it is possible to have any meaningful discussion with this user at present. For reasons unknown to me, they were certain from their very first response that I had some personal belief or poor intentions which motivated my edits, for which they have hectored me ever since. This has continued even with their reply to my noticeboard discussion notice.[41] With such certainty in my bad faith, I do not think this user will take anything I say seriously.

I want to make clear that I am not here with the intention of having them blocked indefinitely. I was hoping that having an uninvolved figure make them aware of the unacceptability of treating another editor in such a demeaning and derisive manner would lead to some improvement in their behaviour and allow for progress in the discussion. That making unsubstantiated claims of "racist" and "malice" is not the way to achieve consensus.
Alivardi (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you personally believe about the editor; you are required to AGF and to seek consensus, and use reliable independent citations to back up your assertions, on the talkpage of the article. You have yet to do that, so as the more experienced editor you are in the wrong. Please ignore behavior and focus on content and citations. Reacting to behavior rather than content, and going to usertalk instead of articletalk, is what has gotten you into this mess. I have shown you how to get out of it. Stay off of usertalk, and stick only to articletalk. Do not mention other editors. Mention only facts and citations. Softlavender (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I will do as you suggest, but I believe you are mistaken in your assessment of me and of the situation. I believe that turning the other cheek in such bullying behaviour serves only to enable it. I will try my utmost to achieve an agreeable consensus, but I have strong concerns that it will not result in the amicable conclusion you are envisaging.
Alivardi (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Meethamonkey's concern is partially correct as the details contested by them are based on cherry-picking from the source. But at the same time, they are heading toward a block due to their disruptive behaviour. I now have a copy of the relevant pages of the source (of Dr. Ram Pande) and will add the relevant content tomorrow after leaving a note on the article's talk page. So, hopefully, they will stop edit warring over it.

Alivardi actually tried to fix the content, but I guess they don't have access to the source. So they were able to fix it only partially. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why this is an ANI-discussion, to be honest. We're talking about a rather typical vandal here. Just block and move on. Jeppiz (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Tbf, I did actually make a report here first, but it didn't get any traction.
Alivardi (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

User:TCGKemalReis trolling at Greek frigate Limnos

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

---

WP:SPA (as is evident from the username) targeting the Greek frigate Limnos article, trying to insert the thoroughly refuted rumour put about by Turkish media on its fate, removing neutral language in the article ("southeast of the Greek island of Kastellorizo") to one explicitly adopting a Turkish POV ("in Turkish EEZ"), and engaging in deliberate falsification of text against what is shown in the cited sources ("On the following day, the Hellenic Ministry of National Defence released a date stamped photograph" -> "photographies of the heavily bow damaged HS Limnos were released. However, undated and unconfirmed images"; if you follow the link in the reference, you can see how 'damaged' the ship was and how 'unconfirmed' images these are). Constantine ✍ 10:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As evident from his greek origins (See: Nationality - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cplakidas), despite several amicable requests to stop censoring contents (Within minutes) in accordance with the Terms of Use of Wikipedia, the above user (ie Cplakidas) Severally deleted and added false content; both harassing me (Article 4 of the ToU, constant threat and spams Trying to impose his own assumptions) but also clearly breached and abused Neutrality rules vandalizing any neutral tries to add Sourced content on an article on Wikipedia. Denying any content as “not true if not in line with his own personal view” is far from being acceptable and either far from being ethical. Considering his point of view as the sole and only possible truth, planting greek Social media unfounded information and even more propaganda is not in line with Wikipedia’s rules. Considering himself as the sole preacher and using Wikipedia as his one tribune to provide disinformation and unconfirmed datas (Such as I quote “According to unnamed “Greek Defense source”) which are not sources and references per se, lead to modeling of unilateral and false information; Which is not The purpose of the Wikipedia Project.

For the sake of clarification user Cplakidas considers that in the article the mention of ("southeast of the Greek island of Kastellorizo") is not adopting the Greek POV (where international Maritime Laws considers the same region as Turkish EEZ; and accuses me of non neutrality...)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TCGKemalReis (talk • contribs) 10:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC) 

I have blocked TCGKemalReis from editing the Greek frigate Limnos page for a week. That should allow enough time for things to cool down. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Cplakidas Targeted Censorship, Abuse, Harassement. False Reporting. Attempt to push and impose POV

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

---

WP:DR under the article “Greek frigate Limnos” as a Wikipedia User I tried to add neutral content to show both perspectives of a same incident. However, the User Cplakidas without any proper and acceptable reason choose to moderate and censor any attempt.

As evident from his greek origins (the choice of my username being a free will unless Cplakidas considerate it as a mistake by his ill-minded self attributed functions on Wikipedia), despite several amicable requests to stop censoring contents (Within minutes) in accordance with the Terms of Use of Wikipedia, the above user (ie Cplakidas) Severally deleted and added false content; both harassing me (Article 4 of the ToU, constant threat and spams Trying to impose his own assumptions) but also clearly breached and abused Neutrality rules vandalizing any neutral tries to add Sourced content on an article on Wikipedia. Denying any content as “not true if not in line with his own personal view” is far from being acceptable and either far from being ethical. Considering his point of view as the sole and only possible truth, planting greek Social media unfounded information and even more propaganda is not in line with Wikipedia’s rules. Considering himself as the sole preacher and using Wikipedia as his one tribune to provide disinformation and unconfirmed datas (Such as I quote “According to unnamed “Greek Defense source”) which are not sources and references per se and moreover refuting any source and/or content in convenience for his view, lead to the modeling of an unilateral and false information dictée article; which is not The purpose of the Wikipedia Project.

Reference is made to The main source I quoted but Yet refuted by Cplakidas is a Greek press coupure where I quote “ Erdogan’s statements were interpreted by local analysts as a bid to fan unconfirmed allegations in Turkish media that the Hellenic Navy frigate Limnos suffered damage after colliding with a Turkish vessel.”. (See: https://www.ekathimerini.com/255834/article/ekathimerini/news/erdogan-says-greece-attacked-oruc-reis-got-their-first-answer-today) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCGKemalReis (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Editor repeatedly doing pointless edits

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

---

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

This editor keeps pointlessly adding unnecessary spaces to the same articles. Look at this article's history for example. Every few days he cycles around and adds new ones, clogging up watchlists. He's been warned on his talk page multiple times, but he keeps doing it and won't communicate. Very odd and he may be trying to get extended-confirmed. It's disruptuve in any case. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 month ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've gotta say, the pages he's interested in are kind of weird, too. And they're the same one each time. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 18:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

And is notably single-minded. (I never got to the end of Lolita, I found Humbert Humbert repellent.) Also, some other of their recent edits, like this one, might be described as "unnecessary". Narky Blert (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate indefinitely blocked him for sockpuppetry. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent Disruptive Editing

Resolved

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

Recently, @JurassicGodzilla: has been adding content that is unsourced and in violation of WP:BALL, (1, 2). I have left three warnings at their talk page so far, even offering links to WP:OR, WP:FAN, and WP:RS for them to study but the user has remained unresponsive and continues to restore the same disruptive content, (1, 2, 3). The user has even been blocked for 31 hours due to these disruptive edits, (1). I've also taken the issue to SPI (1) due to JurassicGodzilla's recent edits being strikingly similar to the recent edits of User talk:84.203.70.13 (1, 2, 3), and User talk:84.203.69.48 (1, 2, 3, 4). However, the clerk I was assigned declined to user-check the IP's and closed the case without determining if the suspected users were related or not. The pattern with the IP's were similar with JurassicGodzilla: they were warned on their talk pages (without responding), continued restoring the same disruptive content despite warnings, and blocked repeatedly. They've also been adding images without licenses recently (1, 2). Armegon (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked JurassicGodzilla for 2 weeks. Next block could be indefinite. Materialscientist (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki censorship of referenced information, edit-warring, and potential sock-puppetry by User:Ibrahim.ID

 Request withdrawn I withdraw my request.--69.202.137.27 (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)}}

User:Ibrahim.ID has been edit-warring and repeatedly removing sourced content from the Arabic Wikipedia article. The content contains criticism of the Arabic Wikipedia for deleting the article of Sarah Hegazi, an LGBT rights activist. Two sources are cited for the content: one of them a BBC article.

Ibrahim.ID was the main Arabic Wikipedia admin who proposed and campaigned to get the article deleted. Now he wants to censor the criticism of that deletion. See this comment of User:Boredintheevening on the talk page of Sarah Hegazi article, where Ibrahim.ID attempted to censor the content too.--69.202.137.27 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

To me, this does seem to have the hallmarks of a classic WP:CENSOR case. Despite removing the sourced content and creating the disruption, Ibrahim.ID tried to request protection for Arabic Wikipedia ([42]) and Sarah Hegazi ([43]). Both of these were declined because they were obviously content disputes ([44], [45]). But, to me, the most telling parts of this are:

• On Talk:Sarah Hegazi, he says that the content he's tried to remove would "lead to discredit our project", and
• In the RFPP for the Arabic Wikipedia article, he stated that the content being added was "libel".

I'm concerned that he seems to worry more about the optics of the Arabic Wikipedia rather than what the sources say, because he's the one who opened pandora's box there in the first place. Given that, and his status at arwiki, I would almost interpret the libel insinuation as a legal threat.

You didn't provide evidence of sockpuppetry, but I did find that 197.34.173.209 and 129.12.115.110 had tried to make the same edits as him. However I'm not sure if this would be sufficient evidence to start an SPI (2 total edits, 2 months apart). —{CrypticCanadian} 08:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

before talking about the person who edit and (WP:COI), is that content are acceptable and didn't against Wikipedia policies? is that content meets WP:NPOV, WP:CRIT, WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NOTSCANDAL? Is that acceptable to accusing the whole project's volunteers that they are Homophobic, hate-speech and "controlled by extremist supervisors"! is that criticism or attacking? also all information in BBC link doesn't contain nor confirm this allegations and that obviously a Wikipedia:Fictitious references and anyone who speak Arabic will confirm that (@Meno25:), using refs that doesn't make it (referenced information) because this information is misleading and one-side allegations and personal opinions from the user who add that and totally against NPOV.

Second: this isn't WP:CENSOR case, the user who add this paragraph in 8 Jul 2020 and I remove it in 10 Aug 2020 and write the reasons in edit summary, if I want to censorship why I don't remove it immediately? also, the IP user remove my edit and insult and attacking me personally (please check) and that clearly a "bad faith edit" and threaten me in my talk page, he also never asks to discuss anything, so, Who is currently doing censorship ?

third: I tried to edit both articles and request page protection but that doesn't make me "the bad guy", I just a user who tried to remove content against Wikipedia's policies and I think we should discuss that before assuming anything or accusing anyone as abuser.

finally, I use my real and only account, I volunteering in Wikipedia since 2009 and never blocked or involved in sock-puppetry before and any checkuser can confirm that, meanwhile the user who accusing me use his IP instead his real account!! If I have any bad faith attentions I don't use my account from the beginning, and in Talk:Sarah Hegazi when "User:Boredintheevening" and "User:I.Elgamal" told me that I'm too close to article and that make concerns I respect that and I don't make any edits since then. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Unresponsive, incorrigible editor Examplar and Michigan IPs

We have an editor who has been using Michigan IPs and the username Examplar for ten years, with thousands of edits in total. The person has been warned dozens of times for problematic editing, and has never once responded. The style of this person is to add unreferenced detail to articles, very often irrelevant, often poorly written, sometimes non-neutral.

• Examplar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2601:404:CF00:9B70:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

It's always difficult discussing an editor who crosses over into WP:CIR areas, and this case is no different. Sometimes this person makes decent edits, but many times they are reverted as irrelevant, or unreferenced, or poorly written. I'm sure we all can agree that communication with others is one way to help an editor grow into their proper niche on Wikipedia. Examplar has never responded to a comment from another person on Wikipedia. Examplar has edited their talk page twice, merely to make tiny changes to code.[46] The Michigan range Special:Contributions/2601:404:CF00:5750:0:0:0:0/64 has not made a talk page at all. The Michigan range Special:Contributions/2601:404:CF00:9B70:0:0:0:0/64 has not made a talk page edit unless you count this outlier edit request which was denied.[47] There was one time that Examplar reached out to me in 2014, with a baffling note,[48] but there was no follow up.

One persistent problem article is Pope John Paul II (miniseries) which has been the target of Examplar and Michigan IPs since 2010 when Michigan IP 68.62.5.67 added some details. The main problem in that article is that there are no references at all, and no description of the making of the miniseries, or its reception, which makes the large plot section overbalance the article. I have reverted our Michigan/Examplar friend about 40 times at that article. In 2012, Michigan IPs 68.62.104.173 and 69.87.144.216 added tons of plot detail to the article, effectively making it a WP:POVFORK of the actual biography of Pope John Paul II. The accumulation of detail continued through 2013. In December 2013, the Examplar user account was registered, but the IPs continued to add detail through 2014 despite multiple warnings from me. (Sometimes these IPs made a talk page entry, for instance this and this, both of which may be other people using a dynamic IP.) In May 2014, I had been reverting the Michigan IPs pretty regularly, and then Examplar came in to make the same edits.[49][50]

Examplar created the article Survival_of_Dana (no sources), A Friendship in Vienna (one source added by someone else), The Littlest Victims (a few refs added by someone else), Of Pure Blood (unreferenced) and Final Jeopardy (1985 film) (a few references added by others.) Examplar has been asked to cite sources but never responds or improves.

Recently, JNW and Larry Hockett have been reverting Examplar's very poor additions to Los Angeles political history, including the articles about Mayor Sam Yorty, Mayor Tom Bradley (American politician), and Los Angeles. New York Mayor Ed Koch got the same treatment from Michigan IPs and Examplar, which was the addition of irrelevant details unconnected or peripherally connected to the topic – alway unreferenced. Examplar was reverted in every case. I could go on and on with this editor, adding more diffs of poor contributions combined with a virtually complete lack of communication. Instead, I invite comments from others about what can and should be done here. Binksternet (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Give him time to respond to this thread but if he resumes editing without response then a short block per WP:ENGAGE would be appropriate. I'm imaging that he just ignores that purple notice indicating that he has messages.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• • The ambient hum of persistent incompetence that degrades the project. Binksternet beat me to the punch; I was going to report this today, but my entry would have been far more terse, having just come across this editor and some of their IPs. An ocean of unsourced and off topic original research, often poorly written. Recent history as an IP at Richard Riordan is standard: edit warring to include banal and irrelevant content, much the same as I reverted at Sam Yorty, Tom Bradley (American politician), Los Angeles, Abraham Beame and Ed Koch. The registered account could have been indeffed years ago, with consideration given to rangeblocks of Grand Rapids IPs. JNW (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Seems to have ignored notices so blocked for 48 hours. Hopefully, he starts communicating.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Berean Hunter, I saw that, and was about to comment here. Thank you, and keep a eye open for Michigan IPs. JNW (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I am having similar problems with two Michagan IPs, as described here. Possibly the same guy? If so, I propose a range block. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's the same person. Your person is from Portage, Michigan, which is a 15-minute drive from Kalamazoo, the location of the topic you are fighting about. Grand Rapids is where my person is from, which is about three times farther from Kalamazoo in the opposite direction. The simplest assumption would be that your person is involved with the topic, which is why they keep fighting you on it. Binksternet (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Repeated vandalized edits

Rf4fr4WE3412 (talk · contribs) repeatedly change the image using hyundai car photo on infobox of Incheon International Airport Terminal 1 station at Incheon International Airport Terminal 2 station.

This users Rf4fr4WE3412 (talk · contribs), Sd0049734 (talk · contribs), 175.118.193.119 (talk · contribs), Rfefr4r4f (talk · contribs) are the same guy! Remember that he also did on the ITX-Saemaeul as Sd0049734 (talk · contribs). AJP426 (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Edits reverted and user blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

This bot removed my edit on Dr. Steven Gundry's article referring to him as a pseudoscientist and entrepreneur, both of which are easily verifiable, well founded assertions. It did so on the grounds that such assertions are defamatory, however, this is false; such assertions are in line with widespread reasonable opinion about him shared amongst informed individuals lacking personal conflicts of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardig (talk • contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a page somewhere that tells people to start these threads here with that title? If so, we should consider removing it. As far as I know, the bot has never actually gone haywire, and every revert the bot makes includes a link for reporting false positives. Anyway, the problem here is obviously your choice of words – anything with the prefix of "pseudo-" is likely to trigger Cluebot. Also, I don't know why you're adding that. The whole pseudoscience thing is already addressed in the lead, and "pseudoscientist" is not a career. If someone has had their professional accreditation revoked, we can document that. See, for example, Andrew Wakefield. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, on User:ClueBot NG, right under the shut-off button: Non-administrators can report a malfunctioning bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It includes a link to start a new thread here. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, it's ultimately coming from {{Emergency-bot-shutoff}}, which preloads this header. Funny how these threads only appear about Cluebot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Believe it or not, he has absolutely made a career out of being a pseudoscientist. He is constantly engaging the public and promoting his pseudoscientific theories in order to scare and manipulate people who don't know any better into buying his special magic pills despite condemnation from the scientific community. What is sad is that he was once a perfectly legitimate, well respected physician, but somewhere along the way he went haywire and turned into a con artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stardig (talk • contribs) 18:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Prior to ClueBot reverting your edit, Materialscientist had also reverted your addition of the same material. So rather than complain that a bot is malfunctioning perhaps it would be better to consider why a human editor disagreed with your edit and discuss it rather than simply re-entering the content. Nthep (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

(Next header: User:Materialscientist is malfunctioning...) --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Riku maina and WP:NOTHERE (again)

I reported this user less than a couple of weeks ago for editing with no obvious intent of collaborating with other editors. They refuse to engage in a dialogue about their edits, simply returning every so often to restore various articles related to Manchester United F.C. players to their preferred version. Attempts have been made to communicate with them, but their limited responses have been tantamount to accusations against other editors and questioning our motives. In the absence of any legitimate attempt to collaborate on this project, surely it's about time this user was blocked from editing? – PeeJay 15:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

They're still doing it and no one here seems to give a shit. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? If so, please let me know so I can put my effort towards more productive ways of removing that parasite from Wikipedia. – PeeJay 05:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding links to make it easier to look up their Talk page and contributions: Riku maina (talk · contribs). Clicking on the Manchester United article didn't get me anywhere… :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, adding "diffs" will enable people to see the specific problems you have noted.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive and entirely non-communicative user

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

Hello, I've been recently needing to fix plenty of quotations over at All That (season 11) because user Robert Moore continues to entirely disregard MOS:CURLY, even after multiple warnings on the user's talk page. However, as of their latest editing to the page, they continue to do the exact same thing and go against MOS.

However, as the header of this suggests, this user is entirely non-communicative as well. They've been editing since 2005, and since they've begun editing, it seems they have never decided to user edit summaries a single time, even 15 years later. Even after a previous ANI report in 2010 and 2 week block for this exact behavior, it seems like nothing has been learned from that block 10 years later. They've even stated then that they know their editing was disruptive there, and yet continues it to this day. It seems like the only time they use an edit summary is from when they create a new page (Ex: "Created page with '{{Infobox television | name = Kung Fu | image = | caption = | genre = {{Plainlist| * Action (genre...'")- and yet, it's even noted that they are automatic. The only times they've ever actually edited their talk page was removing old discussions in August 2015, and replying to the previous ANI notice on their talk in late October/early November 2010- everything else has not been responded to or acknowledged whatsoever.

Even just taking a look at the current state of the talk page, you can just search "edit summary" and you'll see multiple things over the years asking to use edit summaries, which has obviously not been heeded. (I'd honestly love to see what this bot would say now in regards to the percentages...) Hope this can be resolved, thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Magitroopa, for numbers like the bot would give you, see the xtools page. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Sadly, even more telling about how non-communicative they really are... Magitroopa (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The user has not written a message in the Talk or Wikipedia namespaces since 2016,^{[51] [52]} and has not edited any User Talk page since 2015.^[53] Their response to the last block was "error in judgement", "unfairly blocked", "uncalled for". The ANI thread that led to the 2-week block by MuZemike can be found at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#User:Robert_Moore.
I have now added a stern request to join the discussion or at least to listen to other users' complaints to their talk page. Let's see what happens in the next 48 hours or so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) MOS:CURLY and MOS:' are there for a reason. As anyone who has come across a failed WP:ITALICS link like ’'Game of Thrones and all possible variants knows. (Italicisation error deliberate.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 Delhi riots

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

---

• Alpha2211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has (over at Talk:2020 Delhi riots ) made a number of allegations of misconduct (their latest being [[54]] accusing users of being paid editors, refusing to accept sources they disagree with, of conspiring to hide "the truth", violations of wp:blp and wp:crime, All (pretty much) in the one post. They even seem to acknowledge ("Block me if you want") they they know they are beaching policy (they have been warned already [[55]]. They appear to be a wp:spa who is here to right great wrongs and push a POV.Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Daveout

Sorry if this is a long one, a lot has happened here. About two weeks ago I visited the Richard Stallman article and was disturbed to find the page in an incredibly biased state that actively took the side of the subject of the article, argued in his support, and used unreliable sources to do so (e.g. random YouTube videos and bloggers). I searched through the history of the page and found that over the course of a couple months a few editors had dismantled a previously neutral article and reframed it in support of their preferred narrative. I found what I thought was the last "good" version prior to this act and restored it, at which point Daveout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began reverting my edits and demanding I "reach consensus" before reverting the page. Frankly I think anyone who views the first diff linked above will understand the gravity of the situation and why I was unwilling to do that - among other things, the article included a lengthy parenthetical supporting Stallman's argument that the phrase "sexual assault" is misleading, and a thankfully hidden section asserting that the accusations were the result of a takedown orchestrated by Bill Gates. I wish I were joking. More importantly, though, I have found examples of the editor in question expressing their personal opinion on the topic in a way that makes it quite clear what their motivations are for editing this page in this way. For instance, in the NPOV discussion here Daveout expresses his belief that Stallman was a victim of so-called cancel culture and that the sources quoted in the unbiased version of the page were simply "cancellers" trying to make Stallman look like "Satan." Again, I wish I were joking.

After it became clear that Daveout was only going to continue reverting my edits I opened a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, where Masem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)] quickly agreed and rewrote the section from a much more neutral perspective. After Daveout continued to revert the page, it was locked for a week by El C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After that lock expired Daveout instantly resumed reverting the page. I tried to discuss this with him on the article's talk page but he was insistent in his refusal to do so and argued that he has consensus to revert to his version of the page because he had somehow counted three editors in support and two against, even though consensus is not simple majority rule. Daveout was then banned from editing the article for a month, while continuing to demand on the talk page that I revert the page to his preferred version. After those demands failed he then opened a DRN discussion, which was initially fine, but after I commented explaining the above context he commented adding the irrelevant detail that I had previously been blocked for edit warring, which was the second time he had needlessly referenced that incident (for the record the sockpuppet account/attack he mentions was not me, but was someone impersonating me, but I digress).

Personally I think enough has happened here to request that Daveout receive a topic ban from editing the Richard Stallman article and a one-way IBAN from interacting with me. Lazer-kitty (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Your framing of this situation is unbelievably misleading (but not unlikely of you, unfortunately). I reverted your revision because of BLP concerns. That version categorically stated that Stallman tried to “rationalize” “sexual assault”, a claim that wasn’t supported by any source. Only afterwards, another editor called my attention to problems in the version that I had restored, I promptly agreed with them after investigating it further, I responded: You are correct: those sources are unacceptable for BLP and they have been removed. and That's an obviously improper hidden note. After fixing all the problems that I had encountered, one uninvolved editor said that both my version and Masem's seem[ed] to report the events without taking a stance on Stallman's behaviour. And Lazer-kitty agreed, saying the most recent version Daveout is pushing is a significant improvement over where this page was a week or so ago. I was just trying to be cautious bc your reversion involved a BLP. A perceived bias isn't as grave and urgent as potentially slanderous and unsourced content. If anything, you should be the one topic-banned for carelessly including unsourced claims in BLP's. \\ Now, it wasn't me who tagged User:Zestkick as your block-evasion puppet, It was an adm called User:Ymblanter, so you should resolve it with them or at WP:CheckUser. \\ I agree with a TWO-WAY IBAN and please refrain from involving me in your senseless customary drama. -- Daveout ^(talk) 22:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Dave, I agree that the use of the word 'rationalization' in Wikipedia's voice makes for less than perfect encyclopedic tone in that one sentence, but looking at the over-all differences in the article between the two versions presented in the diff Lazer-kitty has provided above makes it abundantly and immediately clear which is more problematic under our policies, and it isn't the one LK restored. Without having looked at the exact timetable of reverts as yet, I am hesitant to rule out the possibility that both of you were less prudent than you should have been with raw reverts instead of making more tailored corrections, but the version you restored is pretty heavy with an editorializing tone that frankly veers deep into WP:original research regarding the exact definitions of sexual abuse in away that was never going to stand and with regard to which LK did not err in moving to immediately rectify.

Likewise, the considerations of BLP do not just apply as to the subject of a given article, and the edit which you restored also includes invocation of a wall-eyed conspiracy theory regarding the implication that the subject of the article was only coming in for criticism over their controversial statements on child sexual abuse because Bill Gates was orchestrating some sort of covert social media campaign against them...again, something that needed immediate remedy and which is a vastly more problematic BLP concern than the less-than-ideal wording of that one sentence pertaining to Stallman himself, to which you objected. Comparing the issues between these two versions, there's no question which reversion was more problematic. Now you say that you didn't realize that the reversion you made restoring that much greater volume of much more problematic content contained said issues, but (putting aside that I'm not certain from your wording just which parts of the content you recognize for being problematic), there's also the fact that you should have reviewed the edit in full before reverting it.

I'm not going to get deeper into commenting on who is more at fault in the manner in which tensions seem to have escalated between you and LK from the point of that reversion until I have had a chance to dig into the details of the continuity of edits and other conduct, but I will say that you don't seem to have fully internalized our WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR principles yet in some regards. Which is understandable--you are apparently quite new to the project. But until you do get a sense of what constitutes a neutral approach to contentious issues, you are going to want to be a little less liberal with the revert button--especially if you are going to be participating in areas as innately controversial as that particular section of that particular article. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support for a longer-term PAGEBAN for Daveout as regards Richard Stallman. Having now had a chance to give a cursory review of four separate relevant discussions (NPOV/N thread, user TP after administrative block, article talk page thread, and DRN discussion), I am seeing a lot of WP:IDHT from this user, despite the fact that two separate admins have approached them with what might be fairly described as a kids' gloves approach regarding their application of NPOV in regard to the article in question, attempting to walk Daveout through the policy considerations that make some of their edits/editorial positions problematic. El Cid has already imposed such a ban as a temporary measure, but considering Dave's comments since, I am not hopeful their approach will be suitably restrained when they return to work on that article, and I think a longer term solution is probably in order.

If others feel the relatively short length of the disruption to date means we should mitigate the length of the pageban down to six months or so (as opposed to the more typical 'indefinite until repealed') so as to give Daveout a chance to better assimilate our NPOV standards before returning to this topic, I may be able to support that as well. Though if I am blunt, some of the behaviour and IDHT to date make me wonder if things might go in the other direction and ultimately militate a CIR ban--but hopefully Dave will prove me wrong if given a little WP:ROPE and some community guidance.

As to Lazer-kitty's conduct, there's a place or two where they probably could have responded in a less bombastic way--I certainly wouldn't describe their involvement as dispassionate or de-escalatory--but I do not think it really raises to the level of requiring scrutiny (not that anyone has suggested a WP:BOOMERANG here to begin with, but Dave did make counter-accusations above and I thought it would not hurt to cover the conduct of both parties). Snow ^{let's rap} 01:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't even bother blocking me, I wasn't intending to edit that page anymore. And specially now, after such a negative judgement. Apparently there's no #AGF for me. Now I am being accused of disruptive editing and "Failure or refusal to get the point". I acknowledge that I didn't handle things the best possible way, but have you seen what I was dealing with? I repeatedly asked LK what was wrong with the article and they responded with "you know what you are doing!" and edit warring. (for some reason, my behavior is outright considered disruptive, but LK's constant edit-warring, personal insults and refusal to collaborate are described as a "passionate" conduct). WP:IDHT says we should respect consensuses, but there's NO CONSENSUS about that page yet, so I thought that a version that better resembled the status quo version (with all of it's grave flaws removed, of course) should be in place in the meantime, that's what I tried to do, and that's why I'm partially blocked. I misunderstood El_C's instructions, I didn't know I could open a #DRN when there was an ongoing discussion at #NPOVN. #DRN forbids simultaneous discussions in different forums regarding the same topic. But ok... Apparently I am supposed to know everything. I'll never try to remove slanderous and unsourced claims from BLPs again, dont worry -- Daveout ^(talk) 02:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Dave, to clarify a few things:

• I do AGF as to your intentions here, as I believe your response was motivated to make changes that you view as an improvement to the article;
• No one in the discussion thus far is contemplating a block at tt this time (a block is an action that would remove your editing privileges in their entirety for a time)--what has been suggested as a WP:PBAN which would forbid you to edit that one article, and it would require more people than just myself to put into effect as it is a type of community sanction. And for that matter, not even I am 100% irreversibly set on my endorsement of it;
• I do not think this contest of wills between you two was entirely a one-way street--in fact, I think it's fair to say you both missed opportunities de-escalate here, instead choosing to trade barbs.

But all of that said, I do think it is a good idea if you take a break from the article, whether required to by any ultimate result of this discussion or as a voluntary matter. It appears you have very strong feelings about the topic of "cancel culture" and it is often the subjects that we feel most passionate about that we have to be most careful about getting involved with. Sometimes this paradoxically means limiting our engagement with topics which we are knowledgeable about or heavily motivated to contribute to, at least at first until one has so internalized the project's standards that we can intuitively apply them even when they in some ways run counter to our intuitive impressions on a topic. It may even be the case that the edit you are presently endorsing would be an improvement to the article. But at the point where an admin has had to step in and restrict your activity, you are not headed in the right direction (either in terms of improving the article or your standing in your new community here) and it's better to just focus your energies elsewhere for a time. It's a wide project and I see you have other interests, so I would encourage you to embrace the impulse you voiced immediately above and avoid the article for the present time, if only for your own peace of mind and so we do not lose you to frustration burn-out almost as soon as you have joined the project. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Personal attacks at MediaWiki talk:Common.css

In a discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css #CSS to left align the text in the first column of a table, Timeshifter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is tendentiously arguing to add multiple new classes to MediaWiki:Common.css. As that page provides global styling everywhere on Wikipedia, it is delivered by the server on every page request. It is a particularly sensitive page and therefore it may only be edited by interface-admins, and changes are logged at Wikipedia:Catalogue of CSS classes. Adding new classes requires a strong consensus, and efforts have been made in recent times to reduce the size of the page delivered by transferring many of the older classes to local template styles.

In that thread, Timeshifter has had this explained to him by TheDJ [56], Jackmcbarn [57] and myself [58][59], but insists on repeating their demands for a new global style, without any support from any other editor, and any other solutions suggested are rejected with spurious reasoning. I have offered to show him how to use TemplateStyles to achieve his goals, and I've even written a modified version of Magnus Manske's tab2wiki that adds the necessary scopes [60], after he complained that he had no automated tools that added column and row scopes.

None of this has been enough for him and he has now become so frustrated that he has resorted to personal attacks:

• "RexsS. You obviously are clueless about tables ... You'll catch on once you start paying attention instead of pounding your chest ... Obviously because you are all talk." (I had actually already given him an example where I demonstrated how to right-align all numbers in a table.)
• "You and Justin show your unbelievable cluelessness about the visually impaired in the discussion on his talk page. (his emphasis)

After I asked him on his talk page to remove his personal attacks , his response was to change "unbelievable cluelessness" to "ignorance", which I find just as offensive.

After Johnuniq asked him to "drop the emotion"[61], he doubled down buy accusing Johnuniq of "gender-normative bias"[62]. Writ Keeper has objected to that [63], without any response.

I do not think that Timeshifter's behaviour is acceptable on Wikipedia and I would like to see administrative action taken to prevent further problems. --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute. From what I can tell they struck and apologized for the clueless comment as well.[64] While not ideal changing it to ignorance, certainly less of a personal attack at that point. This seems to have jumped the gun. PackMecEng (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, I think this is more than a content dispute. I see three very problematic edits and so far Timeshifter has made a half-hearted attempt to improve one of them. The worst diff came after Timeshifter was asked to please "drop the emotion" and responding by accusing the other editor of "railing against emotion" and undercutting the WMF's efforts to recruit more female editors. That's just ridiculous. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have to say I do not take it well when someone claims I am just being emotional. In this day and age it is probably wise to not make that claim. PackMecEng (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  I wouldn't like it either, but I really don't think it's reasonable or appropriate to bring up sexist stereotypes, especially in this context. One male editor mildly rebuked another male editor for being emotional. It had nothing to do with gender. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• The content dispute is one thing, but Timeshifter has personalized this dispute way more (and more quickly) than was necessary. I would've said that bringing this to ANI is a bit--a bit--premature, but now that it's here, I think it's worth addressing, even if it's just issuing a warning. The "unbelievable cluelessness" is not great and only slightly mitigated by his later change to "ignorance". I have to reiterate that the talking about gender-normative bias with regards to Johniunq completely correctly telling him to leave emotion at the door--I guess referring to an emotional-woman gender stereotype--is gross. I don't think a block or anything like that is necessary yet, but this does need to stop. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• I have warned Timeshifter. Bishonen | tålk 08:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Though I disagree with much of it, I greatly appreciate your specificity. There is a previous history of RexxS lack of cooperation or understanding on his part in our discussions on various talk pages. I will avoid future discussions with him. Here is Bishonen's warning from my talk page:

August 2020: a warning. Timeshifter, you are being extremely rude and uncollaborative towards RexxS here ("You obviously are clueless about tables... You'll catch on once you start paying attention instead of pounding your chest... you are all talk. ... stop wasting our time trying to hijack this thread") as well as here. Your extraordinary reply to Johnuniq[65] (invoking gender stereotypes, of all things), whose calm, brief, reasonable comment you characterize as "railing" and "unbecoming of an admin", suggests that you may be in a place where you need to take a little time off from Wikipedia. If you continue with the offensive remarks, I'll help you with that. (Yes, this is a warning that I may block you next time.) Bishonen | tålk 08:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC).

--Timeshifter (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: Please observe MOS:INDENTMIX: it is an accessibility issue.

I utterly reject your latest attack on me. It is true that I have not cooperated with your desire to add unneeded styles to common.css, but neither has anyone else, nor will they. It is a complete falsehood to claim that I have previous history of a lack of understanding. This is ANI and you should either provide diffs or retract that ad hominem. --RexxS (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE and WP:CANVASS by Aditya Kabir even after warnings

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

Aditya Kabir is not stopping with his violations of WP:BATTLE and WP:ASPERSIONS per these edits since 8 August:-

• "are you afraid of uninvolved (and non-Indian) editors" [66]
• "By the way, the Indian editors here seem to lose interest in discussion" [67]
• "Two Indian editors pushing for a certain version" [68]
• "Our Indian friends are having a hard time" [69]
• "don't think our Indian friends cared to take a look" [70]
• "Please, help. This discussion needs military historians, not nationalistic POVs" [71]
• "POV combatants are not really good for a consensus. I guess the combative POV pushers are trying very hard to resist such editors from coming here."[72]

He is frequently engaging in mass WP:CANVASSING by selectively sending notifications to editors through pings,[73][74][75] even after he was already warned.[76]

Though, he acts really sensitive ("you post here is very aggressive, abusive on the verge of threatening, and looks verry comabtive") when someone leaves him a warning for his disruption.

While there are obvious WP:CIR issues with this editor, it is getting harder to tolerate his disruption because of his clear pattern of an unrepentant uncollaborative approach. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• This selective group ping is bad, as is the user's uncomprehending and aggressive response to a warning about it. This attempt to value editors' input according to their nationality goes against everything Wikipedia stands for, and certainly implies WP:CIR problems as well as a battleground mentality. Here's another similar post, about "our Indian friends". This childish insult is just depressing. I have blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing. Bishonen | tålk 10:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC).

User:FarryZly100

• FarryZly100 (talk · contribs)

This editor is a self-described "clerical fascist" who is trying to whitewash a bigoted far-right meme video, adding original research to Dark Enlightenment, and adding lengthy, completely unsourced and potentially WP:COPYVIO lyrics to articles about far-right propaganda songs:

• Maréchal, nous voilà !
• Roei no Uta
• Cara al Sol, which looks like it had a revdel once already for exactly this copyright violation
• Battotai, which isn't even an article about a song.

The editor is also trying to spin Third Position as non-fascist and change the article on the defunct terrorist group Terza Posizione as not far-right. None of this behavior is appropriate.

An admin will need to make a call on the lyrics, also. Grayfell (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted the lyrics additions, but an admin will need to indef him as per WP:NONAZIS. — Czello 09:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Dana Jacobson

Please consider rev/deletion of defamatory edits. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop asking for revision deletion at ANI. From the banner that appears whenever you post here: "If the issue or concern involves a privacy-related matter, or involves any potential libel or defamation, do not post it here." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

IP editors breaking links in Indian film-related lists (Part 2)

Part 1 was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#IP editors breaking links in Indian film-related lists.

The rangeblock applied by El C on 10 July 2020 has expired, and the IP is back doing the same old thing - link. I suggest another short block to repeat the message. Narky Blert (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. The edits may be in good faith, and it is unfortunate that we have no way to communicate more politely with IPv6 hoppers, but these edits are a wholesale reversion of the tedious work of everyone who has meticulously disambiguated the wikilinks. Certes (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

This has been going on for almost a year. It's not going to stop. Reblocked for 3 months this time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

KellyKelly2013

• KellyKelly2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could I please get some help convincing this user that changing "United States" to USA is against consensus? I explained it to them on their talkpage [77], they appear to be ignoring it and other users. Even adding comments to the contrary inline [78]. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for a week, with a note saying that they may be unblocked if they agree to stop ignoring consensus. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Patrisse Cullors edit request

Patrisse Cullors has been fully protected twice now. There is a BLP edit request with full support awaiting action for days.

Could an admin please act on it? It’s at Talk:Patrisse Cullors#Edit Request. Thanks in advance! Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

User Danloud

Danloud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably is one of the Александр Мотин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppet, who is under an arbitration enforcement sanction). Violation of WP:DIS: multiple unjustified removal of text and deletion of reliable sources [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] (his «truthful» comments on the diff deserve special attention). He was warned of breaking the rules [85], [86]. User Danloud removed the warning from his talk page [87]. Violation of WP:CIV — called me a vandal [88], [89]. --Germash19 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Boomerang Without WP:SPI decision it seems to be a violation of WP:PERSONAL. Also check recent ANI requests against Germash19 filed by me and maybe by other editors. The rest is none of my concern. --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks despite block

Can PageImp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talk page access be revoked? I believe this was intended as part of the original block but did not go through for some reason, can the revisions also be rev-deleted? FozzieHey (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

FozzieHey, TPA revoked and revdel has been liberally applied. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, FozzieHey. Yes, I did intend it to be part of the original block. Mind you, it doesn't really hurt my feelings to be accused of having a tiny dick etc, since I don't have one at all. Water off a duck's back. Bishonen | tålk 20:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC).

Editor David Gerard and the Daily Mail

• David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bedfordshire on Sunday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The issue WP:DAILYMAIL has been long-discussed, and it seems a good thing to remove references to the unreliable Daily Mail with more reliable references. Several editors seem to be involved in this, which is a project which should lead to more reliable citations. However, a dispute has arisen over a reference in Bedfordshire on Sunday which illustrates how stories in this newspaper would end up in the national press. This is quite an important part in the article to establish the notability of this newspaper. One of those references is to the Daily Mail.

I have this particular article on my watchlist, meaning to improve it at some point but in general to keep an eye of vandalism and unconstructive editing. Such an unconstructive edit was (in my opinion) made by editor David Gerard to remove the Daily Mail link when it was extremely pertinent to the article - i.e. that stories would often be picked up by others, and edit originally made in 2008 by some other editor. Unhelpfully the link was removed with no attempt to find an alternative source, I reverted this and requested that it be taken to the Talk page, however my reversion was undone and the request ignored. It was only when I posted a warning on the editor's page about unconstructive editing that he engaged on the talk page. While looking at the user talk page I saw many other complaints over reference removals relating to the Daily Mail and the manner in which they had been handled.

David Gerard asserted that the Daily Mail fails WP:RS but there is an exception for WP:SELFSOURCE which would seem to apply. Furthermore, links to the Daily Mail are not banned in any case. The discussion on the Talk page did seem to establish that the link was allowed, but instead the editor challenged them on the extremely thin grounds of WP:OR, which he criticised me for not knowing. I believe that article asserts a fact that is clearly supported by the evidence, and this is a mis-used of WP:OR in an attempt to remove the link to the Daily Mail at any cost, even at the price of removing a significant part of this article.

It appears to me that what started as a good-faith effort to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia has turned into a WP:OWN of the policy itself, and a desire to remove all the Daily Mail links at any cost, without seeking alternative citations and references, and without regard to the context that those references are in. Furthermore, complaints are often ignored until made forcefully at which point this editor becomes aggressive in tone and borderline uncivil. I believe that a look at the user's talk page and edit history will bear this out. This behaviour does not add value to the project in my opinion. Shritwod (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have stated in past conversations (not at AN) related to David Gerald and DM refs that DM is deprecated and should be replaced in all uses (though I still have put forth questions on RSOPINIONS when it comes to their tv/film critics but that's a separate issue), but that does not mean "banned", except for BLPs where it should be obviously removed on sight for the reasons given in the DM RFCs. There are plenty of ways to tag a DM ref as needing replacement without being disruptive, including {{Deprecated inline}}. But yes, I agree that flat out removal without attempt to resolve with another source is more disruptive given that the DM decision was only a deprecation and did not set any time scale for outright removal. --Masem (t) 19:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

So, what's happening here is that Shritwod is trying to put OR into the article. His claim is that a story from Bedfordshire on Sunday was run in multiple national newspapers. The claim was previously in the article cited to the DM and the Times; I removed the DM link.

Shritwod insisted on edit-warring it back in. Checking the DM source, it doesn't actually say the story came from BoS - it clearly fails verification. And the Times link is dead and unarchived.

I'm not the only editor to question Shritwod's OR here - see discussion at Talk:Bedfordshire on Sunday. dlthewave concurs that the sources just don't support the claim. We have both asked Shritwod to back up the claim (that the story was copied from BoS to multiple national newspapers) with an RS that clearly says so - and not just linking primary sources and then writing Wikipedia text based on them, i.e. prima facie synthesis.

Shritwod appears not to understand WP:BURDEN, WP:SELFSOURCE or WP:NOR, let alone WP:RS and the finding that WP:DAILYMAIL is not an RS.

If you wonder at the substance of this claim, go look at the discussion at Talk:Bedfordshire on Sunday - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It is not my addition to the article. Why do you keep insisting that it is? I added citations and altered the wording of the claim slightly. However, this is a dead cat strategy because the substance of my complaint is repeated disruptive edits across the encyclopaedia of which this is one example. Could you please address the issue? Shritwod (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You re-added it, and kept re-adding it, and defended it at length repeatedly. That makes it yours. In any case, WP:BURDEN - which I assume you read when it was brought up - starts: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material - that's you. You re-add it, that's the same as adding it - David Gerard (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Untrue. You did not remove the claim, I did not add it. I re-added the reference because your reasons were removing were invalid. Shritwod (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with David Gerard's assessment. Although the initial disagreement at Bedfordshire on Sunday involved his removal of the Daily Mail source, there is a deeper WP:OR issue at play. The claim that a story was first published by Bedfordshire on Sunday and later picked up by Daily Mail needs to be supported by one reliable source that says exactly that. Using the stories themselves as sources would be WP:SYN, and replacing/adding a reliably-sourced version of a story doesn't solve that problem. And, for the record, please do carry on removing Daily Mail cites wherever they are found. –dlthewave ☎ 21:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

There are some issues with removing DM links that are opinion pieces, but this ANI seems somewhat pointless if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just an observation; Shritwod, regardless of who or when the edit was originally made, once the content and/or references have been challenged with a valid argument, and then you revert (edit-war) the content/references back into the article, you are then responsible for it. Also, this is ANI, where everyone's behavior involved in a dispute can be looked at. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've had a couple of run-ins with Mr Gerard over more clear-cut cases, such as this edit to Castleton, Derbyshire, where he removed a statement that was sourced only to the Daily Mail but the material he deleted removed all mention of a relevant and significant subtopic (Castleton Garland Day) which had its own well-sourced article from which reliable sources were easily found. I have no argument with the policy of removing questionable or controversial claims supported only by unreliable sources, but object to Mr Gerard's modus operandi of casually deleting unobjectionable content that he carelessly determines to be unimportant or unreliable, but often turns out to be valid and accurate, on the grounds of sourcing (rather than seeking a better source, citing a more relevant policy, or marking it as unreliably sourced). I would also add this edit (a reference to the Sun for which I found a third-party source, and which could be defended as WP:ABOUTSELF) and this where I was able to find numerous alternative reliable sources. I have found Mr Gerard to be dismissive and hostile in my dealings with him, and his default response seems to be to assign bad-faith motivations to those questioning his behaviour. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • See below re: removals of bad sources, and why this is always in accordance with policy. But I would add: if you're casting about for reasons to justify using a deprecated source in Wikipedia, you're doing it wrong - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • What was I just saying about hostility and bad faith? I'm not "casting about for reasons to justify using a deprecated source". In each of the three cases I've cited, I was able to find a third-party source for a piece of uncontroversial and worthwhile content that you removed wholesale on the grounds of unreliable sourcing. Also, my objection is not to your removal of bad sources, it's to the removal of the content that the source is attached to. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Given your next edit was to reinsert a reference to The Sun that was redundant with the RS following, at this point your actions are either in bad faith or incompetent. Please stop adding gratuitous deprecated sources to Wikipedia articles - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
        • No, it was not gratuitous, and nor was it redundant. Had you assumed good faith, and looked at my edit carefully, you'd have noticed that I added a comment within the reference reading <!--reference retained purely for verification of the date-->. Furthermore, had you read the Independent source carefully (which you accused me on your talk page of not doing), you'd have found that the date of the Sun's Turnip Prize is not explicitly cited there. The Independent mentions "Martin Creed’s controversial Turner Prize winning piece from 2001" and that "The Sun launched its own Turnip Prize, off the back of that year’s shortlist", but it doesn't explicitly state that the Sun's version of the Turnip Prize was in 2001. I would normally agree that there is enough information to make that assumption, but you're the one handing out lessons about WP:OR and WP:SYN and requiring citations to explicitly support every tiny detail of the information they accompany. I would also argue that a link to a Sun article is acceptable to verify the existence and date of that very same Sun article – and my reading of WP:ABOUTSELF gives some justification for that argument – but your fundamentalist application of WP:RS apparently does not permit any such nuance. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: thinking back to the outcome of the DM RFCs, shouldn't "removed on sight" really be "removed and replaced on sight, if at all possible"? i.e. at least a modicum of looking for an alternative? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I certainly do frequently replace it, though it's not an absolute requirement simply per (policy) WP:V, which includes WP:RS by reference - and there can't really be greater requirement to keep deprecated sources in an article than there are for ordinarily unreliable sources, which can be replaced or removed per the editor's judgement. As you know from previous discussions of dealing with deprecated sources in practice - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • For a detailed discussion of the philosophy of deprecated source removal, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_164#On_the_use_of_deprecated_sources - I note in particular Aquillion's noting that WP:V / WP:RS will always allow editors to remove unreliable sources on sight with an edit reason of "unreliable source" - no consensus here can change that. Even a consensus on the talk page for WP:V / WP:RS cannot allow the continued usage of a definitely reliable source. We can disagree over whether a source is usable in a particular context, or how to handle it if it is, but once it's established that a particular usage of a source is not reliable W:RS always means users removing it with a reason of "unreliable source" are correct to do so. WP:RS is included by direct reference in WP:V, so this follows directly from hard policy - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Um, Even a consensus on the talk page for WP:V / WP:RS cannot allow the continued usage of a definitely reliable source.?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
      • This is the whole point of what I am raising. Your editing is unconstructive, and your removal of sources is usually not followed up by the addition of more reliable sources. Shritwod (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• The paragraph in question has just been removed by another editor as OR and trivia - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ah shucks. The Daily Mail was always so good for trivia, too! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Although you are free to examine my editing history, please remember that the question in point is the repeated disruptive editing by David Gerard across multiple articles which is evident from his editing history and talk page. References are removed without an effort to seek reliable sources, and it would seem to me that his actions are to expunge any reference to the Daily Mail in particular from the encyclopaedia rather than to improve overall quality. When challenged he is rude and patronising, and this is not just my opinion. Shritwod (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • When challenged, I pointed you at the policies you were violating and misreading. I am not the only person to note that you are misreading them. There are many Daily Mail and Sun fans who come to my talk page, because they think the Sun and Mail are good sources actually, and not deprecated sources that shouldn't be present in Wikipedia. Like you, they resort to abuse when their favourite deprecated source is challenged. I see you're trying to jam a Mail reference into Bedfordshire on Sunday again as a primary source, even though you also added a third-party RS that supports the claim and makes the Mail reference redundant. I urge you to contemplate the words of WP:DAILYMAIL1: its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. Your edits fail this, and I don't see how you can misunderstand this, and WP:BURDEN and the rest of WP:V, so glaringly - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You quote WP:THIS and WP:THAT quite widely in arguments, but you are still failing to add value with your edits, which continue to remove citations that are relevant even from a deprecated source. I'm curious for example, when you chose to edit Walter Mosley (US lawyer) did you read the article at all? You claim to be an experienced editor, but I'd say that most inexperienced editors might question that article since it was only created a few minutes earlier about a most likely non-notable source. If you are intent on patrolling the encyclopaedia then perhaps your time you be spent more usefully actually looking at the articles rather than your personal crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. See, I can quote WP:THISANDTHAT too. Shritwod (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
      • You even left a bogus warning notice on my talk page to try to support your continued edit-warring the Daily Mail in. To quote your own words from it: Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And stop blustering - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
        • There was nothing bogus about that warning page, you ignored a request to take it to the talk page and your attempt to cite WP:DAILYMAIL was invalid. That is unconstructive and disruptive editing. You have also completely failed to address any of the points raised about your editing, and instead attack the person making criticisms - which is what you do continually on your talk page. WP:DISRUPT is the issue at hand, and I must also say WP:CIVIL. Shritwod (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

NFL color schemes

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

(For additional context, the page in question below is Module:Gridiron color/data, which is template-protected, and only administrators and users with the template editor user right can edit it.)

• In December 2019, there was a discussion at WT:NFL about the Denver Broncos color scheme (here) regarding a recent change. Charlesaaronthompson explained that he changed the color scheme to meet WP:CONTRAST, an accessibility policy, as it is difficult for color-blind readers to see certain font colors over certain background colors. During the discussion, he changed the scheme three times before it appeared that most of the editors in the discussion were satisfied with the final scheme implemented.
• On February 1, 2020, Charlesaaronthompson changed the colors back again without discussion and contrary to the result of the discussion from December. After I pointed out this change on his talk page (here), he reverted himself.
• On February 4, 2020, Charlesaaronthompson changed the colors back again without discussion. He reverted himself two days later.
• On February 10, 2020, he changed the colors back again without discussion. I posted again on his talk page (here) that he had now changed the Broncos colors for the tenth time in three months and needs to stop implementing changes immediately until discussions have taken place. He reverted himself the next day.
• On March 17, 2020, he changed the colors again, but at least this time, he notified me after the fact (here again), but still in opposition to the discussion at WT:NFL. I reverted this edit [90] and told him he needs to start a new discussion at WT:NFL if he wants to change it again. I reminded him about the guidelines at Wikipedia:Template editor, and why this tool is not automatically granted to every editor.
• On April 21, 2020, he attempted to start another discussion about the Broncos' color scheme at WT:NFL, but failed to receive any input from other editors for a change to the scheme.
• I posted on his talk page again on May 11, 2020, after he made more changes to the module (for the Miami Dolphins color scheme, another similar issue happening concurrently to this one) despite my repeated pleas to have discussions first.
• Changed again on June 1, 2020, without discussion.
• Changed again today, without discussion.
• He has changed the color scheme at Template:Denver Broncos roster a total of 14 times in the past eight months despite their color scheme not changing at all in the same span in real life.

I have run out of ideas for solving this issue, and believe at this point that revoking Charlesaaronthompson's template editor tools is the next step here per WP:TPEREVOKE. If you look at the edit history for Module:Gridiron color/data, it is mostly Charlesaaronthompson repeatedly making changes to team color schemes and then changing his mind within a day or two, all without discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: OK. I am sorry for making these clearly unwanted changes. I was only trying to make these changes to improve the color codes so they reflected the team's colors that they use in real life. I am sorry. Is there any way my template editor tools may be preserved? Look: I reverted back the HTML color codes at Module:Gridiron color/data, per this edit diff. Please forgive me? Also, is there anything else I can say to make my case to preserve my template editor tools? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: February 11: "I'll promise to stop changing the colors.". May 12: "I understand. I understand how frustrating it is on your end and from the viewpoint of other editors that I have previously changed the colors for the Denver Broncos way too frequently. I'm trying to come across as serious here. I really do understand that it is frustrating that I do seem to constantly change my mind repeatedly." and "I'm sorry that I have frustrated you over this. I apologize." I believe you when you say you're sorry each time, but making the same edits over and over again after you apologize and revert yourself doesn't give me much faith that you're actually learning from this. I will let others chime in here, but in my opinion, it would be more productive if you were to post edit requests on the talk pages instead of being able to make these color changes yourself. This way a discussion for the changes will have to occur and proper consensus can be formed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: OK, yes, I did say all of that. Look, I'm sorry. I clearly failed to edit in good faith. I just need one more chance to prove that I will learn and not just unilaterally make edit changes without first gaining WP:CONSENSUS from other editors like yourself. I fear that if I lose my template editor tools, I may never get them back. I just need one more opportunity to learn from my past mistakes. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: OK, I'm sorry that I failed to collaborate and further engage in a discussion with you over at WT:NFL over the color code changes. I'm also sorry that I went ahead and tried to unilaterally implement these changes over at Module:Gridiron color/data. You have a very valid point that I clearly failed to learn from my past mistakes. However, I'm willing to change. What else can I do or say to prove that I'm willing & determined to learn from my mistakes while showing that I'm willing to collaborate, while not losing my template editor tools? What I really want to know is this: if it's determined by administrators that I should lose my template editor tools, is there any way I may be able to get them back? If so, how would I need to prove that I'm willing and determined to learn from my past mistakes and prove that I'm willing and determined to collaborate with other editors and not just unilaterally push through changes without first discussing my proposed changes? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to partially block Charlesaaronthompson from Module:Gridiron color/data. If that's the only page where problems have occurred, it should remove the temptation for him to edit it, while allowing him to edit normally everywhere else. It would also push him into using the sandbox for his experiments and to use an edit-request on talk for any changes. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I see where I went wrong. I should have used the sandbox for Module:Gridiron color/data before repeatedly reverting myself and repeatedly trying to force through color code changes that only myself and no other editor was comfortable with. I see that now. If I was partially blocked from having template editor rights to edit Module:Gridiron color/data, how long would that block last? Also, I would settle for that as a natural consequence, in order to teach me to start using the sandbox for my experiments, so long as I knew how long that partial block from having template editor rights to edit Module:Gridiron color/data would last. I would rather settle for that than having my template editor rights permanently revoked for all protected templates. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Judging from the history, it's the same story at Module:Sports_color/basketball as well. Many self-reverts and "nevermind"s. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: Oh well, just a thought. At least we have the tools to craft more nuanced solutions now, even if they won't always work. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Charlesaaronthompson, it seems there have been multiple times when you've said you wouldn't do it, and then you did it. Why did you do it the previous times when you said you wouldn't? Why will this time be different than those previous times? Lev!vich 02:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: The reason why I went ahead and tried to force through color code changes over at Module:Gridiron color/data, Module:Sports color/basketball & other protected modules was because I was unaware that sandboxes for these protected modules existed. The best explanation I can give is that I really wasn't sure myself how I wanted to update the wiki-code formatting for the color codes at the protected modules, and so I experimented, not knowing that there were sandboxes that existed for the purpose of experimenting with the wiki-code formatting before I settled on the formatting. All I can say is that this time will be different in that I will not repeatedly self-revert myself from now on or even edit these protected modules if I'm allowed to keep my template editor rights. I will also do better to initiate discussions and seek consensus with other editors before trying to unilaterally force through unwanted wiki-code formatting changes. However, I will promise to do these necessary changes, even if my template editor rights are revoked. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is more worrying, the edits or a TPE being unaware of the sandbox (i.e. not looking to find it) or not creating a sandbox when none is found. Cabayi (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I hate to be a jerk, but... you did say, in your request for Template Editor:

I am requesting template editor rights in order to edit Template:NFLPrimaryColor, Template:NFLTertiaryColorRaw, and all other related and appropriate protected sports league templates. The reason why I am requesting template editor rights is because I was extremely familiar with editing those templates prior to them becoming protected. I also have extensive experience editing other templates and modules, such as Module:Baseball color/data, Module:Basketball color/data, and Module:College color/data. I also am requesting template editor rights in order to update the HTML color codes (both current and historic) for NFL teams at the previously mentioned protected templates. I understand that if I am granted template editor rights, I will use them responsibly, and do my best to collaborate to the best of my ability with other template editors in hopes of reaching consensus.

I'm having a hard time reconciling being extremely familiar and having extensive experience and then, two years after getting TE, not knowing that there were sandboxes that existed for the purpose of experimenting with the wiki-code formatting. Lev!vich 16:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You wrote above (emphasis added): OK, I see where I went wrong. I should have used the sandbox for Module:Gridiron color/data before repeatedly reverting myself and repeatedly trying to force through color code changes that only myself and no other editor was comfortable with. I see that now.

You also wrote above (emphasis added): The reason why I went ahead and tried to force through color code changes over at Module:Gridiron color/data, Module:Sports color/basketball & other protected modules was because I was unaware that sandboxes for these protected modules existed.

But two weeks ago (Aug 3), you created Module:Sports color/ice hockey/sandbox, with the edit summary, I created this template sandbox, based off Module:Sports color/basketball/sandbox. So you knew on Aug 3 that sandboxes existed, but when you changed the colors on August 17, you didn't know that sandboxes existed? Lev!vich 02:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems unfamiliar with WP:TPE (which specifically mentions sandboxes and offers advice on consensus usage). Multiple unmet commitments to "do better next time" and stop making unnecessary template changes. Next logical step is to remove template editor access with the option of reapplying in (say) 3 months with evidence of greater familiarity in how it should be used. Other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Allusion to legal action from IP user

• 2600:8801:1203:5A93:CD94:1894:3EB8:8D5A (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Edit summary in question: [91]

IP user has alluded to taking legal action in regards to edits on the encyclopedia. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Tpdwkouaa, I'd read "Forwarded edits to legal." as saying they'd forwarded a copy of the changes to legal@wikimedia.org rather than a threat of legal action. Cabayi (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

A possibility, to be sure, and I'd hope that you're right. I don't know if I'd expect the average IP user to be familiar with that outlet, however, and if they were, I'd think that when referring to it they'd be more explicit, i.e., "I'll be reporting these edits to WMF/Wikipedia's legal team/etc." /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Paštrik

User named El_C undid my edits and deleted links that I postd (source) fur number of dead in war (battle of Paštrik). Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Pa%C5%A1trik&type=revision&diff=973564163&oldid=973543791

He also locked page. I ask to undo that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenDel2000 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

For someone with 3 edits, you sure found your way here fast. El C made three edits in line with WP:Protection policy following a request for page protection due to sockpuppetry. He restored a stable version from earlier (subject to his discretion per WP:PREFER), temporarily semi-protected the page, and added the icon showing that the page is protected. These are all run-of-the mill admin actions. Unfortunately, you have found yourself in the middle of a content dispute where one party has resorted to using multiple accounts abusively. Your only recourse for now is to propose changes on the talk page, Talk:Battle of Paštrik. Include all of your sources and if you achieve consensus, you can use the {{edit semi-protected}} to ask for the changes to be made to the article. It is an inconvenience, but it is the price we pay to ensure that disruption of articles does not continue. --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I would come faster, but I am just not smurt as you. Thanks fur explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenDel2000 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Long term disruptive account

• Salwiki84 (talk · contribs) has an odd pov agenda, which has led to a lot of inappropriate editing. But why they weren't blocked on the spot for this [92] is beyond me. And please rev/delete that gem/ Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit has been revdel'd. I'd like a second set of eyes to see if a block is warranted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, RickinBaltimore. I'll offer a few diffs if necessary: [93]; [94]; [95]; [96]; [97]; [98]; [99]; [100]; [101]; [102]; [103]; [104]; [105]; [106]; [107]. Pretty much changes any negative content about Maryland, based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Most edits in the last two years have been flat vandalism. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The user though has not edited much recently, 2 edits yesterday and not much prior to that. I wouldn't feel comfortable issuing a block on edits that are years old, as some of those are. Blocks are to be preventive, not punative. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand, RickinBaltimore, which is why I brought this here rather than AIV. Longterm pattern of disruption, based on original research, to put it kindly. After two years the most recent edits confirm there's no indication of a learning curve, or increased competence. WP:CIR. 2601:188:180:B8E0:A834:6250:2E50:37AC (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that, like I said I'm not comfortable issuing the block here, but would appreciate another admin to look as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Less uncomfortable, but would like to try engagement and education first. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• I know I'm repeating myself, but given the edit that was rev/deleted, submit that the user ceded such considerations long ago. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:A834:6250:2E50:37AC (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

USEr:DonQuixote

User:DonQuixote is clearly pushing a personal POV on multiple related articles. He has dismissed anything that doesn't conform to his POV as a "fringe theory", even going so far as to blank reliably sourced information just because he doesn't like what it says. And he also makes personal attacks. Anyone attempting to maintain a NPOV will be insulted by this editor.

Some examples [108]

[109]

[110]

This all stems from the fact that some Reliable Sources say that two characters who appeared in an old television show were in fact the same character. While others say that that's not the case.

DonQuixote insists that that's a "fringe view", and is determined to delete any trace of the fact that some sources did indeed say that it's the same character.

he believes that the only reason anyone would include that is because they are the ones pushing the POV.

However, by blanking Reliably Sourced, valid material, and dismissing it as a "fringe view", it s clear that DonQuixote is simply pushing HIS view, and making multiple disruptive edits. Surely ALL reliably sourced material should be included? Not just the ones that this one user, DonQuixote, seems to like.197.89.19.68 (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The only real Master imho, was Roger Delgado. Just sayin. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 08:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

We all have our personal opinions. But this person User:DonQuixote is blanking RS just because they say something other than his opinion. That's WP:VANDALISM, plain and simple. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't you say I'm out. Don't bother responding. I won't be back. And you can post nay nonsense you like on any article.? (see previous ANI).

And, the proposal by @HandThatFeeds: was The IP in question should be blocked from editing these articles and, if they do not refrain from insults, blocked from the site itself. They are being disruptive and tendentious, all because they believe specific actors are not getting the "recognition" the IP feels is deserved.

Also, pinging @Girth Summit:. DonQuixote (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, it's hard to take you seriously when you do things like this. DonQuixote (talk) 11:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I'm going to re-add my proposal here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Never mind pinging anyone. Just answer a simple question : Why did you blank reliably sourced material on multiple articles? Answer that without changing the subject. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained multiple times, due weight. DonQuixote (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

NOT a valid answer. The articles as they stand are VERY POV in one direction. There were tiny bits and pieces trying to give a NPOV, and you simply blanked those small bits. That's pushing a POV, plain and simple. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

In addition, the so-called "due weight" all come from the same small group of people. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. (emphasis mine) DonQuixote (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

But it's not a "tiny minority view". It's in multiple reliable sources. So, it MUST be included. As it is, YOUR POV dominates every article. But you don't want anything else mentioned at all. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Plus, how can YOU claim what is "the widely held view", and what isn't? That's POV at best. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the months you've been at this, you've managed to scrounge up a couple of games (primary sources), a single-line commentary by a literary critic and a short opinion in a listicle. Tiny minority. DonQuixote (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Plus, how can YOU claim what is "the widely held view, and what isn't?"

If it takes you months to scrounge together two secondary sources, each with only a couple of sentences on the topic, then it's probably a tiny viewpoint. If you can spend less than two hours finding ten secondary sources spanning four decades saying the same thing, then it's probably a widely held view. DonQuixote (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No. Here's what it is. There is an article about a fictional character who appeared in two serials of Doctor Who in the 1960's. Whether such a character even requires his own Wikipedia article is another issue entirely. Now, here's where the fun starts.. 1) In the 80's multiple officially licensed products, both narrative and "real world" all stated outright that this character is the same character as the Doctor Who character The Master. Whether that was actually true or not is besides the point. Multiple sources state that that is true. However, later, other officially licensed products, both narrative and "real world" stated outright that the character is NOT the same character as the Master. So, what to do? This article lists the character under the name he was credited as in the two television serials.(And even THAT is another whole issue..) Over the years, multiple media have each featured "The Return of.." in multiple, contradictory, ways. And, nne of them actually called the character "The Monk". He was "the Time Meddler", "Mortimus", and other names, but NEVER "The Monk". In the last decade, Big Finish Audios have produced a handful of brand new made-for-sale audio adventures featuring a character that they claim to be the same character as the character who last appeared on television in January 1966.And they have all called him "the Monk". So, what of the article? Surely, it should reflect all of that? Except, that User:DonQuixote wants to push the Big Finish idea of the character as the only one, and blanks anything to the contrary. The problem here is that there are multiple contradictory accounts, each with reliable sources. And no two are truly compatible. Why should ONE version, that ahs been around for less than a decade, be the "One true version"? And, even if that was, why does DonQuixote keep blanking anything that says anything to the contrary? Is this a Big Finish Fanboy Website, or is it Wikipedia? 197.89.19.112 (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Your inability or unwillingness to understand due weight, amongst other things, is why we're here. You can keep telling yourself the above, but that's not going to accomplish anything. DonQuixote (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Only "due weight" in your mind. Look, as repeatedly stated, there are multiple contradictory accounts. As it stands the article is entirely skewed towards ONE position, YOUR position. But that isn't enough for you. No, you want to remove ALL other relevant information. And you have repeatedly blanked RELIABLY SOURCED material, simply because it says something other than what you believe to be "true". And nobody but you has spent any real time looking for multiple RS. All I did was a very quick search, and found enough RS for DIFFERENT positions. And you obviously weren't born until the 21st century. It was taken as fact in the 80's that "it's the same character as the Master". Then, during the Virgin Books Era, it was taken as fact that it was an entirely separate character, but called "Mortimus". Only very recently has YOUR preferred position been seen as being "right". Of course, as mentioned on the actual discussion page, which you completely ignored, it was taken as fact in 1965-1966 that the character Peter Butterworth played in Doctor Who was a human being from the future. Actually, if you had ever actually watched either The Time Meddler or The Daleks' Master Plan, it is beyond obvious, that the character disguised as a monk is a human man. And only in the 80's did we first learn that "he is the first of the Doctor's people(apart from Susan) to appear in the series". Even The Making of Doctor Who, published in 1972, says nothing at all about him being a Time Lord. THAT is my problem. YOU(and your little cabal) are trying to force a 2020 revisionist perspective onto something that was made and aired in 1965-1966. You want to include all the stuff about Graeme Garden and Rufus Hound? Go right ahead. But that should NOT be the focus of the article, and EVERY OTHER interpretation should be included, including "he is the Master", "he is Mortimus", "he is the Time Meddler", and OF COURSE..."he is a human man from the future". Because ALL of those were reliably sourced before you were even born. Wikipedia must maintain a WP:NPOV. And your "widely held view" only exists in your own mind. 197.89.19.112 (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Restating & updating my previous proposal, with the hopes an admin acts on it:

The IP in question should be partially-blocked from editing Doctor Who-related articles and, if they do not refrain from insults, blocked from the site itself. They are being disruptive and tendentious, all because they believe specific actors are not getting the "recognition" the IP feels is deserved. This IP is here to right great wrongs. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No. See here's what happened. 1) There was RELIABLY SOURCED material from VALID SOURCES on multiple articles. One user, User:DonQuxiote simply BLANKED IT ALL, dismissing it as a "fringe theory". I reinstated it. So, who's the one being disruptive and tendentious? The person trying to add reliably sourced material to articles, or the one going around blanket removing reliably sourced material from various pages, simply because it doesn't suit their own personal POV? 197.89.19.68 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

These are not reliably sourced, and your inability to grasp that is the problem. If you had simply discussed the matter per WP:BRD we wouldn't be here. It's your repeated, tendentious insistence on editing these into the articles combined with personal attacks that led me to the above proposal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Now that I've got a moment to elaborate & bring others up to speed: the dispute, at its heart, comes from a disagreement on sourcing. The IP believes that third-party material about the show Doctor Who is a reliable source for including certain edits in articles; other editors, primarily DonQuixote, disagreed and removed them. Normally, that'd make this a content dispute not suited to ANI.

However, instead of following WP:BRD, this IP began hurling insults, insisting everyone else was wrong and trying to force their preferred content into the articles. Looking over the examples in the previous ANI report led me to believe this IP was trying to right great wrongs (believing certain actors were not given appropriate credit for their work), and entered a battleground mentality to try and bludgeon their preferred content into the articles. As seen in the section below, this is typical for this editor, and I do not see any other solution outside of partially-blocking them from editing the articles, or a block from the site. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I brought this to ANI after the IP summarily dismissed ten secondary sources as being unreliable, which I supplied in response to the addition of a point-y unreliable source tag for a single line in an article (diff and thread). DonQuixote (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fully support The Ip editor literally shot himself in the foot in his counter proposal. More than that, he shown that he's very much an entrenched editor who's

looking to push his particular viewpoint and reliable sourced be damned. I hate to support any proposal that anyone gets banned, but this is reason enough for it to happen. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 16:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The only one(s) trying to "push a particular viewpoint" are the ones who are blanking reliably sourced material. If that gets anyone banned, then it should be the one(s) simply blanking whole sections of RELIABLY SOURCED material from multiple articles. 197.89.19.112 (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Counter-Proposal

This User:HandThatFeeds is clearly a meat puppet. As such, I suggest that anything User:HandThatFeeds be treated with the attention/respect it deserves. Which is to say...none at all. He/she should simply be ignored. And if he/she persist with these attacks, he/she should be the one who is blocked.

(This "Proposal" is clearly an attempt by DonQuixtoe and HandThatFeeds to ignore the real issue here. In addition these two users are insisting that it is ok for them to simply blank reliably sourced material. and then they act as though the ones trying to reinstate the reliably sourced material are the ones who need to be blocked! That's ass backwards. 197.89.19.68 (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

^^^^^ That's a bad idea IP 197. You really should strike all of that and close this section out. You really just shot yourself in the foot with this! W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 14:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the behavior which led me to make the proposal above. This could have just been a simple content dispute, but the IP has insisted on forcing their preferred edits into the articles and then attacking those who disagree. I don't see a path forward other than blocking. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice how neither of these people actually add anything at all to the issue at hand. They just suddenly appear to offer up catchphrases. This seemingly show support for one person, yet neither of these people have actually added anything constructive at all. 197.89.19.112 (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

York4044 aspersions

York4044 added her opinion to the article on Wikipedia's handling of racism. I reverted her, and she decided to attack me on my talk page. Over the course of the last few months month, she was repeatedly warned to not engage in disruptive editing. Many of those warns were also for personal attacks. One of those accusations was in response to her calling another editor a "rape apologist". The last warning was a final one. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know lived experiences were now an opinion and you consider being told to check your privilege an attack? I was actually very polite. Did you read the context of the other incidents you are referring. Really sad that the rumours about Wikipedia being a hub for bigotry are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by York4044 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

York4044, you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS here. Please stop making baseless accusations of bigotry. Also, your "lives experiences" constitute original research which is unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially in a biography of a living person. All information in an encyclopedia should be reliably sourced, especially for BLPs. JavaHurricane 10:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

User:JavaHurricane Generally yes but the article in question was about racial bias in Wikipedia. Also that editor was engaging in very creepy behaviour by following me over from H.P. Lovecraft's page to the racial bias one. Almost like they though they were the focus.Made me feel unsafe to be begin with and had displayed prejudiced behaviour there when I simply shifted the contents of "Race" higher up in the chronology.York4044 (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

They weren't following you. Rather your edits were inappropriate and I don't see why they should not be removed. PS: See York4044's talk page, especially [111]. JavaHurricane 10:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was aware of the incident before this report was filed and had suggested to Susmuffin that he take this matter to ANI. I don't think that this impairs my judgement, however.

To me, this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of York4044 being here to right great wrongs. And while I do agree that we need to acknowledge and counteract systemic bias on Wikipedia, the path she has chosen is clearly not the right way to do it. Making bold edits is fine – and so is challenging the status quo. But making edits that violate policy and resorting to personal attacks and casting aspersions when they are challenged is not. I propose that York4044 be blocked until she can demonstrate that she is willing to engage with other editors civilly and constructively. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs It is interesting that you concluded that it does not impair your judgement. Seems like the solution to everything here is blocking the user instead of thinking about the bigoted content. "Civility" has always been a dog-whistle for equality on your own time. Seems like other editors haven't taken the time to engage constructively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by York4044 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

In this context, "civility" is not a dog-whistle, but a bullhorn shouting that you should start to actually engage with what people say instead of making unfounded accusations about who they are. For example, you could have explained why you believe that my judgement is flawed or why your actions were justified – arguments that I am willing to listen and respond to. Instead, you have chosen to suggest that I refuse to think about bigotry and just want to get everyone who disagrees with me blocked. And that is an attitude that is plainly incompatible with a project that's built on collaboration, consensus and the the assumption that others are acting in good faith. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Probably about time @York4044 is indef blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. I can recollect not too long ago when she kept on adding defamatory contents to a particular article and was warned by myself & other editors as can be observed here, here, & here. What followed here was an appropriate block for 72 hours. Seeing that they are still generally not being productive but rather disruptive it may be time for them to be blocked indefinitely, at least until they understand fundamental policies governing this collaborative project. Just like Susmuffin, said, they indeed referred to an administrator as a “rape apologist” & just like Blablubbs said above it indeed does appear as though they are here to “right great wrongs” & not necessary build an encyclopedia hence an indef block per WP:NOTHERE seems very apt.

@Celestina007 This smells like a witch hunt. I was appropriately "punished" according to your standards so what do you want from me? Why didn't you mention that what I was fighting for ended up on the page? You owe me an apology. Did you even read the context of this or you are letting prejudice lead you? Kindly stay in your lane.York4044 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

York4044, "Kindly stay in your lane"? Are you even aware of the tone in which you are speaking to other editors? You've been given a final warning on your talk page which I will not hesitate in enacting as WP:NOTHERE if you do not start behaving within our guidelines; specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It's really that simple. Glen (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Glen I understand how that may have come across but perhaps you will note how that editor in question had a similar tone. They also have a track record of harassing me and actually owe me an apology for giving me grief and blocking me over an edit that eventually went on a page.It is not a random act.

York4044 I get you're frustrated but there are clear signals that the way you are going about this is not the best approach. You've been blocked on more than one occasion and you need to take a step back and ask yourself if there's an alternative methodology you could utilise that may lend itself to a better result. Snapping at other editors is only going to end badly. If you ask me you've been given plenty of chances here - please act accordingly. Glen (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Glen I get you have good intentions but "best approach" has been used as a silencing tactic for systemic bias. Along with "this is not the right time" and me supposed to be grateful that I am not punished for dissent. I hope we evolve soon. In the meantime, I have seen feminist pages/ groups on here. I can't seem to find a Black feminist collective though. If you know of any, I would be very glad to go in that direction. York4044 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@York4044, here we go again! you have just been told politely by JavaHurricane about casting aspersions(which is why you are here in the first place) & you have just done so yet again by making statements such as They also have a track record of harassing me hereby insinuating that I have been stalking/harassing you whereas in actuality my first encounter with you was on June 23 & my last encounter with you was on June 25 up until today, so please where is/are the diff(s) to substantiate claims that I have a “track record of harassing you” ? Honestly at this juncture an indef block is required urgently, you cannot after being warned severally continue to make personal attacks, engage in original research, & cast aspersions. What you are generally doing per entries such as this is called WP:TE a great trait & indicator of one not here to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 14:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007 You are really keen to get me out of here instead of engaging like you always suggest. Straight to a silencing tactic. I am not here to fight with you. Like you said we had an extended encounter in which you disparaged me as well. The conclusion of that was that I was right about the entry but my methods were flawed. I was blocked for a bit. I would say you got the upper-hand so we can just forget about this or risk both of us getting blocked. Please do not seek me out and I will do same. York4044 (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this user is here to right great wrongs and refuses to contribute productively, attacking other editors instead of working with them. While countering bias is an admirable goal, a block is probably warranted in this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Baseless aspersions of paid editing by User:Hatchens

Hatchens, (a new editor started earlier this year) is feeling very free in their accusations of paid shilling. I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueFocus Communication Group back in April (one of the largest, fastest-growing ad agencies in the world with a possible US IPO upcoming); he tagged it for nom and slapped the paid editing template and said in his nom that I created the article for "for PR/Advertising WP:PROMO purpose". I've been editing since 2007 and have edited a wide range of topics (medicine, law, business), but also particularly edit articles on listed securities. I can't remember the last time I was accused of paid shilling, but I imagine it's happened - many long-term editors have been accused at some point. For that reason, it is taken quite seriously as a WP:PERSONAL attack, and WP:ASPERSIONS documents ArbCom's admonishment to use it lightly: "accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI". I have tried over and over to get thru to Hatchens on my talk page and his, starting w/ a point-blank asking Hatchens to cease the accusation (retract), and then pointed to all our policies and ArbCom's findings about these aspersions. His ultimate response was just pure snark ("so now I am not being taken to WP:ANI? Oh Lord! (Sigh). You just broke my heart. And, you giving me a chance to redeem? Aah, so nice of you").

These types of baseless accusations are demoralizing and defaming. As I pointed out to Hatchens, I could easily flip this same type of attack on him: he has created minimal content or articles, but did create dubiously notable GO Navigator and GO Searcher, leaving him open to being accused of being a Guice Offshore promoter paid shill. He has shown no remorse or recognition that throwing around these accusations everywhere creates a hostile, chaotic environment. He seems to be mentored by Timtrent, and noticed they are tagging User_talk:Ktin#August_2020 (Ktin, editing since 2006) with the template lately too; similarly, seems like thin evidence w/o much basis. Also some discussion at Template_talk:Undisclosed_paid#Make_talk_page_discussion_mandatory_when_this_template_is_used.

My hope is that Hatchens can be warned to follow the steps recommended by ArbCom when making these accusations and avoid them entirely when not up to that level of presentation. He should also immediately retract his defamatory accusations towards me unless he wants to create a real case. It is important that newcomers be forced to recognize our longstanding core good-faith policies early to avoid settling into terrible habits which then spread and become commonplace among other new users. II | (t - c) 14:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, let me help you out a bit. You should never pull sentences just out of context. It provides the wrong picture - "ImperfectlyInformed, Ok, so now I am not being taken to WP:ANI? Oh Lord! (Sigh). You just broke my heart. And, you giving me a chance to redeem? Aah, so nice of you. But, I guess I let it pass this time. As far as, whatever I need to agree or disagree is a concern, either I'll do it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlueFocus Communication Group or at WP:ANI. So, let's meet either of the two places. Shall we? Hatchens (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC) (reply)" - This is the actual/full communication? do correct me. Hatchens (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

...Hatchens, is that really any better? I shouldn't have to open an ANI thread for you to engage with me on your harassment and personal attacks, and derailing the AfD with such a discussion isn't exactly great either. Can you engage on why you think it's appropriate to make this aspersion w/o evidence? When will you present evidence? II | (t - c) 14:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, you did the right thing. I totally support you on this. Let everybody chip in and till then have patience. thank you. - Hatchens (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, Not mentoring. We have had some cordial interactions, and I agree with pursuing evidence based claims of paid editing. I disagree with non evidence based claims. With regard to tagging Ktin you will see that I have accepted their assertion at once and worked with them to handle it. I believe relations with me and Ktin are fine, unless they disagree.

I think Hatchens ought simply have stopped and thought hard when you first made the strong suggestion that they did. I'm never keen on suicide by AN/I, and I hope they make a firm statement that they were in error and solve the issue in that simple manner Fiddle Faddle 15:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, thank you. I cherish that interaction. It has been good learning. Hatchens (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens, I had also been enjoying it. As part of it I have made a very strong suggestion on your talk page, which I am sure you have seen by now. Please act on it and mean it. Fiddle Faddle 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• It is never fun to see this kind of condescending language, and baseless allegations of paid editing are a serious violation of AGF. It seems as if Hitchens was goading II into starting an ANI thread where the allegations would be laid out, then; I cannot understand "let everybody chip in" in any other way. That is an abuse of this board also; it's the equivalent of "I don't know if these allegations are true; we'll wait and see". Drmies (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies that 'baseless allegations of paid editing are a serious violation of AGF.' We have an established way of dealing with possible COI, and Hatchens has not followed it. In short, ask on the user talk page, then, if they state that they don't have a COI, the issue should only be pressed on admin noticeboards or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If allegations of COI continue outside of this framework, they are likely to be seen as Wikipedia:Casting aspersions.Dialectric (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• All, I have a somewhat of a serious concern to bring up, and I have been debating whether I should be bringing it up here. I am doing so, with a hope that this will not spur retaliation of any form.

Sometime last week, almost all of the articles that I had created in the last three years were marked for AfDs by Hatchens, and a subset of them were marked with the paid editing WP:UPE tag, including the one referenced by ImperfectlyInformed upstream. One thing caught my attention too, and it was this conversation. - specifically to quote "As far as the WP:UPE is a concern, IDs from Nigeria are very easy to tackle because of their poor language and editing skills. But, the IDs from South Asian Subcontinent - especially India and Bangladesh are actually in my focus. They are not just editing Indian/subcontinent subjects or entities... they are often found to be editing American and European entities with expertise in using the existing grey areas of WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:VERIFY." This was right around the same time when the user had gone in and marked most my articles (from the last few years) for AfD and slapped the WP:UPE banner on a subset of them, without a rationale on the reasoning. I felt victimized because of my origins, because of the articles that I edited, the geographic conversations that I took part in. To me this indicates a set of actions that were perhaps coming out of good intent, but, definitely coming in from a place of discrimination and prejudice, and that should have no place in our community.

To be clear, I have nothing against the AfDs that have been triggered (or the fact that they were raised at all), some will stay, some will be deleted, and that's perfectly fine. But, we should not be starting from a place of prejudice.

Ktin (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, I don't think you have mentioned anything about your origin on your user page. Well its my mistake, if you have felt offended, I apologize. - Hatchens (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens, My only point is against the starting position of prejudice, and my statement above where I believe that we should not have any place in our community for that starting position of discrimination and prejudice. Regards. Ktin (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, Thank you for getting me corrected, and thank you for being kind enough. I apologize again if it had caused any hurt at your end. - Hatchens (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens, Thanks. I would also go forward and request that you withdraw / recuse yourself from any ongoing AfD / WP:UPE actions as it pertains to the South Asian Subcontinent - especially India and Bangladesh for a period of time of your decision (in good faith), and come back with a fresh slate to do away with any concerns of starting positions of prejudice. But, if others feel this is an over-reaction, I am ready to listen to their counsel as well. Regards. Ktin (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, I guess we will now work together on this as Wiki compatriots. And, of course, Timtrent is always there to help us. - Hatchens (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens, Not sure if you caught the spirit of my suggestion. I am sure we will work as good compatriots, and I am sure good guides will continue to be voices of reason. But, the onus of not holding discriminatory and prejudiced starting points is squarely within one's own self.

My request to you remains that you recuse yourself from any ongoing and new AfD / WP:UPE actions as it pertains to the South Asian Subcontinent - especially India and Bangladesh for a period of your decision (in good faith) and come back with a fresh slate. No amount of time is too less, and no amount of time is too much. Like I said earlier, this starting position should of prejudice should not have a place in this community.

I look forward to us working as Wiki compatriots. Regards. Ktin (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ktin, Just struck off that particular comment on my talk page. Kindly check and advise. Thank you once again for helping me out. - Hatchens (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hatchens, Thanks. My request of you was not necessarily to strike that comment from your conversation / talk page.

My point in this thread has been about the starting position of discrimination / prejudice which should not have any place in this community. Hence, my request to you is to take a moral stance and recuse yourself (i.e. withdraw yourself) from any ongoing or new WP:UPE or AfDs as it pertains to the South Asian Subcontinent - especially India and Bangladesh for a duration of time (in good faith), and come back with a fresh slate. Like I said earlier, no amount of time is too little, no amount of time is too much when it comes to this topic.

Regards. Ktin (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

My Defense: First of all, let me be very direct why I feel this particular page is WP:PROMO case and duly qualifies for WP:ADMASK.

1. Its' media citations are completely sponsored ones and part of either press release sites (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) or something near about like that. In short, it doesn't have much citations from sites listed on WP:RS or WP:RSPMISSING.

2. Just 4 passing mentions in Books.

3. Just couple passing mentions in Academic articles.

4. Nothing on JSTOR.

5. Nothing on NYT.

In short, it also fails WP:SIGCOV.

The page was created on April 26, 2020. And, as per the content... it has no encyclopedic value in the first place. So, I had all possible reasons to nominate this article and so I did. Because, at the personal level, I do not believe in - Speedy Deletion WP:SPEEDY. Every article creator should get a chance to justify his/her stand at the AfD pages.

However, instead of improving the article - the creator ImperfectlyInformed started a barrage of attack against me across multiple pages. You can refer to these links (1, 2, 3) and can easily deduce how an editor of 13 years of experience is threatening an editor with just 6 months' experience by showing off his knowledge with regards to Wikipedia rules and regulations. As per my 6 months of editing history, this kind of assertion can ben made only made when one has an extremely strong interest to protect such substandard pages on Wikipedia. My assumptions might be wrong, that's why I always take the AfD route. So a democratic process can do necessary justice to it.

I'm not here to undermine the power of administrators. If admins feels I am guilty. I'm ready to accept their verdict without putting up any protest. I have nothing more to say. Thank you for having me. -Hatchens (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

First, I apologize if I got hot under the collar and you felt attacked. I did you give the chance to work with me before ANI. Second, you should focus on the good-faith policies. Finally, while I don't want to rehash the AfD, I will briefly mention that of the currently cited sources, you only grabbed 1 (PRWeek). BlueFocus is a multibillion dollar company. PRWeek is not PR site, it's a trade magazine. AdAge also did an in-depth profile, as did The Globe and Mail. To be clear, I originally wrote the article because I was doing competitive analysis on WPP Group and Omnicon as potential investments, and also noticed that NYSE:LGC was looking to take BlueFocus ("Blue Impact") public via a SPAC. I also think that major companies influencing the world economy should be on Wikipedia, and Chinese companies are underrepresented. Currently do not hold any investments in ad agencies in my portfolio, nor have I in the past several years. Further, I don't feel that my relatively de minimis investments (typical size ~1% of assets, max 5%) would constitute a COI, altho perhaps I should look into that issue. Further, I have never edited a listed securities page while holding the security or shortly before or after. I also don't edit or create pages for microcap or small-cap securities which are much more my investment interest. BlueFocus is a midcap (around $2.5B USD market cap). II | (t - c) 16:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's not about "guilty" or "verdicts", we aren't a court of law. It's about being a jackass to someone. Don't do that. Don't make claims without evidence. If you have a questions about someone's conflict of interest, try asking them on their talk page. Try taking the path of least drama instead of ramping it up when you have zero evidence. Is that simple enough? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, Yes sir! I got it. I apologize for that. - Hatchens (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hatchens, a solid step to showing you've got it would be to amend your nom for the AfD so that instead of casting aspersions, the attack is replaced with an argument based upon WP:NCORP policy. Please read the citations in the article and explain why they don't demonstrate notability. II | (t - c) 16:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  ImperfectlyInformed, yes I just amended the nomination. Thank you. - Hatchens (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hatchens, and yet you left the first sentence personal attack saying that this was created for PR purposes? Also seems like you are ignoring my discussion and the existing citations, but that's irrelevant to the bad-faith aspersions. II | (t - c) 16:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  ImperfectlyInformed, First sentence has been stricken off. Kindly check. -Hatchens (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hatchens, you're going thru the motions w/o understanding the spirit. You struck the first sentence, but left the article saying "Qualifies WP:PROMO and WP:ADMASK" (advertisement masquerading as an article). So you're still saying the same thing - that I created an article to spam Wkipedia. Just stick to the damn sources without a bunch of loaded emotionally evocative garbage. II | (t - c) 17:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  ImperfectlyInformed, Removed all the personal attacking text. Kept the AfD qualifying rules with proofs - as advised. Kindly help me with the AfD discussion. Thank you. - Hatchens (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  Hatchens, why are you saying that I created an advertisement article? Just because it's a wikilink to a policy guideline doesn't make it not an attack on my motives. Strike that second sentence too ("Qualifies WP:PROMO and WP:ADMASK") and be more careful about calling people spammers and PR promoters in the future. Then we can close this and get back to building the encyclopedia. II | (t - c) 17:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  ImperfectlyInformed, No can do. Whatever I felt with regard to AfD, I have given the proofs. If you still feel its a personal attack, I can't help much. If you can update the article and qualify it as per WP:HEY, then well and good. If it survives the AfD without WP:HEY, then also it's well and good. AfD discussion should run its course. - Hatchens (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Hatchens: Based on your responses, I agree you're "going through the motions" without understanding anything here. Actually, you're coming across as strongly passive-aggressive, bordering on trolling. These are serious accusations that need to be self-evident to any reasonable person. Looking at the article it's obvious that it's not a promotional advertisement, and looking at the author it's clear that they're an established, trusted user, even holding the autopatrolled user right, meaning they're so trusted that we don't even need to review their creations. So accusing them of making advertisements is absolutely a personal attack. None of your updated rationales reinforce these claims. Saying you "can't help much" clearly shows that you're not understanding the problem here, because you need to be retracting your statements and apologizing. I'm retracting your personal attacks, and if I see you doing this again in the future, you're going to be blocked until you can show an understanding of why this behavior is not okay. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, I understood. Will avoid such unwanted circumstances. Thank you for guiding me. Shall I retract the "statement of proof" with an apology at the AfD page?. Kindly advise. - Hatchens (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

No, because you made a new argument about WP:SIGCOV, and the PROMO accusations have been removed. If you're going to apologize, apologize to the editor directly on their talk page. If you really want to make it right, don't make these accusations again going forward. Even at this point you show no understanding as to what makes an article promotional, so you'd best just refrain from making judgment calls in such cases. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Swarm, I have withdrawn my nomination and submitted my apology to ImperfectlyInformed at the AfD discussion page and as well as at his's talk page. You're right!, I need to learn much more before putting any accusation or making any judgment calls. Also, I would like to apologize to the creator and everyone for unknowingly indulging in "personal attack" which has created an inconvenient situation for everyone. Thank you and thanks to everyone for guiding me and make me more aware of the rules which we all need to adhere, with absolute integrity. - Hatchens (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hatchens. Wikipedia can be a rough place and I try not to hold grudges. I look forward to more positive interactions in the future, and I truly do appreciate your interest in helping to protect this place from spammers. But please remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, and people should also not have to constantly defend their reasons for contributing content. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page if you need any advice, and if you email me we can do a telephone call if text becomes difficult. Also big thanks to the admins and long-term editors who commented (Swarm Drmies, Timtrent, Dialectric) for showing newcomers that our policies really do matter and nipping bad habits in the bud. II | (t - c) 06:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, I'm totally in. Can I assist you to build up this page BlueFocus Communication Group? - only if you permit me. You might have noticed, I'm not much into article creation. Nothing would be much better than having a hand-on practice in the first place. And, yes thank you. I will be in touch with you via your talk page or email to learn more about the whole wiki editing (as per the rules). - Hatchens (talk) 07:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks, and socking from IP

Two IPs (User:2600:6C4A:797F:F9E3:F08D:1027:D2D5:8B52 and User:75.48.228.60) have reverted content on Association for Behavior Analysis International. Violated WP:3RR after explicit warning not to. Both are from the same location and I believe them to be the same user, but on the talk page they represent themselves as different users. User accuses me of vandalism for adding sourced content to the article.

Reverts:

• [112]
• [113]
• [114]
• [115]

--66.244.121.212 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have looked at primary and secondary sources available online and it certainly looks like the ABAI regularly gives the JRC a friendly platform to defend and promote their electrical torture research practiced on children. At no point does the ABAI break away from the JRC and deny the validity of the JRC's behavioral work, especially their controversial electrical GED tool. The award given by ABAI to JRC lawyer Robert A. Sherman is especially damning. The IPs from Portage, Michigan, should not be allowed to edit that article, because they are whitewashing the article and promoting the topic. The IPs from Portage should be blocked for edit warring and violations of WP:MULTIPLE, or perhaps the article could be semiprotected, but that would also turn out the OP who is seeking neutrality. In any case, the IPs from Portage must be placed under heavy WP:COI restrictions, as the ABAI is physically located in Portage. Binksternet (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

With this edit this editor left a message at Talk:Nikko Briteramos entitled "White Supremacist Trolling" and wrote, "I notice a pattern of criminal conspiracy to inaccurately portray irrefutable facts found within certified legal documents. I ask that the #fbi and #cia bring the sources of these Cyber Crimes to justice." This appears to meet the criteria of a legal threat. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, this edit summary. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's pretty lame as threats go but it scrapes by the definition as "a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors". Blocked indefinitely. Cabayi (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

GNAA? Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long time. Solid block as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've also revdelled a few of the more disruptive edit summaries. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Promotional editing at Oren Moverman

• MovermanOren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 173.56.75.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Melinataurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.14.13.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2604:2000:F64B:6600:B912:C22A:8F00:6560 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

For years, Oren Moverman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been heavily edited by connected contributors, whether disclosed or not. Recently, MovermanOren and 173.56.75.8 keeps adding unsourced, promotional material and keeps removing sourced material. I left a warning at both users' talk pages, but they keep ignoring it. Looking at their edits, I think MovermanOren and 173.56.75.8 are engaging in sockpuppetry. Could someone block them and revert their edits? 153.209.66.212 (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Account blocked to prevent impersonation. I've warned the most recent IP, let us know if it continues and we'll consider page protection. GirthSummit _(blether) 04:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

1 threat, 1 personal information leaked, 3 personal attacks

Hi Administrators

I am on Wikipedia since 2018 but when the year ends i received a threat and my personal information was leaked in 2018 so i decided to change my username. A Wikipedia voluntarily response team helped me a lot. Now i am fed up and not only me but there are many others who have openly wrote a letter to Wikipedia team and raised the issue on social media. I am not a paid editor and whatever i did to Wikipedia is contributed from my end, from making pages to celebrities to public figures and places to religious places all were my contribution. but since 2019 i am being bullied here but few editors, whatever page i create, whoever the public figures are, if it is published in Dawn News or CNN, BBC to Nytimes every article of mine get deleted but when i ask them the reason they said "i am creating useless article and they are not passing notability" then i receive bunch of personal attacks, i received a threat on email in 2019 which i sent to law enforcement. Now last 5 articles which i created voluntarily is nominated for deletion and 2 is rescued somehow. I was suggested by administrator to make draft, i waited and voila the article got accepted by administrators and even patrolled too but in revenge my article got nominated for deletion by a guy "SAQIB" and "other" Mr. Saqib has been warned by more than two administrators and few editors in past to stop making personal comments. if you look into his talk page you will understand, now he started to put my article for deletion because i nominated 3 articles last month and 2 yesterday.

Please look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wahdat and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iffat_Rahim_(3rd_nomination) I am not taking revenge from any model at the time of nominating Iffat Rahim page there were no references and for Wahdat i put the article for deletion on 18 July 2020 last month so how am i on mass deletion spree? and why makes personal comments on me? why in revenge they put the deletion tag on Nick Wrenn Page? he was the VP of CNN International and passing notability and the page was accepted by administrator and editor but as soon as he knew that my page got approved he put the deletion tag in revenge. Same happens with Bin Swelah pages and later with Ayesha Chundrigar but luckily this page which i created of Anna Higgs is save else he would have put the deletion tag to that page too. there are many articles of mine which are nominated for deletion by them, and they do it because they don't like those celebrities. he did it with Waqar Zaka pages too and others. Can any administrator stop them to being doing this and making personal comments? I have never abuse anyone here and always give everyone a respect and in return i accept the same too.

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pakistanpedia. --Saqib (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi any administrators can look and investigate my account for sure i am not using any multiple accounts and using this since 2018 only, a person Saqib is doing this deliberately because i have complained here, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahdat. Mr. Saqib is either confused or in hurry to ban me but any sock puppet investigator can check my IP's and locations with other users who have been banned by the administrators :) Memon KutianaWala (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• What exactly are you hoping to accomplish here with vague threats and personal attacks against long standing editors? Your articles being deleted are an indication of your lack of understanding of WP:N, not other editors. A review of articles of yours that have been deleted via AFD indicate multiple editors nominating, not just Saqib and not just me. Are you implying that we are somehow in cahoots? Praxidicae (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Further, you've created 24 articles in mainspace, of which 13 have been deleted (only 1 recreated) which is more than half of all of your creations. 10 of which were deleted via AFD with an overwhelming delete consensus, 1 is currently at AFD after you recreated it in mainspace. The other 2 were G7'd by you. This says a lot more about your editing than it does other editors. Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Memon KutianaWala has a history of lambasting editors who nominate his articles for deletion. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1024#AFD_Flooding_By_A_Member:. --Saqib (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not abusing anyone here deleting my page makes no sense, Mr. Saqib is doing everything deliberately and of evidence i have sent to Wikimedia Emergency team and will involved Cyber Crime Department if necessary too. He is not only being personnel but involved in abusing, slang language and threat in past. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. It's been two years and has been explained multiple times to you. No one is attacking you (that I can see) from your edit history, they're nominating articles that fail our standards as part of a normal patrol process. Don't like it? Start going through WP:AFC. Also you really need to read WP:ASPERSIONS. I'd also strongly advise your next edit provides a diff to where Saqib threatened you, otherwise this is going to boomerang badly. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Memon KutianaWala: will involved Cyber Crime Department if necessary too. are you saying that you will effectively call the police because you dislike the way deletion discussions have gone? Praxidicae (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Not involving officials for deleting my pages but for personal attacks on me and many others the evidence has been sent to the Wikipedia team and let them decide. My pages are deleted but Mr. Saqib did it because of revenge and if i am doing something wrong Admin will block me simple and if i am not not doing anything wrong they will leave me :) But Mr Praxidicae according to you my articles are not notable ok i agreed did i argue with you? my question is same why many Pakistani articles who are not notable are having a Wikipedia pages here? i have put deletion tag on few and some were deleted too but in return Mr. Saqib started harassing me that why i have put the AFD on them and in return he put two AFD on my pages. Mr.Praxidicae tell me honestly is this page is not notable? Nick Wrenn if you say No then i will send you 20 articles here which were edited by Mr. Saqib and you need to put the AFD by yourself. Debate end and i am leaving this on Administrators, meanwhile i have sent evidence to emergency team and involved few officials there.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Praxidicae i am not talking about you but i am not sure whenever i speak about Mr. Saqib he either involves you to take part in discussion or you come from your end. In 2019 i received a threat a dangerous one, my personal information was leaked on Wikipedia. on Email wikimedia emergency team helped me then i changed my username to this. for a personal attacks forget about me just go to Mr. Saqib talk page and you will see. Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• Memon's response here is unsatisfactory and shows yet another inability to grasp basic Wikipedia norms and policies both regarding deletion and treatment of other editors. Continued personal attacks, aspersion casting and now legal threats to involve "cyber crime unit" because they can't seem to get WP:N and WP:V down leads me to believe they need an extended Wikibreak. I'd propose a lengthy block until they can demonstrate that they understand 1.) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia 2.) Editors who disagree with them are not bullying them 3.) AFD nominations which for the most part, seem to be successful are not bullying and are a normal part of patrolling and finally 4.) they can demonstrate competence through an understanding of the above mentioned policies without resorting to personal attacks and pointless ANI threads. Praxidicae (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not enough he said i am a sock puppet and using multiple accounts just because he don't like me means i am a sock puppet lol any CPI and administrators can check my location and IP address and if they find me that i am using Wikipedia for abusive purpose or even using multiple accounts then i will leave Wikipedia from my own and will never come back.Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)