Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

Mass Kyiv disruption

As I guess everybody knows Kiev was renamed to Kyiv in a contentious RM a couple of days ago. Since then, we have been witnessing mass moves and replaces of instances of Kyiv with Kiev ewerywhere, by many users. Whereas some moves are probably justified others are clearly not. Examples of clear disruption include mass out-of-process category moves (example 1, example 2) and mindless replacements of all instances of Kiev with Kyiv (populating a redirect category, introducing a redundant piped link to itself - note that in the last example the action was performed by an administrator) - and this is only from my wacthlist, from which I have removed most of the Ukrainian topic articles earlier this year. To be honest, I am not sure what to do here, I do not have a list of people performing these actions, and I think even if they stop we have enough editors more than happy to continue, but may be someone has a good idea how this transition from Kiev to Kyiv can be made according to the policies. We are talking about thousands of articles, templates, and categories. Ironically, just before the move, somebody - I do not remember who it was - told me that they believe that Kyiv vs Kiev is about a single article and would not have any bearing on other articles. I responded that does not matter what is in the policies people will come to move everything overnight - and now we see it happening.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Or even this - piped link to a redirect introduced when an article exists.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Historical usage, by the same administrator. I think I am going to stop posting here. I do not think we, as community, are capable of solving this problem. We just need to be very clear that we are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Blame the piped-link glitches on the visual editor, or file a bug report at the right technical forum. But I highly recommend a Wikibreak, anyway. —Michael Z. 19:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ymblanter! So you say that WP "are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet". What about beeing a Russian Propaganda outlet for at least 25 years? You are russian, doens't matter what you write on your page. When I registered in WP - you were russian, and now you changed your origin to be from Netherlands. It is a ridicoulous lie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mk0us (talk • contribs)

And this is a brilliant illustration of my point. Well, who cares about WP:CONSENSUS.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And may be I am old-fashioned, but "what you say is blatant lie" for me is a personal attack.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For me your words that I "so far failed miserably" and "Would you please stop playing an idiot" for another editor - are clearly personal attacks. Your quotes below, shows clearly, that you prefer Russian names everywhere. For Ukraine - keep russian names, because it is history, doesn't matter that the places are currently in Ukraine. But for Kuril/Kunashir Islands - we keep russian names, because they are currently in Russia. Japanese history is not important. Clearly different logic!
"You are already seeking this for years and so far failed miserably. You may want to look at Talk:Kiev/naming. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS, not on the basis of the opinion of the Ukrainian government. The current consensus is to keep Russian names.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)"
"Would you please stop playing an idiot? Kunashir is located in Russia. All countries except Japan recognize this, and therefore the principal names of localities and geographic features located on Kuril Islands are taken from Russian, not from Japanese. Moving articles from Russian names to Japanese names is disruption. (Japanese names were already in the articles, for the record). Adding info about smth currently located in "Kunashiri, Japan" is disruption. You perfectly know this. If you do it once again, I will block your account. Is this sufficiently clear?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)" T0mk0us (talk • contribs)

Look, I am not really here to react to all aspersions of a user who has no useful contribution, resorted to personal attacks and edit-warring, and is not interested in editing in accordance with WP:Consensus, however, the statement that "I prefer Russian names everywhere" is blatantly false. One can easily check that I merely follow WP:CONSENSUS in all articles and many times have reverted users who were replacing Ukrainian names in the articles with Russian names (in particular, in Crimean articles).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

For the context, the user I was arguing with and trying to explain our policies in relation to Kunashir, Ineedtostopforgetting, was not getting it, I have to take them to ANI, and they received a block. Later on, a checkuser blocked them as a sock. I still estimate however that my interaction with them made my life a few days shorter.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ha. I only came here to find out what Kyiv meant, and I discover that it's foreign for Kiev. Good grief. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

For instance, somebody thought it was a good idea to move Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv. It's now back to where it was. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I am waiting for the turn of historical usages such as Kievan Rus'.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And here we go: [1]--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Btw I blocked that user previously for disruptive Ukraine-related editing. May be it is time to continue since they obviously have not learned anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

And Chicken Kiev was probably created in Saint Petersburg.--Mvqr (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

How about "Chicken Petrograd"? That sounds appetizing! EEng 04:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

When the doctors say I have 48 hours left, EEng, I will edit war to change it to "Chicken Leningrad", in your honor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

From Russian jokes#Rabinovich: Rabinovich is arrested on the street in Leningrad. After an hour of being beaten, a KGB agent comes and asks him, "Where were you born?" / He spits out, "Saint Petersburg!" / The KBG agent beats him for ten more minutes and asks him, "Where were you raised?" / "Petrograd!" / The KGB agent beats him for fifteen more minutes and asks him, "Where do you live?" / "Leningrad!" / After a half hour more beating, the KGB agent asks, "And where would you like to die?" / "Saint Petersburg!" Lev!vich 23:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the subject... Many will have heard the joke about anti-tiger dust: Sitting on a train, Man #1 finds himself opposites Man #2, who has his hat in his lap, crown down and brim up. Man #2 keeps dipping his hand into the hat, withdrawing it, and then flicking his fingers in various directions. Seeing #1 is puzzled, #2 explains: "It's anti-tiger dust, to keep tigers away." Man #1: "But there are no tigers for thousands of miles from here!" Man #2: "That's how well it works!"

OK, so a friend who knows Russian culture well told me that in Russia they tell the same joke, except that the punchline is that #2 leans close and whispers conspiratorially, "Well that's good, because it doesn't work!" Speaks volumes. EEng 08:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

PAGE MOVEDGLOBAL SEARCH-AND-REPLACEDON'T CONSIDER CONTEXTEGG ON YOUR FACEMyanmar-Shave Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

eeeeexcellent GeneralNotability (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I echo what Ymblanter said. The language disruption is spreading to traditional transliterations of Russian (or Ukranian) text. See here. It will beg the question of what to do with sources that use the traditional Kiev spelling. RfC likely needed. Anyway, I wanted to bring to everyone's attention that it's not just Kiev/Kyiv that is affected. Best regards, Jip Orlando (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I raised this on talk a few days ago, expecting that would happen. On a smaller scale, similar happened when Chinese Communist Party was renamed and we end up with (eg) unnecessary CCPs across articles. It's a pain. RfC not needed, I think. Appropriate way to deal with it would be making a list of Kyiv related articles, having a short period for opposition and moving the ones that nobody opposed. Require a separate RM for the rest (like Chicken Kiev). Not sure how you'll address people unilaterally making changes. Maybe a temporary edit filter where page title contains Kiev/Kyiv, and the editor is not EC confirmed (if so, block move)? Can be done using action = move[2]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

+1. There's no way around doing the work of updating the encyclopedia. And yeah, it's a large encyclopedia, so there's a lot of updating to be done. (Hey maybe we'll all remember this next time we discuss notability guidelines.) It's already being discussed at Talk:Kyiv#Cleaning up associated articles, and I've started a list of related articles and categories at Talk:Kyiv/cleanup. Lev!vich 19:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I am greatly surprised that anybody is surprised by mass disruption. What did you imagine was going to happen when the "Kiev" article changed to "Kyiv"? How long have you been on Wikipedia? Walrasiad (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not suprpised, this is precisely what I predicted, including doing so in writing. However, it is still massive disruption and need to dealt with. I have seen that some moves were reverted, some RfCs and RM opened, and some blocks given out, and we probably need more blocks for those who do not get it. What I am actually surprised at is that these users have zero interest in improving articles on Ukrainian topics on Wikipedia. I was single-handedly creating articles on urban localities in Ukraine, we still have several dozens to create, which will probably keep me busy for another couple of years. Here we have a bunch of people who pose as defenders of Ukrainian national idea, they are happy to move Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv and to replace Kiev with Kyiv in the filenames so that the files turn into redlinks, but they never edited any article of more than a hundred which I created on Ukrainian localities (those still on my watchlist) - except for those of course which are located in Kiev Oblast.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Obviously lots of these examples are silly, but isn't it normal to move category trees (e.g. Category:Railway stations in Kiev) to match the name of the parent article? It seems unnecessary to insist on a discussion for each one. – Joe (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  Categories always should go via CfD. There is a speedy process for them, which takes two days to process provided no objections have been raised, WP:CFDS, and some of these categories were indeed nominated there but for whatever reason met objections and were moved to a full CfD discussion. Moving categories without involving CfD is out of process move.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• If I can toss in my two-cents. I work primarily in historical articles, and did not follow (nor participate) in the modern Kiev/Kyiv article discussion (I know better than to wade into nationalist pissing contests). But the wave of disruptions has arisen in historical articles, imposing that spelling anachronistically and rendered many historical entities, events and figures unrecognizable (e.g. Kievan Rus, St. Anthony of Kiev, etc.) with "Kyivan" or "Kyiv". For many (if not most) historical articles, the "Kiev" form is far and away the most common name in English-language history books and general reference works. Wikipedia criteria for an article doesn't end because another article happens to change its name. It seems to me that at least for historical articles, we're going to have to go on a case-by-case basis, via RMs, with reliable sources from general English-language resources. I realize this can become tiresome. As a short-cut, perhaps a general rule can be introduced that considers Kiev -> Kyiv to be a name change, much like Constantinople -> Istanbul in 1923, and similarly adopt a boundary date when that change goes into effect (e.g. 1995), so that historical articles that refer to "Kiev" before that date don't get anachronistically affected. Walrasiad (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

  A more recent example is the renaming of Swaziland to Eswatini in 2018. It would be grossly anachronistic to refer to anyone from there who is more than 2 years old as having been born in Eswatini. Narky Blert (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• And now we see that the IP who started the RM was in fact a logged out user topic-banned from Ukraine who was avoiding sanctions. It does not invalidate the RM of course but adds a flavor to the whole thing.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
• Hello, I am sysop in Ukrainian Wiki. I browsed through diffs Ymblanter provided us, and there are no users active in Uk.Wiki I've noticed. So it seems people coming from news mainly, not from another wiki. If this is of any help. --Brunei (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. There are definitely users active in the Ukrainian Wikipedia: I noticed hat Vitaliyf261 was blocked for disruption here yesterday, because he apparently decided that now everything related to Ukraine must be transliterated from Ukrainian, and AndriiDr who yesterday in this edit not only replace Kiev with Kyiv, buty also Odessa with Odesa, for which currently there is no community consensus. I did not even try to look up all edits related to Kiev -> Kyiv, I only operate with those which are on my wactchlist or were brought to my attention, but it is indeed possible that only a small part of this disruption is coming from the Ukrainian Wikipedia editors.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Oh yes, and Piznajko, who most likely started the RM while being topic-banned from Ukrainian topics, and today was CU blocked indef, is an active editor of the Ukrainian Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  Seems like there is some canvassing going on by another IP [3]. Could this IP be the same as the blocked user mentioned by @Ymblanter: above? Walrasiad (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  My guess this is another one. The goal of the blocked user was always to rename Kiev to Kyiv in all contexts; the goal of this IP is pure trolling.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  That IP seems clean on CU. I think we should assume that it is a meat puppet --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Paid editing

I have received an email from a person that claims to write Wikipedia articles about people in exchange for money. As a long term editor of Wikipedia this worried me and I know it violates Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure. I would like to report the editor, but all proof I have is said email and of course I do not want to accuse anybody wrongly. I will write an email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org at the same time to report this behaviour and hopefully we can identify affected articles and either delete them or correct them (remove POV) if required. Please let me know how to proceed and whether to post affected articles/usernames here or not. Best regards --hroest 14:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment). You were right not to post any details here. Another possible place to forward that email is WP:ARBCOM (contact details in that article). That's what I did the last time I got one (except that the cheapskate wasn't even offering me any money), and they courteously replied that they'd identified the emailer as a WP:SOCK. Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you have to take these things with a grain of salt. There have been instances recently in which people have gone to fairly great lengths (posting phony reviews on noticeboards and the like) to frame productive editors as paid shills. BD2412 T 17:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412, the mere thought of that existential sort of situation occurring made me cringe. Editors involved greatly in anti UPE/SPAM who have a target on their back need to be very careful. Unfortunately I fall into this category. Celestina007 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412, Celestina007, and Narky Blert: Thanks for your comments, I have forwarded the email to WP:ARBCOM. Hopefully some admin can look into this in more detail (I hope this gets taken seriously, since this destroys the culture and joy of editing). I dont think this is a case of an elaborate scheme to frame some editor and it clearly looks like an account that tries to keep a low profile and only edit very specific articles. --hroest 01:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: also pinging @Primefac and Beeblebrox: as they may be interested. --hroest 02:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Not much to add to the above; if it's off-wiki evidence, mail it in. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent bot-like reverts of a specific user

While I'm still looking into other Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution methods to deal with this, I feel it is necessary to record this incident here. Requesting assistance here, as the list of diffs is too big, and I do not know how to proceed.

Apparently, users Miaumee and JayBeeEll had an argument in User_talk:Miaumee#Basic_issues_of_punctuation, which eventually led to JayBeeEll reverting numerous edits by Miaumee, in an almost bot-like fashion.

At first glance, I'd say this is an infringement of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Most (if not all) of Miaumee's edits consist of:

1. adding multiple references of kind <ref name=':01'> , having Mathworld or Mathvault as source; and
2. making changes to the wording of the text.

In Variance diff, these changes in wording seemed quite positive to me, hence why I reverted the revert.

The multiple reversions can be checked in JayBeeEll's contributions, but I plan to collect of the disruptive edits here soon. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The list of all reverts are as follows:

FWIW, the edit summaries of "Undid revision by Miaumee (talk) Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" makes it appear this is a WP:POINT retaliation. Helper202 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

No, my edits are not making a point: their edits are bad, reverting them is an improvement (at least on net). Also, I find it a bit annoying that this couldn't wait until after I responded on my talk-page (note that I have not performed any reverts in several hours, despite there being another 50-100 of these edits that are the last edit to their respective page). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

All of these appear to be references to either Wolfram MathWorld or Mathvault. Is there any intrinsic problem with these sites as sources? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't think there is a problem, as I see them often here and there. Even if it were a "bad" source, I'm not sure if it would be OK to revert all edits, especially due to WP:IMPERFECT and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mathworld is widely used but mediocre; Mathvault (and Brilliant.org, which they also seem to use) is super low quality, and the way they add them is very spammy. David Eppstein has also been reverting on sight (though I do not mean to suggest he endorses specifically the systematic reverts I've made). --JBL (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

True. For what it's worth, I believe the edits are in good faith, but low quality. More, they are too consistently low-quality and too extensive for it to be worth the effort to sift through them carefully in case any of the changes are improvements. Many of the changes are innocuous, neither better nor worse than what was there before, but many more are disimprovements, making the grammar worse, making the mathematics less accurate, or introducing low-quality web sources to articles that are already more carefully sourced to higher-quality publications. In any case the only issue here that is behavioral rather than content is Miaumee's continued pattern of edits beyond their level of competence. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no doubt that JayBeeEll's behavior of performing a mass revert with poor edit summaries qualifies as a behavioural issue regarding WP:POINT and WP:ESDOS, and it should be recorded as such. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 12:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The way Miaumee rephrases things (rather than adding useful content) can be seen as infringing MOS:STYLERET; though in some of these diffs (I did not see all) I think the rephrasing actually improved the text. Is there any guideline that supports not using these poor sources (Mathworld and Mathvault)? Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that good faith but low-quality contributions cannot be undone merely as a matter of editorial discretion for being low-quality, and that instead they can only be undone if there is some policy or guideline that they violate. I strongly disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Right. (Also the guideline as far as Mathvault is concerned is WP:RS.) —JBL (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein And let me guess, you get to make the decision as to what is low or high quality. It goes without saying that I'm against that.

A massive revert such as the one done is only justifiable if there is a clear infringement of a wikipedia guideline. As such, Miaumee's edits' quality are largely debatable, and JayBeeEll should have brought up the problem in, say, Wikiproject Mathematics.

You also miss my second point. I understand if it is hard for you, but try to place yourself in Miaumee's shoes for a moment. Hours of your work have been reverted, and with a quite unhelpful edit summary. This clearly goes the opposite way of WP:CIVILITY (particularly, but not exclusively, WP:ESDONTS). Ideally I want this to be solved in a way that is, at the very least, civil towards Miaumee. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 12:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be more concerned about Miaumee's feelings if they were responsive to concerns about their edits -- the actual best outcome here would be for them to say, "Yes I understand what is wrong with my edits, here is what I will do better; and by the way I will check over all my remaining edits to make sure they are okay." Their unwillingness to change in response to valid criticism is by far the most serious problem here. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You can't get that kind of response from the other party if you just throw facts on their faces. First of all, what guarantee do they have that you are correct? Absolutely none. That's why you need consensus, supports from other people. I'm much more likely to recognize that I am wrong if more than some random editor calls out on me. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is an absurd elevation of process over substance, and it's particularly ridiculous given that you didn't bother to see what discussion with me would yield before running off to ANI. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm most concerned with the civility problem. JayBeeEll applied the edit summary "Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing" to over 70 edits. It would be hard to argue that that's appropriate; it seems to me like WikiHounding. I noticed the uncivil edit summary in one of the pages on my watchlist and it led me to comment on their talk page, and I also considered starting an ANI thread before I saw this one. Benny White (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess it would help to make the following things explicit: I noted Benny White's concerns earlier and have not made any of thse edits since then. When I resume examining the rest of Miaumee's edits, if I revert them, I will endeavor to write edit summaries that don't rub people the wrong way. Likewise, I will proceed at a slower pace. --JBL (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If there is no admin input to this, other than David Eppstein's (which was summoned here by JayBeeEll himself), I intend to take the role of an unrequested WP:THIRD opinion to solve the dispute. I will politely:

1. explain to Miaumee, based on what was discussed here, that Mathvault and Mathworld can be seen as WP:QUESTIONABLE sources or largely WP:RSSELF published sources, and thus lack WP:RELIABILITY.
2. explain how her persistent and somewhat bot-like edits to rephrase text, while good faith, go against MOS:STYLERET when there isn't a clear improvement to the text. In some cases, such as here, there was a significant improvement to the text, but I guess that's because the original article had more significant problems in writing style. Most of Miaumee's other edits were modifications to an otherwise fine text, some of which arguably decreased the text quality.
3. invite her to undo JayBeeEll's reverts where she is sure the two above items do not apply.
4. invite her to selectively undo JayBeeEll's reverts, so that the content that does not infringe items 1 and 2 can remain live in the articles.
5. kindly request that she shifts her focus to adding actual new content to articles (properly sourced, of course).

Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 13:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As the person who thought this was worth escalating to WP:ANI you are the wrong person to claim to take a neutral role in this. And your suggestion that Miaumee be encouraged to reinstate some of the bad edits and continue making more of them is unconstructive and makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I was unsure if it was worth bringing the incident here, but now I am sure that's what should have been done. I'm glad to have this incident recorded here, but to some extent disappointed with the lack of feedback from neutral uninvolved admins.

I still believe I am a neutral party here, as I never had any relation with Miaumee and I noticed this whole problem merely because I'm watching Variance, and suddenly a revert with a weird edit summary popped up in my watch list. To make it worse, it reverted a largely fine edit (thought I intend to remove the mathworld references soon).

Might I add, I am now reminded that an RfA has just been denied on the grounds that the candidate had bad dispute resolution skills (withdrawn at 17 September), so the dispute resolution skills I am witnessing here is having its toll on me. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As an attempt to improve the item you mentioned, I have striked it and added a reformulated one. By no means I would proposed she fully revert edits, as all of them involve mathworld etc references, and I'd rather have her keep these away. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Walwal20, Miaumee, David Eppstein, and JayBeeEll: Walwal20 reached out to me, as an uninvolved admin, which I am. Indeed I don't think I have ever edited any of these articles, or interacted with any of you except David Eppstein, who I have had slioght but quite positive interactions with. Several points:

1. I accept for the moment, the statement that Mathvault and Mathworld are generally low-quality sources.
2. An editor who believes that a given edit is unhelpful may surely revert that edit as a matter of editorial judgement. No one's approval is needed for that, although if the revert is challenged WP:BRD applies.
3. However to mass-revert over 75 edits at a rate approaching 5 edits per minute approaches the level of bot-like editing covered by WP:MEATBOT. This is not acceptable in the absence of consensus. I accept that all these reverts were done in good faith.
4. As per WP:SUMMARYNO, "Per User talk:Miaumee, this is apparently the preferred response to poor editing"is not a helpful summery, and it looks pointy whether it was intended as a POINTY action or not.
5. I therefore ask JayBeeEll to refrain from any further such edits until there is time for a discussion of the matter. Please consider this a sufficient challenge to these edits to invoke BRD.
6. I have as yet no substantive opinion on the merits of these edits. I will try to form one. There are both content issues and behavioral issues here.
7. I will address :::Miaumeedirectly on that user's talk page, and ask for a Stop to the edits now being reverted.

I ask for calm and civility from all involved. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It goes to show the absurdity of this situation that I committed to the things you ask of me six hours ago. --JBL (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now made This edit to User talk:Miaumee DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

JayBeeEll I am attempting to respond quickly to prevent further problems here. I have not yet had time to read everything written about this situation. I apologize if I have overlooked comments of yours, and i am thankful that you have already agreed to my requests, which I hope are reasonable ones, and which were in part addressed to all. Could you give me a pointer to the agreement you mention, please? or at least was it in this thread or elsewhere? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am going offline for a few hours, but will check back when I can, all. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: Sorry, I didn't mean to snipe at you specifically, I just find it ridiculous that this was brought to ANI in the first place, without waiting for a response on my talk-page. The comment I mean is the one is response to Benny White above -- although rereading it I guess it promises slightly less (or at least is vague about when I might resume looking at Miaumee's edits). So let me take the opportunity to observe that there is nothing urgent about any of this; to further make clear that I will not resume before this is resolved; and to restate my earlier committment to not doing the things that people object to (the speed and edit summaries) if I do resume after this is resolved. Finally, I appreciate your comment on Miaumee's talkpage, thanks. --JBL (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite all right, JayBeeEll, no offense taken. I see the comment you refer to, and i thank you for that and for your later response just above. I am now hoping for a response to this from Miaumee. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks. Thanks for chiming in. I guess I'll start by saying that my edits are not exactly as systematic as some here have presumed. Often times, the editing barely happens because I find a sentence jarring or hard to understand, and the rest proceeds organically from there. The intent is often not to introduce new content, but to put myself as a first-time reader and see which passage appear nebulous (as is common in mathematical text) and how they can be rephrased. The edits weren't done with the intent of reverting style, although for someone with a certain grammatical style whose edits are often substantive, it could appear that way.

The other thing I thought I would mention is that during the course of editing, I've come to learn certain grammatical changes (outside of MoS) are touchier than others. In the beginning for example, I used to reflexively remove duplicate spaces after full stop as I read through the text. But after being notified that some prefer double spaces, I became more aware to adjust my writing to fit the predominant style of the article.

So this, among other reasons, is why I never revert any edit on Wikipedia (there are others more capable in making those sorts of judgments than me). The history of me being on Wiki has been me doing the editing, and others doing the reverting (if they so feel compelled). To be frank, the reverting basically didn't happen until fairly recently, but that's also why there hasn't been any edit war involving me in the first place—since I almost never edit an article twice.

So the point here is that I'm not the type who would seek to reinstate any reverting. I think that if the edit is good, then it'll find its way there somehow, and if it's bad, someone will either change things up or revert it altogether. That's basically why I have been confident with editing—knowing that I cannot possibly satisfy everyone in the process.

OK. Back to the concerns about grammar. To be honest, I didn't think that it would be such an issue since the MoS covered many aspects rather thoroughly. From my exchange with JBL, I've learned that he takes issue at least with my use of stray commas and em-dash. While the uses of these are rather common on Wikipedia, they have the potential of changing the meaning of the sentences. So that's definitely something I think twice before doing.

Apart from those, I really haven't got much clue whether the issue with grammar are indeed grammatical errors in the Wikipedia sense, since—as you might know—I haven't been able to get much info from the reverts aside from "grammatical disprovement". It'd have been nicer if the edits were modified instead of being reverted—but I guess that's hard to do due to the substantive nature of the edits.

As for the citations, that's something I have a mixed feeling about. As you might know, I have a few handy online sources I use for reading on a topic and doing the editing. If I slap a citation on an article, it's generally not because I'm crazy about them, but because they happen to be just around and ok for the sentences being substantiated. While I agree that these different sources (mathworld, mathvault, mathsisfun, brilliant, math insight) are of different levels of quality, I think that in many cases, the dubiousness can be a bit overblown and some of the expectations can be a bit unrealistic (for mathematics at least).

Hmm... how should I put this. I think I'll start by saying that it is generally not easy to find a citation in mathematics (though it sure is easy for those doing the policing). The point is that I've chosen those sites precisely because they are reference-based and non-self-published (at least in the appearance of it). Even if they were to be self-published, these are generally written or reviewed by competent individual (including mathsisfun, which admittedly looks very inappropriate for citing). I guess what I'm saying is that out of millions of questionable math sites, those are the ones that tend to stand out and happen to be around during the research (and are less likely to disappear like some academic PDF would).

For example, I also have some reservation about citing Brilliant.org, which is technically a wiki. But unlike open-for-all wiki, they have a curation process so that only certain individuals can edit (almost as a sort of peer-reviewing). If this were about biography of living person I'll definitely think twice, but if one considers those sites as low quality, then considering their factual accuracy and the amount of math resources they offer—it'd be like playing a game with your hands tied (unless one turns to textual sources, which I assume is possible but much less handy). My inclination is that them doing harm on the site is a bit of an over-stretch, but of course that doesn't mean that anything goes either.

Anyway, I am not saying this out of defiance, nor I am trying to discredit your points—as I'm sure I can do better on many fronts. Basically, this is yet another reason why I'm sort of prepared to have my previous edits reverted (if it were to come out that way). As I mentioned on my talk page, I'll refrain from any editing until the dust is settled. Though I really, really do appreciate the admins and fellow editors for standing out, I'd probably stay relatively low-profile to avoid clouding the judgment. Miaumee (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Miaumee, I am glad to read your comment above. I hope we are wewll on the way to resolving this.

It seems to me that three are two parts to this, content issues and behavioral issues.

The content issues are the quality of edits by Miaumee, and how they can be improved, and whether reverts are needed going forward. That is really out of scope for ANI, but perhaps needs further discussion somewhere. It could be done on User talk:Miaumee or on a separate page, perhaps a new page such as Wikipedia:Math edits by Miaumee (or I could create such a page in my user space if people prefer).

The behavioral issues are fairly simple, and I hope will not need further discussions or any restrictions on anyone. On Miaumee's part, there must be a serious effort to make the best possible edits, and to work collaboratively. An attitude that if there is a problem with an edit, someone else will revert it or correct it is not optimal, it can seem as if that means expecting others to clean up after poor edits. Also attention to Wikipedia:Communication is required. And in this particular case, Miaumee should review their own past edits and revise them to remove problems where possible.

On the part of JayBeeEll, care to Assume good faith and keep Wikipedia:Communication is required in mind. Mass reverts, as described in the comment by JBL ...I feel that you have left no option other than to revert all your edits... and as carried out by JBL in the list of diffs earlier in this thread, are not usually appropriate. There are a few cases where an editor's contributions will be reverted in bulk. For example, when a Contributor copyright investigation has found that an editor has made sufficiently frequent copyright violations that a mass revert is warranted. But copyright issues are rather more serious than grammar and punctuation errors, for one thing, and such a decision is never made by a single editor, it is done by consensus, normally after a formal process. I do not think that the problems with Miaumee's edits rise to that level. Therefore I must also disagree with and disapprove of the comment by David Eppstein in this thread that Miaumee's edits are too consistently low-quality and too extensive for it to be worth the effort to sift through them carefully in case any of the changes are improvements. WP:QUO says If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it. Help:reverting says Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? and n the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea. WP:SUMMARYNO also points out the need for helpful, specific edit summaries, saying While edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific. and Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack. Also WP:MEATBOT says that Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. and warns of the dangers of highly repetitive editing. I gather that JBL has agreed not to use such methods of reverting in future.

With JBL's agreement above, and with Miaumee's stated intent to do better (I'm sure I can do better on many fronts.) It seems that the behavioral issues have perhaps been addressed. Does anyone think that further discussion of these or of any other behavioral issues is needed here? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: perhaps I was being too polite and circumlocutory. Your long comment here, accusing me of failing to follow WP:QUO, is forcing me to be more blunt. In fact, I have looked carefully through each of the several edits of Miaumee that I undid, contrary to your accusations. I found in them only the introduction of low-quality web sources, minor wording changes that added verbiage but no value to the article, bizarre choices of punctuation (especially frequent introduction of unspaced dashes in places where dashes of any sort were not appropriate, creating the appearance of compound words in technical articles where that could plausibly indicate some unknown technical meaning but in fact merely consisted of poor writing), gratuitous changes of citation style, and the occasional introduction of mathematical inaccuracies. There was never any attempt to introduce worthwhile content to the articles that could be salvaged with better editing; it was all cosmetic and all disimprovement. I did not want to say that there is nothing of value to salvage in Miaumee's edits, because I do still believe Miaumee is acting in good faith, but when you use my politeness as an excuse to attack me I must respond honestly. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I did not intend to attack you, David Eppstein. If you reviewed an edit, or many edits, by Miaumee, and concluded that each was of no value to the article, reverting them was perfectly proper. I note in this revert (which seems to be your latest revert of Miaumee) for example, a helpful specific edit summary. This is in contrast to the repetitive reverts by JayBeeEll. My objection was the the implication which seemed to me to be present in your comments that, having reviewed a number of edits by Miaumee you found them of such consistently low value that it was justified to revert al of them without further examination or "at sight" as JBL described them. If I understand you correctly, that was a misdescription, and all your reverts were after examination. If so I have no problem with them. I apologize if I mischaractreized your commetns above. Can you see where they seemed to me, in conenction with the comments by JBL, to be endorsing a "revert-on-sight" approach? Do I take it you agree that even after finding many problems with an editor's contributions, individual reverts require individual, albeit perhaps brief, examination of the edit to be reverted? If so, they we agree. I was, i admit, more focused on JBL's reverts, and on you only in terms of your comments here that seemed to endorse them, or endorse a revert on sight approach. I apologize for not making this clearer. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

When an editor makes dozens or hundreds of edits, all of the same type, how many of them do you have to examine carefully word by word, recognizing that they're all of the same type and providing careful individually-written edit summaries describing for each of them what their faults are, before determining that additional edits that look at a cursory glance to be of the same type can be treated the same way with a canned edit summary? You seem to believe: there is no limit, that cursory undoes with canned summaries are never appropriate, and that productive editors must be forced to either waste their time taking great care over each undo or let the articles they watchlist slowly rot by ignoring these disimproving edits. That is not reasonable. I would like to encourage new editors, especially in mathematics and especially if (as several others here have implied) Miaumee is female, because we need more editors of both types. But allowing new editors to persist in bad habits, rather than redirecting them towards a type of edit that can be more constructive, and forcing other editors to waste time indulging them, is not encouragement, and I would add that it is also not encouraging those other editors to direct their time and energy towards what should be the primary task here, building and maintaining an encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say that every revert needs to be individually considered, not conducted en-mass with a canned edit summery, unless a clear consensus to revert all of an editor's contributions has been developed with multiple experienced editors contributing to the discussant, just as is done in a WP:CCI. And I think that is what current policy and guidelines call for. I would say further that such a process is not warranted unless the editor involved has been blocked or Tbanned by community consensus, or at least such a measure has been seriously debated at a noticeboard. There are other ways to redirect new editors with bad habits than mass reverts. Targeted reverts with helpful comments seem more likely to do the job if it is doable in a particular case, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• "why I never revert any edit on Wikipedia" You never check for insertion of vandalism, unsourced content, and POV edits? How does that work?
• "I almost never edit an article twice." Do you add the articles you edit to your watchlist? This allows you to check newer changes.
• "I think that in many cases, the dubiousness can be a bit overblown and some of the expectations can be a bit unrealistic (for mathematics at least)." Then you should discuss the reliability of the sources with other editors. Dimadick (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by multiple related accounts at Christian Rowan

Mostly promotional and/or political spin. At my request, two administrators assisted in bringing this to a more neutral version, but their work is being persistently undone. Page protection and perhaps a range block may be worth exploring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

See blocked account 2001:8004:2770:CDAD:7162:DECB:4BE8:FA99 (talk · contribs). Since then, continued disruption by 131.242.101.250 (talk · contribs) and 131.242.101.248 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Editor keeps recreating article that has been repeatedly deleted.

Saroha_Rajgan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps recreating the same article over and over again. It has already been speedily deleted several times, and he has already been warned multiple times to stop recreating this article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I now see that this speedy deletion was declined. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• An ancillary issue here is that the user’s name is in clear violation of our username policy, as it’s the name of a Pakistani village (which is the subject of the article that they’re trying to create). They need a soft block for this reason alone. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Since when is using a placename as a username illegal on enwiki? And which part of Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low is difficult for you guys to understand? Quite surprising how you scurry to chase off anyone whom you perceive to be a non-native English-speaker, yet basic sentences in your own language are too much for you to process. And we wonder why enwiki has such a strong Anglo-American bias: it's because you folks don't want that to change. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually aware of that rule. However, populated, legally recognized places can still be deleted if we can't find a source that can verify their existence. I tagged the article for speedy deletion because it had already been deleted so many times for similar reasons and had identical wording to the previous versions. I was also unaware of the link that existed in the user's sandbox. I guess I got too ahead of myself on this one. For that reason, I'll refrain from tagging any more articles until I have more knowledge of the process. However, this does not change the fact that this user is still being very disruptive despite several warnings to change their behavior. I don't doubt that they are acting in good faith, but I feel that some kind of action needs to be taken here. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So then criticise him for that disruption, rather than absurd stuff like the act of creating an article on a notable place, or having a matching username. Looking at their contributions, I don't disagree with the assessment you make in your last sentence, but I most certainly will not stand for the other nonsense that has found its way into this saga. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right. It was a bad move on my part to tag the article. I shouldn't have relied so much on previous deletions even though part of me was uncertain as to whether I was doing the right thing. Had I known that the tag had been removed, I would not have posted here without consulting an administrator. The AFD is getting a lot of attention. I plan on voting keep if we can find a reliable source. In the meantime, I think I'll let the administrators deal with him. I'll try asking him if he can find sources for us if he comes back. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Two Russian brothers messing around pushing Kremlin agenda calling "Pentagon unreliable source" they have returned after page protection ended

These two are constantly adding pro-Russian views and removing US State Dept. or Pentagon sources calling them unreliable. One of the users have returned after a page protection ended due to dispute and has made the same exact revert. User:F.Alexsandr and User:Mr.User200. They are hardcore editing russian missile systems and jet fighter articles to make them look superior by using Russian language sources they also remove US sources critical of them saying its probably "fake". These guys dont belong here. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The user above argues in bad faith. It is one thing to use Pentagon or state department as a source, However the user above uses opinion articles on NewYourkTimes which cite US Africa Command as an undeniable source. Especially in such important and heavily reliant on sources topics like defence and losses of military equipment he continues to use single "sources" or rather opinion articles unsupported by photo, video, or documentary evidence, which support his point of view, not even trying to diversify them. I have proposed to him several times to move discussion to the talk page, but instead of doing this, this is the second time in a week when he uses Noticeboard to ask to restrict me from editing on Wikipedia. F.Alexsandr (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not rely on image board logic of photo or video evidence. We have a thing called reliable and unreliable sources, namely the NYT etc. While RT/Sputnik are deprecated sources. This is a rule, if you refuse this you are welcome to enjoy a temporary block. And if you continue that will become a permanent block. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I know that RT/Sputnik are deprecated sources. I have never used them and I dont know why you are telling me this. Just because NYT cited USAFRICOM who said that there are 14 russian jets in Lybia does not mean that this should be used in infobox as undeniable statemnt of fact. We know for shure there ARE russian jets in Lybia, but we dont know how many. I proposed to you to move the US claim to a separate section of the article, or to discuss possible settlement in a Talk page, but you have ignored me. Anyway, this is not a place to discuss it, I only responded to give administrator some context. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

No you are just sweet talking meaningless words to buy you time so you can edit russian weapon systems to make them look superior. Only a unaware person would discuss anything with a russian troll. dont tell me another word because i am not talking to you. 176.88.136.86 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You can't make a statement in a noticeboard discussion and then, in effect, "no-contact" them (you can of course say not to ping you etc). Are there diffs of them using depreciated sources as you claim? Currently it sounds rather content-dispute, and thus outside our remit. But obviously there are lots of conduct issues in this area, so I wanted to ask for more specific evidence for your claim and show a conduct basis. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks to me like this is a content dispute, and additionally the IP needs a block for personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a clear case of Sockpupetry and POV push (Agenda), both anon IPs (176.88.145.111 & 176.88.142.57) keeps pushing a agenda, Pro Turkish btw, on modern military conflicts. I think a SP investigation should be carried out soon and a Check User. Those war related pages have been systematically vandalized by two Sockpuppet masters. User:Gala19000 (Socks) and User:RandomAccount1235423(List of Socks) + lesser IPs. I think User:Shadow4dark could also make an opinion here.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This ip is sock of RandomAccount1235423 see [[4]] similar personal attacks. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for a month for block evasion, as it seems to be a static IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This ip is likely a sock of User:Maistara. {{3125A|talk}} 01:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed Paid Page

We have been contacted by an editor claiming that we need to pay him $400 in order to fix an undisclosed paid page on our page or else he will flag it to be deleted.

I don't want to publically publish their details here. Please could you advise on how to process?

Thanks User:Sheffielder22

Sheffielder22 (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sheffielder22 you'll need to email paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org Praxidicae (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sheffielder22: (non-admin comment). You were right not to post details here. I would forward them to WP:ARBCOM (contact info in that article). They are unlikely to take kindly to blackmail, or to treat it lightly. WP:LEGALTHREATs are bad enough, but illegal ones are something else again. Narky Blert (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat

On User talk: Shaheryar Shabbir#September 2020 when I asked them to declare their paid editor status. UPE + legal threat = clear reason to block as WP:NOTHERE. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If you could go back and read my statement, I've clearly stated I'm new to wikipedia and have very less knowledge and I've asked that If I could move legally, I used the word (IF) there is a huge difference between asking a general question and verbally threatning someone kindly read my statement again before declaring my statement in wrong context, Thank you Shaheryar Shabbir (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Shaheryar Shabbir, whether or not you are able to take any sort of legal action is quite beyond the point. Even broaching the subject is grounds for administrative action. Whatever the outcome here, I would respectfully suggest you leave such questions aside. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I've already mentioned it 3 times now, That I'm new to wikipedia, can you please read my statement? Please? Thank you Shaheryar Shabbir (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Shaheryar Shabbir: How is this related to the issue at hand? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless this user reads WP:OWN (which they've been told about in at least 3 places- their talkpage, article talkpage and the help desk), WP:PAID and WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, and complies with all three, they should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE. All the material they're trying to remove is well sourced controversy. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

As I told you I'm new on the wikipedia I am not much familiar with how Wikipedia works so I made a mistake by using a statement which caused someone to take it as a legal threat context, I would apologise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheryar Shabbir (talk • contribs)

Also please stop trying to delete this article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (2nd nomination) was 1 month ago and was a speedy keep as no policy was given for deletion. Your current attempt to AFD it again is just more disruption and will just result it being kept again. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

According to the nomination they need votes which I know people will vote now to get the page deleted, Shaheryar Shabbir (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It needs a consensus not a vote, and there was a consensus last month to keep it. The more you keep editing without reading key policies, the more likely it is you will be blocked. You still haven't declared your paid editing status correctly. The latest misplaced nonsense that needs cleaning up is the misplaced Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka and Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination). There is a consensus to keep, you will not get it deleted no matter how much you try. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And this user still hasn't posted a redaction of their legal threat, can't believe they haven't been blocked yet..... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

: It wasn't the first legal threat either. See [5] — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Can I just propose an indef now? They've still failed to make a disclosure even after a lengthy discussion via our help channel and nearly a dozen messages on their talk page, here and other places. This is not just a TOU vio at this point, it's also well beyond WP:TE. Praxidicae (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  They made this [6] although the template is broken and they're trying to link to a private discord group or something. Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  How are they not indeffed for clear legal threats yet? It's a blatant violation of WP:NOLEGALTHREATS and having made many edits, they have refused to redact tge legal threat. I would have expected admins to take this more seriously, they usually do. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the legal threats, he's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Block'em for that as I just did and the situation resolves itself. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Duc4Wikmedia and redirects

Duc4Wikmedia has been creating redirects from film production companies for a long period of time now, many of which are not mentioned at the redirects' targets. These are regularly nominated by me on RfD, where they are deleted unless a different user fixes the problem by adding a respective mention to the article (see the notifications on the user's talk page for reference), and were discussed on WikiProject Redirect's talk page. Thus, their creation should be considered disruptive editing. After being warned twice, they still continued to create Foxxking Entertainment, Foxx Hole Productions, and Reveal Entertainment, some similarly unhelpful redirects. Therefore, I propose to consider a topic ban on redirect creation for the user. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Found at target. --2600:1700:4300:2C8F:89EA:72E4:97DB:14B5 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Now found at target", you mean (1, 2). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

BHG

I have asked BrownHairedGirl to not message me directly, I think quite civilly. This appears to be being ignored. I was kind enough to bring her attention to a category issue, even though I fundamentally disagree with categories altogether. I decided to revert a message I wrote as although I did feel that I was being gas-lighted it was probably something I shouldn't have said out loud. I then got a message, with a threat to take me to AN/I. I’ll admit I haven't read the entire text of the message because - I’m not interested! Also, it is triggering my anxiety.

I would ask that this be reviewed and that my civil and respectful request that she not message me be respected. If an admin could please review, that would be appreciated. Unless absolutely necessary I will try to make this my only message on AN/I. I will add the notice to her talk page per policy, but that will be all. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

See my post[7] on Chris's talk, where I set out why I ignored the request. If Chris had actually read the message, they'd see why I posted it ... and they could save time at ANI.

Chris needs to make up their mind: do they want non-interaction? Or do they want to troll me in multiple venues and then complain when I ask them to desist?

This is all a continuation of the saga a few months ago, where Chris caused a massive storm by emptying a category out of process, and then launched a vendetta against User:DuncanHill for challenging the disruption. I challenged that vendetta, and Chris then complained that I had "bullied" them. Oh, the irony.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] It is perhaps relevant that this request for non-interaction was left here roughly a day after Chris.sherlock initiated an interaction with BHG by leaving several snarky comments about her editing on a widely-read discussion board diff1 diff2 diff3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thats not entirely accurate. I let BHG know that there was a category issue she may want to be aware of. I take on board that some of my later comments may have come across snarky, for which I apologise. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, @David Eppstein. It's highly relevant, and sadly it seems to be part of a long history of similar conduct by Chris: troll and attack others, then claim that being asked to desist is triggering their anxiety. I sympathise with Chris's mental health problems, but they would help themselves best by desisting from their pattern of manufacturing situations which cause them to get upset when asked to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    • • Not knowing the background, I thought the first of these comments highly sensible, & indeed Bhg did join the discussion with a very useful post. After that I got puzzled. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • How about we enact a ban on Chris which prevents him from discussing BHG on talk pages, or pinging BHG in any form, including mentioning her in edit summaries. A further ban from her talk page with the sole exception of leaving required notifications may also be of benefit. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
      • That sounds to me like a good way of giving Chris what they claim to want, but which they are unable or unwilling to implement on their own. It's is an odd situation, but maybe this is the solution. I am not asking for any sort of ban, but I would like to avoid a re-run of the absurdity of being taken to ANI for interacting with an editor who claims not to want to interact with me, but repeatedly trolls me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
        • I am happy to take this to ArbCom if an interaction ban is what is being proposed here. I am merely asking not to be messaged. I raised the category issue as a courtesy for BHG. I haven’t asked for her to not interact with me on the rest of the wiki, merely not message me. I do feel that categories are broken and a lot of it is busy-work, and I explained why. As I say, I don’t want to say much more other than to ask that she not message me. I don’t think that is unreasonable. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
          • I can't help but feel that part of the problem stems from the fact that you "fundamentally disagree with categories altogether", which suggests that anyone involved in the work of implementing them on a large scale is going to be an annoyance to you. I myself find categories immensely useful. BD2412 T 18:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
            • Thats not quite my full opinion on the matter, which is that categories are sets and that by not allowing them to be intersected, substracted or have any other set operation applied to them we risk pigeon holing people into stereotypical categories. So I don’t fundamentally oppose categories altogether, just wince when I see things like “Black women writers”, which diffusion categories don’t really address well. I also find it problematic when people who are trying to use categories are called “sneaky”, which is what BHG called that other editor, which is probably what caused the tone in my subsequent comment. However, all I am asking for here is that BHG not directly message me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
              • @Chris.sherlock This is very simple: I posted on your talk page because you were repeatedly trolling me, and I wanted you to stop. if you do not want me to post on your talk page, then do not troll me. The fact that you have such great difficulty in grasping this simple point does not bode well for your ability to function in a collaborative environment.
                As to your views on categories, you ae of course entitled to whatever views you may hold ... but you are also obliged to respect the current consensus. If you want to change categorisation policy, then feel free to open an WP:RFC to propose whatever changes you seek. I don't think you will succeed, because the problem here is that you do not understand how WP:EGRS already bans pigeonholing and has done so for nearly 15 years; but you are quite entitled to make a proposal. However, you are not entitled to go around hurling gratuitous insults and bogus allegations at editors who work within the existing consensus ... and you are certainly not entitled to then start yet another round of whining in faux-injured-innocence when you are asked politely to stop trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
                • I will do my best to not whine in future. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If Chris.sherlock wants nothing to do with BHG and doesn't want BHG to interact with them then Chris.sherlock should stop involved BHG in their conversations and interactions. Seems to me that if Chris.sherlock doesn't want the interaction then they should stop the interaction. You can't tell someone not to interact with you and then go around interacting with them the other way. Chris.sherlock if you decide to interact with BHG then it's 100% fair for them to interact back. This is all on you, so don't go dragging BHG here when you started the interactions. Canterbury Tail talk 18:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That’s a fair comment, however you’ll notice I pinged her directly on the page where categories were being mentioned. I thought that was fairly reasonable under the circumstances, given wholesale changes to categories around women were being proposed. Perhaps I was mistaken, and I should have let consensus be made there, in much the same way as happened at AWNB. Last time that happened, two longterm editors quit. I was rather hoping that wouldn’t be the case on WP:WIRED, a project I feel passionate about. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. If you don't genuinely want to stop someone messaging you on your talk page, there is another side of the bargain to be kept which is not to keep mentioning them elsewhere (a) in a conversation which they were not a part of when you first mentioned them, and (b) leaving comments like "Those ways of editing are ridiculous". That is not unreasonable, either. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Upon reflection, that was indeed a needlessly inflammatory comment I made. I apologise for that. I appreciate the criticism, and take that onboard. I don’t apologise for pinging them about the category issue, given the mistake I made on AWNB around category changes and the roasting I got because of it, I was hoping to stop any changes at the pass! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock, I would be more inclined to accept your apology if it was a one-off inflammatory comment. In reality it was just one latest in a series of unnecessary inflammatory comments which you have made to me, which amount to trolling. And in reality, your trolling of me is just the latest in a series of episodes where you have acted disruptively, and where you have responded to complaints by playing the "triggering-my-anxiety" card. There seems to be a long-term pattern here of you failing to recognise either that you are behaving badly, or that the anxiety is the direct consequence of your own repeated misconduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The apology is given nonetheless, that comment was out of line and I am sorry for it. I had hoped that involving you early on in a category change would prevent a massive issue. I realise you think I was being disruptive for the sake of it around that last issue, and I probably will never be able to convince you otherwise, but the fact of the matter was that I had thought I had gotten consensus to make that change on WP:AWNB. History shows that I was mistaken, and it’s a pity you ascribe malice to my motives, but I was trying (and failing!) to gather consensus on a change around an Australia-related matter. I am quite serious in asking you to stop messaging me directly, but I also point out that had I not pinged you on that project talk page as a courtesy then you would not have been aware of the massive change being proposed. If you would prefer I not do that in future, say the word and I will not ping you again. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock, you are making very heavy going of very simple things:

1. If you are going to apologise for gratuitous insults and bogus allegations, apologise for them all, or expect your selective apology to be rejected.
2. I have not asked you not to ping me.
3. I have no objection to be pinged by you.
4. I do want you to stop trolling me by making gratuitous insults and bogus allegations
5. If you or anyone else engages in such trolling, I will post on your talk to ask you to stop.
6. If have not asked for any limit to interaction with you.
7. If you want to limit interaction with me, then stop trolling me

You are engaged in time-wasting drama-mongering. Enough long ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not gone out of my way to troll you, but I definitely apologise for any hurt illspoken and inflammatory comments I have made has caused you. I do ask you to stop messaging me directly. I’m assuming you are not upset I pinged you as a courtesy to let you know about the major planned category changes, however I will keep any pinging of you to a bare minimum in future. As I say, please stop messaging me in future. Peace. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris, if you do not recognise how your repeated unprovoked personal attacks amount to trolling, then it is likely that the problem will recur. If it does, then I will post on your talk to ask you stop.

So this is entirely within your control. However, your failure to read and understand my comment #2 "I have no objection to be pinged by you" does not bode well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I might have confused things a little. I have made a decision, based on the comments of a few people here, to limit pinging you. I have not gone out of my way to troll you, but I can see how some of the comments I have made in the past might have led you to that conclusion. My apology is given freely for this, and I understand if you do not wish to accept it. I will try not to cause you pain by my actions in future. If my apology is insufficient and you have specific examples of my actions you would like me to apologise for, I would be happy to review them and make amends. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris, you can make amends in the following ways:

1. Stop trolling. Learn how you are a troll, and work to cut it out entirely.
2. Drop all your vendettas against the many editors who have worked to contain and revert your disruption
3. Stop commenting when you have nothing of value to say. Learn to identify when you do and do not add value.
4. Stop whining when you are told you have screwed up.
5. Sop using your mental health issues as shield.
6. And above all, stop creating drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I apologise for the wrongs I have done to you, I am deeply hurt you use my mental health against me, and I am hurt that you would call me a whiner. I would respectfully ask you to not make personal comments of this nature against me, it is extremely unkind.

Comments such as this one are why I do not want you to message me directly. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris, you continue to invert the facts: you are using your mental health problems as a weapon against others. You troll and attack, and when asked to stop being disruptive you invoke your mental health as a shield. This is nasty, manipulative conduct.

You invoked your mental health as a weapon in the post which opens this ANI thread.[8] That was your choice, and if you don't like being called out on that, stop doing it. I used the word whine to describe your pattern of making big dramas to complain about the fact that others stand up to your hostile actions. If you don't like being called a whiner, then stop whining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(a general thought) For a long time, I've been bothered by the fact that editor A can ask editor B to refrain from posting on their talk page (and expect the request to be honoured), while still feeling free to interact with, ping or sometimes even post on the user talk page of editor B. Maybe the text at Wikipedia:NOBAN could include this concern (but as often I won't be the one to raise it there). ---Sluzzelin talk 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruption hatted. --Softlavender (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry but BHG, point 5 is way out of line in your last post. Whether you genuinely feel that way about other users or not, you cannot in any case say that. If I was you I would redact that whole rant and apologise to Chris and the community. Games of the world (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC) I propose an IBAN as neither of BHG or Chris seem to want to be civil to each other or recognise that, although one does not want to interact, there maybe instances where a message or a ping is needed. BHG did absolutely no favours in her distasteful response to an apparent headsup ping/I'm not sure what it was and frankly don't care, on Chris' talk page. Just end the drama and have an Iban. Games of the world (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC) I have apologised to BHG and am trying to make amends. If an IBAN is to be enforced, I would request that it be taken to ArbCom first. My preferred approach would be that I not be messaged by BHG. Can I say, however, that I appreciate you stepping in Games if the world, and thank you for your level headedness. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC) @Games of the world, your have chosen to make a negative judgement on me without taking a few moments to examine the facts. That is not a constructive approach. I do not object to being pinged. On the contrary, the ping was helpful. I did not make a distasteful response to an apparent headsup ping. The problem is that after I provided my substantive input as requested, Chris then responded to it with a series of unprovoked personal attacks:[9],[10],[11]. I posted on Chris's talk asking them to stop,[12] and pointed out that Chris had previously followed me to another venue to make an unprovoked personal attack.[13] Chris's response to being asked to stop this was to come to ANI and accuse me of triggering their anxiety.[14] This a repeated pattern in Chris's conduct: troll and attack, then invoke their mental health problems as a shield. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC) None of those comments required the sarcastic and bombastic personal attack response that you posted on his page. One of those is a request for you to get involved (depending on your sensitivity scarasticly?), one was about perfection (again not nasty but certainly displaying needle between the pair of you) and the third was after you got into it, so I'm not going to comment on it but again no PA. Either way none of them justify your response. Games of the world (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC) @Games of the world: I think you are overlooking the main trigger of BHG's talk page message. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Somehow I don't think I am to be fair, since BHG hasn't seen fit to mention it at any point and in her post that was discussed above she never mentioned it. Either way I don't care enough to look into that big time to understand it. But in isolation, Chris shouldn't have said that and by the looks wasn't justified. Games of the world (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Sigh. @Games of the world, that is simply untrue. That post by Chris (a bogus allegation of gaslighting) was what the reason I posted[15] to Chris's talk, and my post makes it very clear that it was the reason. In my first reply to this ANI thread, I linked to that post after the first three words. So your assertion that BHG hasn't seen fit to mention it at any point is plainly false. Similarly, I call bullshit on your claim that you don't care enough to look into that big time to understand it. You care enough to have posted umpteen times to this thread to attack me, and you care enough to call for me to be indef-banned. You care enough ti attack, but you do not enough to check your facts. The fact that you haven't even read the post by me which caused Chris to come to ANI seems to me to be highly persuasive evidence that you too are a troll. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC) There is the real BHG. I'm done here - obviously doesn't want to change her behaviour. Games of the world (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC) I absolutely will not change my deep contempt for behaviour like that of GOTW, who made numerous adverse comments about another editor, and even called for an indef-ban ... but refuses to even read the most fundamental piece of evidence. Nasty, nasty trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) You can call people all the names you like. Your accusations are baseless and your behaviour will not be tolerated. That last comment just proves you can't leave people alone. Games of the world (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC) GOTW, enough already of your baiting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sluzzelin: Pings should be, and AFAIK generally are treated the same as talk page mentions. If someone asks you to stop pinging them then to it or risk being blocked. I'm sure I've said this before but while it is possible to block pings from editors via settings, this should never be necessary except if you think it's a better way to deal with the problem. Editors needs to respect each other not to violate such simply requests.

As for user A posting to B's talk page or pinging them when they've forbidden B to post on theirs or ping them, I don't see why editor's cannot manage this themselves. If it gets too annoying, they too are free to ban the other editor. Some editors may prefer to leave that flow open in the hope it resolves whatever problems lead up to the ban. Okay it gets slightly complicated with admins but let's put that aside. Of course if it crosses a line, they are also free to open an AN//I thread even without a ban.

As for mentions outside the talk page or pings, that's more complicated. Remember user A banning user B from posting on A's talk page doesn't stop B from posting whatever they want about A elsewhere either. It may be taken onboard in any ANI thread, but so will A posting too much about B. I agree such a talk page ban does mean A should minimise mention of B elsewhere but it's not always that clear cut. As I mentioned below, as long as editors are interacting via editing, then there may be some need for discussion of the edits, which can take place on the relevant page talk page as always. Likewise discussions over proposals etc. Again if editors abuse this, we will need to deal with it at ANI//I. On that token, with talk pages bans behavioural issues can't really be addressed, unfortunately these too need to be dealt with at AN//I. The community should take on board the lack of an attempt to address it with the editor is because it wasn't possible.

All this is IMO still the best solution since talk pages and pings are intended primarily to communicate with the editor directly but if the editor doesn't welcome such communication, indeed is going to ignore it, what's the point?

Nil Einne (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, you are missing the point. I have not objected to being pinged. On the contrary, Chris's ping was helpful.
I did not seek any engagement with Chris, but have been repeatedly subjected to trolling and personal attacks by Chris, at two venues. So after the latest round, I made one post[16] to Chris's talk, asking them to stop. I believe that is in accordance with WP:NOBAN, as a preliminary step to taking the issue to a noticeboard. Having trolled me, Chris chose to completely ignore the substance of my request that they desist (they explicitly said in their opening post her at ANI that they were not interested in reading it) ... but used my request to stop trolling as the basis of an ANI complaint against me. This is classic troll conduct: repeatedly bait me, then complain that they were asked to stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Can't you both please just walk away? I really don't want to see decent people slapped with IBANS and the like. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Is it really that difficult to ignore each other, stop the pinging and messaging. Don't even mention each others user name in a discussion. That's it, done, problem resolved, now can someone close this. Thank you. Jerm (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• This entire thread opened by Chris.sherlock is nothing more than trolling. After claiming in the OP that the OP would be his only post to the thread, he went on to make 11 (and counting) more posts; falsely claiming victimhood, making faux apologies, and other classic troll tactics, all to do nothing more than endlessly waste the community's time. It's time to put a stop to this. Softlavender (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• As always, BHG needs to stop posting on Chris.sherlock's talk page, except for compulsory notifications. They've been asked to stop and there is no benefit to posting on Chris.sherlock's page if Chris.sherlock is just going to ignore need. If BHG feels Chris.sherlock's editing is a problem e.g. NPA violations, they should bring it to a relevant AN. The community will take on board the reason for a lack of any attempt to address the problem with Chris.sherlock first is because it's not possible since Chris.sherlock has rejected it. Chris.sherlock needs to stop pinging BHG. It's not clear to me if they were specifically asked to stop but it's clearly unwelcome. Violating of these simple requests is from either party is WP:harassment and should be met with indefinite blocks. (Remembering indefinite is not forever.) Chris.sherlock should also minimise mention of BHG. It needs to be completely relevant to what they're discussing and should not be needling etc. If Chris.sherlock keeps bringing up BHG unnecessarily, this can be brought to ANI and an interaction ban considered. It's possible that this is already justified, the fact that BHG is also needling Chris.sherlock by posting to their talk page when asked not to means I say we let it be for now. This is a somewhat more complicated issue since while it's well accepted that posting to someone's talk page or pinging when they've asked you not to is harassment, as long as editors are interacting elsewhere some minimal mention of the other party or especially their actions may be required. E.g. if you revert a change and can't post on the page talk page 'I reverted this change because', there's a problem. Bringing up BHG to make some point when their actions aren't directly involved will likely be needling which can lead to an iban, or worse. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nil Einne, that's a strangely couterfactual narrative that you imposed on these events. I posted once on Chris's talk to ask them to stop trolling. That is not in any sense me harassing or needling Chris ... and it is sad to see you trying to construct an equivalence between the troll and the editor who asks the troll to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Chris Sherlock has announced that he has scrambled his password. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

And a load of users failed to cover themselves in glory in this thread and look very bad indeed. Games of the world (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You are one of them. Lev!vich 19:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Completely uncalled for Games of the world (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can say the same thing about your comment Games of the world. Jerm (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the history here, IMO the proposal should nevertheless be allowed to run its course. Lev!vich 19:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess one needs to block indef (and in case this is impersonation to require a talk page confirmation), but I do not see any appropriate criterion in the dropdown menu. Do we have any precedents?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Password scrambling does not prevent one from signing in; that's why we have the "Forgot your password?" feature on the log in page. Any community sanction should be applied to the account whether he has changed his password or not. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

And considering Chris's last userpage blank was nearly exactly a month ago, it's not exactly a fringe idea to think this may be temporary. Vermont (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: One-way IBAN on Chris.sherlock concerning BrownHairedGirl

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

---

This would seem to solve the entirety of the problem, since (even by his own admission) Chris.sherlock seems to be the one instigating the mentions and interactions. Chris.sherlock has threatened to take this to ArbCom, and I daresay this would be the result (at the very least; he might also get a TBAN from Categories), so let's just enact it now, since he doesn't seem to want to WP:DROPTHESTICK or stop trolling or mentioning BrownHairedGirl. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Let's get this over with. Jerm (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Chris has a lot of serious problems. He admits it. This restriction would put to an end the specific problem that has flared up recently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Call it needling. Call it obtuseness. Harassment? Whatever. You cannot ping or otherwise engage an editor (with whom you have had problems already) and then complain at ANI about them responding. The TBAN on categories is not a bad idea either. I was going to post earlier, but thought the stick had been dropped. OK. Furthermore, ArbCom is for when the Community has not addressed a problem. This community solution addresses the root cause of this problrm. One can only speculate as to how they would perceive this poking and then running to ANI when BHG responds to being poked, but they are not stupid. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  I've not followed this, but am I correct that Chris started this thread, and then claimed their interactions with the subject of their IBAN were affecting their mental health after opinions in this thread went aganst them, so they left and scrambled their password so as to call it quits with Wikipedia? I submit that it would perhaps be better to just avoid people they find irksome and stop dragging them off to noticeboards. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  BHG's post in response to Rhododendrites' post reinforces my impression of Chris.sherlock actually trying to provoke a response from BHG. I think the IBAN is a good idea, assuming Chris.sherlock eventually returns. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

In full agreement with Boing! in that the IBAN needs to be placed. I will point out that it is the person that is IBANned, regardless of user name de jour, and it will be in force when Chris comes back under a new user name. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

• Support including pings and edit summary mentions per my post above. Mjroots (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support this will probably solve the issue at hand. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• comment Just to make it clear for Chris (so that we don't have a flair up in 2 minutes) this IBAN is not specifically about not posting on each others talk pages, as both seem to be leaving each other alone in that sense since April until a couple of days back, or pinging where needed. It is about going on to a page/discussion where the other one is leaving each other alone and only discussing the content. If Chris cannot abide by the above then I would say that he needs to think about a self imposed ban from discussing categories being the better solution. BHG needs to find a better way to deal with him instead of providing ammo for flair ups. Break the cycle BHG, rip the playbook up and disrupt his behaviour if he is as others have put "poking you," don't keep playing into his playbook. Both parties need to take time reflect on their own behaviour and how to change the cycle. Games of the world (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • That is incorrect. The terms of an IBAN are very clear: WP:IBAN. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • To clarify what I meant is you are already doing some of the IBAN rules. I would say a no fault interaction ban two way would be better. BHG seems to like to get into it with him, neither seem to want to leave alone. Wouldn't want a flair up to start over some random comment she made. Would prefer a belts and braces approach here. Games of the world (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Nonsense, @Games of the world. I don't like this at all. On the contrary, I loathe this; dealing with a troll who demonstrates no self-awareness is the worst part of Wikipedia. I took great care to minimise my responses to Chris's repeated trolling at two separate venues, tried a lightweight direct request to stop rather than escalating to ANI ... and have still had to deal with the timesink of this ANI thread with its manipulative basis in Chris's claim that I am somehow responsible for the fact that his repeated trolling has triggered his mental issues. And on top of that, I have you piling in to manufacture falsehoods. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per all the above as well as the ancient principle of "duh." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive content hatted. ~ Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal: Brown Haired Girl to be indef banned until she apologises for the uncivil and personal attack comments in this thread The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Yesterday BHG made a series of personal attack comments in her post at 20:12, 22 September 2020. Including accusing a user of using mental health as a shield. It is that point imparticularly that is completely unacceptable, I requested that she apologised and struck the comment, she turn around and replied to me that "[I] have chosen to make a negative judgement on me without taking a few moments to examine the facts. That is not a constructive approach." BHG needs to be banned until she recognises that if she made that comment at work she would be very lucky to still have a job and that comments like that are completely out of line and apologises for her actions. Games of the world (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Oppose and WP:SNOW close. That wasn't an attack, it was an assertion or an allegation. And this thread is not the first time Chris.sherlock has used this route of claiming internal distress over things that were either inconsequential or clearly precipitated by his own actions. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC) @Games of the world: I absolutely definitely will not in any way retract that comment. The facts are that Chris: repeatedly trolled me ignored the substance of my request [17] that they stop trolling Came to ANI to make a complaint about being asked to stop trolling Chose to use their metal health issues as leverage by complaining that my request to stop trolling was triggering their anxiety[18] That is why I repeat: Chris is using their mental health issues as a shield for their sustained trolling. This is manipulative behaviour. I cannot know whether it is consciously manipulative, but its effect is to smear me as causing damage to Chris's mental health simply by asking them to stop trolling. Anyone dismissed from employment for complaining about such manipulation would win a case for unfair dismissal, probably with aggravated damages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC) BHG point 4 is he did state that, but it is completely unacceptable for you to attack him by saying that he is using it as a shield. Whatever your opinion it does not give you the right to say what you said and refuse to withdraw it and apologise. SoftLavender I'm disappointed by your snow response, it's not a very objective comment to say on a serious issue. In addition I work in this environment and that was certainly not an allegation or assumption (my view I know not everyone will agree and vise versa and that's OK). BHG's reply shows that she needs a time out. Games of the world (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC) @Games of the world, I stated it because it is true. I will not apologise for that. I have no idea why you choose to try to seek a ban on me for accurately describing the manipulative conduct of a troll, but the effect of your stance is to try to punish me for being the target of a troll. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Games of the world, you've already been blocked twice in your short wiki career [19], the first time (one month in length) was for "Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy". This subthread and your repeatedly doubling down on it (both in this subthread and the main thread) are approaching a near-hysteria level of targeted attacks, so I would advise you to close and withdraw this subthread if you want to avoid a WP:BOOMERANG (block or other sanction). Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Drop the attitude, my behaviour has nothing to do with this and a boomerang block is disgusting to start throwing at innocent people. This it is not a targeted attack, this is a serious issue that MUST be dealt with in the appropriate way ignoring it is not acceptable. Games of the world (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Support as proposed. There is more than enough to be done around Wikipedia to keep this editor busy without being almost gravitationally drawn to conflict with others. BD2412 T 20:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Note: As pointed out above, Chris Sherlock has announced that he has scrambled his password. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can say anything about their own account, it doesn't mean it's true or entirely accurate. If Chris has an email, a simple click on "Forgot password" and done, new password received. Anyway, I think this proposal should continue. Jerm (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

He said it was a protest, so I think if either he feels better or if there was a policy change he would come back. I think the indef comment above is harsh, why does a self voluntary leave end up in a user having to beg/justify to come back. Agree with Jerm and others if people feel that a belt and braces approach is the best then this proposal should continue. Games of the world (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Just passing by, but, I thought the point of the "password scrambling" declaration was to make the account unrecoverable? I've seen this on other sites where they mash random keys, copy and paste it into the "confirm new password" box, logout, clear cookies, and that's that. Maybe a final step has to be to delete the recovery email attachment, too. Zaathras (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Just because someone announces their intentions doesn't make it true. Jerm (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

How many times has he quit now, and from how many accounts? I've lost count. DuncanHill (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support If you want limited interaction with somebody, don’t talk about them or otherwise engage with them. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support As with a month ago, a content dispute resulted in incivility, accusations onwiki, and harsher accusations off-wiki. This IBAN would hopefully help prevent future occurences of similar issues; if it doesn't, other sanctions can be explored which would. Vermont (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Saw this at WT:WIR and just noticed this thread. This seems on its way to being closed, but just an observation that seems not to have been made yet (or maybe it's just taken for granted): My read of Chris's ping to BHG was something of an olive branch. I've been in that position before, where I've been in an argument with someone and later, after some times has gone by, one of us reaches out to the other for input. It's partly a genuine request for input, but it's also showing that despite a particular argument, there's still respect there. Someone was talking about categories, and BHG is extremely knowledgeable about categories, so it was a good opportunity. But BHG responded to Chris's ping with an elaborate list of grievances against Ser Amantio. I've no opinion about whether those objections have merit, but if I were Chris I would feel, at minimum, regret for accidentally inviting that level of conflict/criticism to a thread that was otherwise simple and positive. It would be understandable to feel responsible for a third party facing that kind of attack (again, no idea if it had merit), and to not know what to do with that anxiety (I think we would all feel at least some level of discomfort/anxiety in that situation). Perhaps compounded by past interactions, Chris blundered some snark and then opened this thread. Both bad moves. He then tried multiple times to apologize, but was not let off the hook because the apologies were not all-encompassing admissions to outright trolling. I'm not sure that's reasonable here, but I also haven't dug into any past interactions (which is why I'm abstaining from !voting, but I certainly wouldn't be supporting based just on this exchange).
  Chris may have scrambled his password, but he can come back at any time, and I hope he does. If/when that happens, regardless of an iban (which seems likely at this point), remember this experience. Remember that there are people and subjects that really rub you the wrong way (which is normal) and just try to avoid them. In this case, it should be easy. You don't like categories and BHG is really into categories, so you two shouldn't intersect all that often. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, we cannot get along with everyone, so best to avoid people that rub us the wrong way. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  • The "olive branch" interpretation is mind-reading. What's at issue is what actually happened, and to get the entire picture you need to read the entire conversation (before Chris.sherlock reverted himself): [20], (and BHG's entire comment on his talkpage: [21], which you appear to have already read). -- Softlavender (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: despite the nastiness of my previous encounter with Chris in April, and his repeated trolling of me in August, I thought that his ping might be well-intended, so I AGFed and saw that it was a thread where I could offer substantive input. So I did make that contribution. Unfortunately it was mostly negative, because there are some truly huge, longstanding problems which need resolving. (I am currently working on documenting some of it for further action). I wish it were otherwise, but this really is a big problem.
    Unfortunately, Chris as usual showed little grasp of the substance of the issues at stake (he has a pattern of weighing in categorisation issues which he doesn't understand, and then starting a storm when corrected). Instead he posted escalating levels of valueless snark, starting with this[22] ... and escalated until he posted a very nasty and wholly unjustified comment, which he later reverted. At that point, I wondered if I had mistaken to AGF about the ping, and if Chris's aim all along had been to draw me to a place where he could snipe ... but since I had already reopened a big unresolved issue, I didn't want to back out of the thread.
    So I considered ANI, but reckoned a private post was probably a better path to de-escalation, so I tried a private post to his talk. At which point Chris decided to play the victim card and come to ANI to complain of being harassed in a way which triggered his anxieties ... which of course was entirely a consequence of hos own trolling.
    Now, some new evidence. In reviewing Chris's contribs to find a diff, I stumbled across this set of 16 contributions to CFD in late August by Chris, in response to a series of groups nominations I had made of WP:SMALLCATs for Australian geography. The contribs are all near-identical, and all consist of near-identical ill-founded snark: e.g. in relation to the set "Suburbs of Brisbane smallcats", Chris posted [23] lol the nominator said that Australia is "tiny"!. Actually, what I wrote in the nomination[24] was Each of these 29 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Brisbane, Australia is tiny. Chris took my words out of context to make a childishly simplistic misrepresentation of my statement... and he did it multiple times. I didn't see this until today, because Chris incompetently posted after the threads had been relisted on another page. But the intent is very clearly trolling: Chris rarely if ever posts at CFD, and seems to have pitched up solely to snipe at me. This was only 6 days after Chris posted at AN solely to snipe at me[25][26].
    Since Chris has been trolling me at three different venues, it now looks a lot like he has been stalking me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    • PS I just checked Chris's record of posting at CFD, by loading his whole contribs into AWB and filtering for "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion". The result is that set of 16 contributions to CFD in late August by Chris, all to CFD 2020 July 19, are Chris's only contribs to CFD under this account. That reinforces the impression that this was stalking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
      • It's certainly hard to look at this evidence any other way. I still read Chris's initial WiR post as a good faith gesture gone wrong (which is not to excuse the subsequent comments), but there's no excuse for these various pokes. I was going to suggest simply a tban from categories, being a subject that he admits he doesn't care about, but maybe an iban is necessary. Still, it seems like the sort of iban that, if he does create a new account, could be revisited after a period of productive editing, and I have faith Chris could do that without incident. We'll see if he decides to come back, I guess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Rhododendrites, I think you should take a look at Chris.sherlock's highly contested unblock poll on AN from last September [27]. Among the Oppose !votes was this by Iridescent: Conditional oppose unless there are specific, written, agreements that any editor can order him to stay off their talkpage and failure to do so will result in an immediate and indefinite block, and that any admin can impose a full interaction ban between him and any other editor if they consider it justified and failure to comply with it will result in an immediate and indefinite block. Yes, I'm familiar with the background here, but regardless of the circumstances this editor rightfully earned a well-deserved reputation as a vicious and aggressive bully (much of the history has been hidden owing to the out-of-process deletion of his talk page, but see the most recent entries at Special:Contributions/Tbsdy lives, for instance), and regardless of how much he's changed it's not reasonable to expect anyone who had dealings with his previous incarnations to be forced to interact with him against their will. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support - If you don't want to interact with someone then maybe don't ping them ?, Anyway this solution should hopefully bring an end to the nonsense BHG has had to put up with. –Davey2010^Talk 21:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Request that it is made explicit that the IBAN applies to the person whatever account or accounts he may be using, not just the Chris.sherlock one. He has a history of reappearing with new accounts. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this is like a runaway train. I have seen Chris.sherlock on the project and they are pleasant. Even in this thread they are appropriate and apologetic. There was an immediate attempt to take BHG's side in this incident report. BHG has been around on the project, and has been known to be abrupt (See arbcom). Chris.sherlock erred in coming here for help obviously - (his block log is clear). To the editors assigning motives (drama) to Chris.sherlock regarding the report ...I say that is incorrect based on my reading. Lightburst (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lightburst: his block log is clear?!—until this time last year, he was indefinitely blocked. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:200A:60C5:94E2:305E (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• It's notable that @Reaper Eternal's close of that unblock request included a note to encourage Chris to take things slowly and not pursue any grudges.
  Sadly, what happened here is that Chris pursued a grudge against me, by trolling me across three venues ... and then came to ANI to complain that my request for him to desist from his grudge-driven trolling was triggering his anxiety. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) I do not see any scope to reasonably construct the narrative which Lightburst has tried to impose on the facts of this case, which are relatively simple.

Chris trolled me at three separate venues:

1. WP:AN: [28], [29]
2. WP:CFD July 19: 16 posts, all sniping at BHG. That sniping is the only contribution he has ever made to CFD from his present account
3. pinging me[30] to WT:WOMRED, which was of itself helpful ... but having lured me there, he responded in escalating levels of snark: [31], [32], [33] until he finally posted a nasty smear[34], which he reverted[35] eight minutes later, but of course remains in the history

I then posted to Chris's talk[36], to ask him to desist.

Chris reverted[37] that post with the edit summary what part of “leave me alone” don’t you understand?

Having trolled me at three venues, Chris' “leave me alone” plea was patent nonsense.

Chris then opened this discussion at ANI[38], and three minutes later Chris amended[39] his opening post with a complaint that the situation is is triggering my anxiety ... even though the trigger had been pulled only by Chris himself — not once, but three times.

Other editors posting in this thread have responded to those facts. Lightburst appears aggrieved by that focus on facts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not aware of his block log. I carelessly did not see the log. In light of the editors apologetic tone this all seems too fast and furious. Lightburst (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment At first glance, it appears this is moot because Chris has announced he's left. No sense issuing an IBAN against someone who is gone. However, anyone who has been on en.wikipedia for a while will recognize this is a pattern with him: for the last 15 (or so) years, something happens with him, he announces he's leaving for good...only to reappear a few months or a few years later. He'll behave well for a while, even be a model contributor, only to encounter another kind of issue & repeat this behavior. (And when he returns, he may leave BHG entirely alone only to involve someone else in his meltdown.) I don't know what the solution is for this -- in a perfect world with all the resources we could use, someone could reach out to Chris (or his GP or therapist) & convince him to either stop this cycling or stay away from Wikipedia -- but this IBAN at best is a bandage on a serious wound. -- llywrch (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @llywrch, it certainly is a cycle. I seem to be his current target, but before me it was @DuncanHill. I came into frame because I defended Duncan when Chris was hounding Duncan back in April. I suspect that this ANI thread will provide him with several new targets
    We are never going to be in a situation where en.wp has the resources to do real-world reach-out, and in any case I would find such engagement scarily meddlesome. Regardless of how well-intentioned any such intervention mechanism might be, there is a huge risk of either unintended adverse consequences or abuse of the mechanism.
    So I hope that en.wp never goes down path. I think it's much better to simply uphold our own standards of conduct, and to point any troubled editor to WP:STANDARDOFFER, saying something like "good luck, and come back later if and when you can conduct yourself accordance with our standards". Our sympathy for the personal difficulties of a troubled individual should not lure us into allowing them to continue to do damage to others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Llywrch: Given that his hounding of BHG followed from her defence of me, I think we can be confident that he'll continue it even after ten years and half-a-dozen accounts. We need to make it clear that any sanction will apply not just to the current account but to any and all others he may use from time-to-time. DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per all the above, rage-quit or not. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I think it would be best for all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  I'll just add that, under his various past accounts (listed below), Chris.sherlock has quit Wikipedia and scrambled his password multiple times - the earliest I know about was in 2005, and the shortest lasted just four hours. The current quit should not derail this discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support Especially given the taking their ball and going home reaction. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's worth noting that Chris.sherlock has had several previous accounts, so the fact that he has scrambled his password on this one does not necessarily mean we won't see him on Wikipedia again.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Sept 2019 unblock request mentions the following other accounts:

• User:Chris.Sherlock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Letsbefiends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Ta bu shi da yu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Tbsdy lives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The unblock request says There are no other accounts... but it also says I am unlikely to do very much except perhaps the odd spelling error, which has definitely not been the case. So I dunno how much weight to give the assurance about no other accounts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Here he is in 2016 saying he left for good in 2012, and we can't block him. "You are a serious jerk. I really think you quite enjoyed it, given that I had left for good and remain that way. Ah well, at least I can tell you what I think of you, what are they going to do, block me? Muhahaha! You can't block a person who has left for good. So stick that in your hat and smoke it, you incredible jerk :-) Now, go report me to WP:AN/I like a good little editor." diff. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

So he already has history of being disruptive and supposedly leaving Wikipedia. Should we just skip the IBAN and go straight to an indeff block? The editor is just going to comeback under a different account. We can enact an IBAN, but Chris is probably going to cause another issue with someone else. Jerm (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I'm sad to support this, as Chris Sherlock is an old wikifriend of mine, from many usernames since. But a one-way IBAN from BHG seems to make sense, certainly at this time. Bishonen | tålk 15:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC).
•  Comment: Crikey. 😯 All this discussion for one problematic user. What a drain on the resources of the entire editing community. Cnbrb (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Manoramu and Cumulative accuracy profile

• Manoramu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cumulative accuracy profile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Cumulative accuracy profile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor User:Manoramu appears to be a single-purpose account who is trying to make some edits to Cumulative accuracy profile (a statistical concept) that have a breezy informal tone that is not encyclopedic. The edits are not wrong; they just have a tone of speaking to a high school class.

Manoramu has been reverted four times now, and has also submitted a draft of this article, which was declined as already existing, and has now been rejected as already existing. Either Extended-Confirmed Protection of the article or a partial block is probably needed to protect the tone of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment A newly registered editor who mostly edited in July and one edit on Sep. 8th on Cumulative accuracy profile hasn't been given any explanation as to what they did wrong. Constantly reverting the editor isn't helping. Perhaps a personal message that explains some of the concerns of other editors would help, and of course, a list of WP:RULES. I mean this is a new editor who most likely doesn't have a clue about Wiki policy & guidelines. That should've been the first thing, at least a welcoming message with a list of policies and guidelines, not ANI. Jerm (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Article talkpages are also useful.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 05:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD closes by DMySon

DMySon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly run into problems trying to clerk AfDs and unfortunately I think the time has come for a formal topic ban.

In the last few months, five editors (Serial Number 54129, TonyBallioni, Praxidicae, Girth Summit and Barkeep49) have warned him about incorrect relists (User talk:DMySon/Archives/2020#Relistings, User_talk:DMySon/Archives/2020#Relisting, User_talk:DMySon/Archives/2020#AfD relists). Praxidicae and Girth Summit both asked him to stop closing/relisting AfDs, which he agreed to do [40][41]. To be fair, he perhaps meant this as just a commitment not to relist, rather than close or clerk AfDs in general.

However, today I came across a DRV of an AfD that DMySon closed as no consensus despite there being no participation other than the nominator and which could have been soft deleted or relisted. Barkeep49 reverted that as an obvious WP:BADNAC [42]. I followed up and found four more closes by DMySon today, three of which I had to revert and relist [43][44][45] for similar reasons.

I am sure DMySon means well but he is rushing into AfD clerking when he lacks the competence to do so, and unfortunately this has continued despite multiple warnings and commitments to be more careful. There also appears to be some competence issues with CSDs and moves to draft, but I'm hoping a ban from relisting or closing AfDs will be enough to get him to slow down. – Joe (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• As an admin active at AfD/DRV, I agree with the proposed topic ban. Sandstein 18:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A concern was mentioned above about moves to draft, that I will restate. Incorrect moves to draft are easily reversed, because they go into AFC and can be accepted by a reviewer, but the reviewer doesn't really want to have to ask, "Why was this draftified?" Biographies of dead people who have an obscure mention in the history of Burma/Myanmar do not need a lot of sources. While systemic bias does not mean that we should accept non-notable crud, it should be considered in leaving dead people in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support tban based on my experience today and as evidenced by the previous communication I had with this editor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

General discussion of proposal to limit non-admin closures. Continued at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure.

Non-admin comment: Here's an idea, but I wanted at least a couple of people to give feedback before I post it at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure: Perhaps "non-admin closures" for certain types of discussions should be changed into something like the WP:AFC process, where "tools to make it easy" are only available to people who sign up, and if you sign up and display incompetence, you lose access to the tools. It wouldn't change who could do a non-admin closure, but it would incentivize competence. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC) That's an intriguing idea david - essentially limit XfD closer to those who have been granted a pseudo perm. As someone who has concerns about non-admin closing at AfD in a way that those who frequent some other deletion areas don't that could be a good way to nuance this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin comment) - The one thing to keep in mind is that it would probably be best to keep a way to close your own nomination as a speedy keep withdrawn. That's about the only time I use XFD closer at AFD, although I do clerk RFD on very rare occassions. Seems like withdrawing your own nomination is a fairly uncontroversial NAC, generally. Hog Farm Bacon 02:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC) (non-admin comment) I think this is an excellent idea. I've never closed an XFD, and have no intention of doing so. I have the WP:APAT and WP:PGM privileges, and had to ask for them and show that I knew what I was doing. To assess competence at WP:AFD, there's the AFD Statistics Tool - %ages for initial sorting, and a list of recent contributions to show activity level and to weed out anyone who might be piling-on. This idea would also give pileologists a useful way to indulge their hobby. Requests are likely to be rare once established XFD closers have been grandfathered in, and so unlikely to consume much admin time. Another way to handle self-withdrawal might be something like the {{db-author}} tag for pages you're sorry you created.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narky Blert (talk • contribs) 22:20, September 22, 2020 (UTC) Except withdrawal often occurs after someone else points out that you missed something. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Budget Cuts, where me withdrawing quickly was the best course of action after it had been proved notable, but db-author wouldn't work, as I was not the only primary editor, and the discussion there should likely be kept around for posterity about the notability of that article. Seems like leaving a technical exception for self-withdrawals is maybe a good thing to leave open. Hog Farm Bacon 14:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC) I'll go along with that. Another common case is at RFD, when another editor adds a mention and a citation to a disputed target and there's no point in waiting the full 7 days. I was thinking of the admin-needed not the destroy-all-trace element of db-author; I agree that records of XfDs should be preserved. Narky Blert (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Proposal discussion to limit non-admin closures to certain peole copied to Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure#Proposal_- limiting use of WP:XFDCloser to those on a list, similar to WP:AFC tool user list (permalink). Please consider the lines above related to this proposal "archived" and continue the discussion as it relates to XFD on the other page. Please continue the discussion as it related to OTHER non-admin closures below this line or start a new discussion at the appropriate discussion page. If you do start a new discussion, please post a link below this line so we can participate, or ping the names in this section if this discussion has already been archived. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

My Apologies, It was not my intention to do the wrong things on Wikipedia. I consider it my last warning. You may undid my all closure. I will never touch afd closure in future. Appreciate your time. DMySon 02:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support t-ban There is no reason we need to continue down this path of empty "I'm sorry"s if the first 5 or warnings weren't enough, there's no reason to believe a sixth formal warning will be. And on an unrelated note to DMySon specifically, I like Davidwr's idea, it should be simple if we set it up like AFC where you have to be on the participant list. Require a number of AFD participation - which is very, very much needed, more so than closers. Praxidicae (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Praxidicae, Sorry for interruption but this is my second mistake in AFD. You said, i did 5 times mistake but i am not able to recognizing my five mistakes on AFD. DMySon 13:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not. Take a look at your own talk page and ctrl+f "sorry" and "never". This isn't only about closures/relists when it comes to repeated mistakes, either. Praxidicae (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Cyphoidbomb, Thank you for the notification. My apologies. That was my mistake. I will never do this again.DMySon 12:28 am, 6 August 2020, Thursday (1 month, 18 days ago) (UTC−4)

  Hi @Barkeep49:, i have already apologized for this here. And after that discussion i stopped relisting any discussion. DMySon 1:02 am, 26 July 2020, Sunday (1 month, 29 days ago) (UTC−4)

  Hi @Shirt58:, Thank you for the notification about this. It was a mistake and i am human. I already apologized for this in the above discussion with Girth Summit. And the user who claims me as sock with akmal khan creator, is already afraid to disclose his identity. He did this using ip address (82.132.214.106). Moreover, I am not connected with this man Akmal khan. Off-course you may block my account if you find any connection with this man. I agree i moved the article to the draft but that doesn't mean i am connected to the subject.DMySon 9:03 am, 25 July 2020, Saturday (1 month, 30 days ago) (UTC−4)

  My Apologies, I will not do this stuff again.DMySon 11:14 am, 23 July 2020, Thursday (2 months, 2 days ago) (UTC−4)

  Hi Serial, Thanks for the notification. My apologies, this is my mistake. May i undo my action? DMySon 7:44 am, 28 June 2020, Sunday (2 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−4)

A bunch of empty promises and apologies are worthless and indicate that you do not intend to stop making the same mistake over and over again. Praxidicae (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Prax, these bunch of apologies are for one mistake. DMySon 11:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring allegation advanced against user:Ron Wells, MDiv.

Since the subject of the article J. Delano Ellis has been declared deceased, several subjects have made known their personal affiliations via conversations held on @Jackfork:'s discussion page and upon the person at hand @Ron Wells, MDiv.:. In doing so, they have made various attempts to remove information which has been cited appropriately and referenced for the sake of "truth" and being "for the LORD Jesus Christ" in their own written words. This Wikipedia contributor had their contributions reverted by Wikipedia administrative team members and I in efforts to cease this situation, as I have explained Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on the issue at hand. Nevertheless they refuse to offer any reasoning other than what may appear to be a personal conflict of interest with general public information, which can be viewed in this summary of J. Delano Ellis's article revision history. It is becoming quite tiresome to continue to revert such seemingly unhealthy behaviors, and I request immediate intervention. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The following person whom the allegations stand against has, in an effort of unknown reasoning, blanked the evidenced proposed against them via their talk page history which can be viewed here. I am again, requesting immediate intervention for the sake of preserving Wikipedia's encyclopediac ethos. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have given them a proper 3RR warning and a copyvio warning for their sandbox which was a clear copy and paste from another site. It should be noted that a user is allowed to remove information from their talk page, so TheLionHasSeen do not reinstate it if they have removed it. Removal is taken to mean they've read and understood it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Canterbury Tail:. I appreciate your assistance. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, they have begun to revert again with no explanation offered @Canterbury Tail:. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately this is a content dispute, and you are also edit warring, you should not have reverted them. I will be blocking them for 3RR violation, but you should also consider this an edit warring warning. Canterbury Tail talk 20:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually that may be harsh on you looking into the edits. They are clearly reverting referenced information just because they don't like it. Anyway they're blocked for 24 hours, next move is theirs. Canterbury Tail talk 20:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I am grateful for your swift assistance and investigation of this incident. Thank you @Canterbury Tail:. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail:, @Ad Orientem: a new account has done the same mobile edit and apologized. Please check the IP and temporarily protect this page. Here are the revisions. I am not going to involve myself as this is blatant suspicion, and I desire to not suffer any administrative consequences if it turns out to be them. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 01:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspect sockpuppetry as newly registered editor Increaseisjoey removed almost the exact content as User:Ron Wells, MDiv did (See edit). TheLionHasSeen, that edit summary from whom I suspect to be a sock is not an apology. That is disruptive editing Jerm (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Point taken. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You know what, I think the easiest way to deal with this is semi-protection for a bit. The items being removed are pretty clearly referenced. I'm semied it for a month. Canterbury Tail talk 11:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Per this SPI, that I started, Ron Wells and his socks are now back in the drawer. Goose^(Talk!) 15:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thought so. Guess there’s no need to keep this case open. Jerm (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

SuperGoose007, make sure they were folded neatly!! ;) - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Egyptian Air Force: Constant Revision & Personal insult

I added additional info aboutEgyptian Air Force that Turkish Aerospace Industries produced materials. I gave half a dozen sources.. I am insulted and they always revise constantly.. I recommend you take a look. The resources I give official sites. I don't understand what their goals are.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The only thing I see on there is someone calling an IP a Turkish troll nothing else offensive. I don't see any edits from yourself on TAI. Failing to see what the issue is here. If it is a content issue please go to the DR board. Games of the world (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Cengizsogutlu, keep discussion of the matter on the article's talkpage. Be sure to format your talkpage posts so that they are easily readable (use bullets and separate lines for each link). Remain civil, and do not make accusations. Discuss content, not editors. And be sure you are only edit from one account; do not sockpuppet or edit via IP. Softlavender (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

IP address removing scrapped locomotives from lists of locomotives

IP addresses 171.252.189.23 and 171.252.154.181 have been removing scrapped locomotives from lists of Australian locomotives. See here and here. This is persistent on Commonwealth Railways CL class. 14.202.123.115 (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Public Interest Legal Foundation

Hi, could I get some admin assistance at this article, please? I surfed in on a link and thought the POV lacked neutrality so I tidied up and added some positives. My edit was immediately reverted, and I put up a POV tag, which has also been reverted without discussion. Just made another effort to edit the intro to balance the POV, but it still looks very negative to me, and the positives I added to the article last week have been reverted. Thanks for any help. Pkeets (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Not the right forum buddy! Talk about it on its talk page. If this doesn't work, go to WP:POV noticeboard or WP:DRN. If all else fails, go to the WP:BN. This can be resolved without admin intervention. HeartGlow ^(talk) 03:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Attempted discussion on the talk page has already failed. I'll try the POV noticeboard. Thanks. Pkeets (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797: I'm not sure that referring someone to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard for a POV/neutrality issue is the right choice. Did you mean a different one of our alphabet soup of noticeboards? :-) ◦ Trey Maturin 18:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos

Hi.

May I request action to prevent user:jtbobwaysf from continuing to bully editors and impose his will before even seeking consensus at the Imelda Marcos page? Said editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:

1. Deleted citations without consensus or warning, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.

• a) In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos... where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
• b) He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
• c) In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"

2. Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)

3. Acted unilaterally to exclude well-covered topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see edit history, which he justified Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE.

4. Treated other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Wikipedia:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.

5. (Apparently) deleted citations for having “failed verification” without having actually read them, without even using the “verification requested” cleanup tag

6. Deleted unresolved warnings on his talk page, not just for Imelda Marcos, but also for numerous other issues, as seen in the edit here: [[46]]

Granted, the page continues to need work. (There's a BLPN discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos, FYI). But the uncivil behavior has made it impossible to pursue a calm process of consensus.

Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a circus going on over at the article in question with various users adding unverifiable (using "rare books" as citations) and poorly cited content (blogs such as Rappler) to anchor promotional content (such as the article subject is worth billions) to a BLP (noting a recent RS stated the article subject is worth $20M! The article is about a controversial subject that seems to attract WP:RGW and has big problems with WP:TOOMUCH. Maybe this post here by Chieharumachi at ANI (although I doubt was his objective) will result in more uninvolved eyeballs at that article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf The books are not "unverifiable". They are available, albeit you do not want to go through the effort of accessing copies to verify. As per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". One of them, "Some are Smarter than Others" by Ricardo Manapat just received a new printing and a relaunch a month or so ago with an e-book available for purchase if the physical book is not convenient, another, "Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption" by Barney Warf, which was also printed relatively recently in 2018 is available online in both print and e-book version. What is alarming here is that you did not even read these books when you falsely and dishonestly tagged them for "failed verification", and deleted a section of content as well as the 3 citations you did not read, also breaking a number of citations on the page. That was not the only time jtbobwaysf did that on the page. He also deleted a whole swatch of blbliographic citations that broke multiple citation links on the page. It outlines a repeated bullying pattern of his of deleting citations and content without seeking consensus on the talk page, then edit warring by reverting edits that restore the content he deleted, then putting the onus of seeking consensus at the talk page to the person who restored content he may have unjustly removed, putting the person who restored content at an unfair disadvantage. Moreover, he mass-deleted citations by Rappler and Vera Files, claiming that Rappler was just a "blog", when it is a reputable news organization and acceptable WP:RS as per Wikipedia consensus in the links jtbobwaysf himself here. This outlines another pattern in which jtbobwaysf has been deleting citations without just reason (such as calling RS like CNN citations "nonsense" ), rendering the article being sort of slowly whitewashed by removing citation proof of BLP subject wrongdoings (from accepted RSes!) creepingly over time. He also accuses other editors of POV-pushing and RGW, when other editors are merely documenting what is generally accepted by the global public about the subject (infamous for being the Guiness World Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for example) and has been documented for decades... (@Seav: outlines it well here at the BLP noticeboard on why it is not RGW).

Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Wikipedia project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to reiterate noting jtbobwaysf's behavior of demeaning the work of other volunteer contributors by calling them "junk", "nonsense" and "dribble" before deleting them. When attention was called to his behavior at the talk page, he posted a link to a satirical Internet comedian JP Sears instead of apologizing and implied that the editors who called attention to his behavior were too easily offended. -Object404 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to chime in that I consider Jtbobwaysf's edits and behavior on the Imelda Marcos article to be very disruptive. In his response above, he again repeats assertions that are either patently untrue or not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (1) "rare books" is not an excuse to dismiss sources per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2) "blogs such as Rappler" is patently untrue and a long discussion on WP:RSN has already concluded that Rappler is a reliable source; Jtbobwaysf's unilateral deletion of all Rappler citations without discussion is frankly extremely disruptive. (3) His assertion that the article subject attract[s] WP:RGW does not apply at all: WP:RGW is about not using Wikipedia as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and has extensive documentation in reliable sources—the article merely reflects this ongoing situation and so WP:RGW does not apply. —seav (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm very inclined to turn the tables around and ask Jtbobwaysf what Philippine sources he thinks we ought to use. Rappler generally is reliable, having used their articles as sources for what I've been writing, but I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use, when it fact we do. Unless you think Rappler's participation in the IFCN is a moot point, just because the site happens to have a blog component? No one's saying BuzzFeed News is not reliable just because it happened to be an offshoot of BuzzFeed now, right? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion Seav linked is the latest chronologically and it's the one that matters. Seriously, calling Rappler and Vera Files just "blogs"? They're serious news organizations founded by veteran award-winning journalists. -Object404 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Echoing Object404, Jtbobwaysf, misrepresents the chronology of discussions about Rappler in the RSN. "second RSN and third RSN" as if those were the latest belies the fact that those earlier discussions (in 2015 and 2016 respectively) were hardly discussions that resulted in any sort of consensus. The 2018 discussion that I linked to had more participants, and even a poll to assess consensus which has established that Rappler's news articles are definitely reliable sources. —seav (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) now suggesting I need to be a Filipino to understand what an RS is, and foreigners need not apply. Which of the five pillars is this part of? And buzzfeed, WP:OSE... Rappler, buzzfeed, Verafiles, etc are all WP:USERGENERATED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything; you're the one suggesting that what we know to be reliable sources in the Philippines are, by your singular judgement as the "objective" foreigner, not reliable because you say they aren't, even when the consensus clearly suggests they are. Both Rappler and Vera Files were established by esteemed Filipino journalists, of whom you're claiming that the likes of Chay Hofileña, Glenda Gloria and Maria Ressa are mere "bloggers" despite having long, established track records as journalists. A blog can just spew out whatever it wants; both Rappler and Vera Files, on the other hand, have codes of ethics which they have to abide by. Unless you can prove to me otherwise (and likewise to the other people here), I'm not convinced one bit that the two sources are not reliable simply because you say they're user-generated, when it's pretty clear that they aren't. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You (Jtbobwaysf) really need better reading comprehension. I definitely agree that BuzzFeed is not to be used for citations, but BuzzFeed News, which Sky Harbor has already mentioned and is a completely separate (but associated) website from BuzzFeed, is definitely a reliable news source: it has won multiple journalism awards and has even been nominated for Pulitzer Prizes: [47][48]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]) that these two news organizations are generally reliable. You continually assert the opposite without really providing any evidence of your opinion. —seav (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(Note: Wanted to say a few things, but then realized they were part of my original post and I did't want to repeat them, so I just went back and added boldface to my key points there. Just FYI to everyone that I changed the layout of that bit, for greater emphasis. - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC))

Question about outing a paid editor

(The names have been changed in the following to protect the guilty)

I noticed that a user who I will call User:Banana1 was doing a lot of editing promoting a cryptocurrency/blockchain product which I will call wackywidget.

A Web search found the following at cryptowackywidget.com, posted by user "banana"

"Hi there! I am Geoff Banana and wanted to introduce myself! I am Marketing Lead at CryptoWackyWidget and part of the BlockChainWidget family. I am working primarily on Community/SEO and growth hacking topics and love helping to grow a lively CryptoWackyWidget developer community."

Having the same name with a "1" at the end and editing about the same company where he is a marketing lead working on SEO (search engine optimization) quacks "paid editor".

But if I post the evidence at ANI replacing "Geoff Banana" with the actual name, "banana1" with the actual wikipedia user name, and "cryptowackywidget" with the actual company name, would I be violating WP:OUTING? If so, how do I report this?

Asking for a friend. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think in a situation like this it's best just to email arbcom. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That can't be right. There are 14 arbs and thousands of COI editors. Asking Arbcom to deal with every slam dunk case that involves off-wiki evidence will swamp them with work. It would be better to pick a random admin and email them if the info can't be publicly revealed.

But is it really true that the info can't be revealed? Wikipedia:Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing says

"We also think that some degree of transparency in investigations helps the communities do a better job combating undisclosed paid editing. Posting and discussing information such as links to an editor’s job posting, company profile, or other information connecting that editor to editing an article subject for pay can be an effective way to identify and stop undisclosed paid editing. These kinds of transparent investigations may also help prevent abuse and ensure that people who aren’t actually connected to editing for pay can have an opportunity to explain their situation if circumstances cause a mistake to happen. It’s also important to remember that WP:OUTING can’t be used as a way to avoid the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use: if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements."

So let me ask a more pointed question: if I post the evidence concerning "Geoff Banana" and his paid editing for "cryptowackywidget" corporation, is somebody here going to report me for violating WP:OUTING? Or is it better for some admin to block "Geoff Banana" but refuse to say why? Even a simple "User:Banana1 is blocked for paid editing" will allow anyone to look at the "cryptowackywidget" webpage (it's pretty obvious that Banana1's edits always promote cryptowackywidget) and see his publicly posted name and other personal information. How would an uninvolved admin be able to evaluate an unblock request when the reason for the block is not revealed? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the more widely published things are in off-Wiki reliable sources, the less you have to worry about "outing." If the name is nearly identical, it's almost a sure bet that either it's the same guy or a joe job. In either case, the name SHOULD be brought to an administrator's attention, because having a username that might suggest you are someone else - having a name or name and editing behavior that together suggest you are the marketing lead for CryptoWackyWidget when in fact you are not - is impersonation. Let's say the marketing lead's name is common, like Joe Smith. Let's say his username is JoeSmith1 (apologies to whoever has that username). If JoeSmith1 almost exclusively edits pages related to CryptoWackyWidget, then it should be reported. If only a small fraction are related to CryptoWackyWidget, and the other edits are not problematic in their own right, just assume it's a coincidence of names. On the other hand, if the marketing lead's name is very unique, then consider reporting it even if the majority of the user's edits are unrelated and okay, if for no other reason than to have an administrator strongly suggest that the editor put a disclaimer on his user page saying he is NOT the same person as the marketing lead for CryptoWackyWidget and that he has no affiliation with that company. Also, you may not have to go straight to WP:UAA, it might be enough to put one of the COI user-warning templates found on WP:Username policy#Talk to the user to get him to change his username and to get him to pay attention to WP:COI and WP:Paid editing disclosure if they apply to him, or to put a disclaimer on his user page if it's not "him." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW Guy when I found myself in that situation, I emailed an admin the off-wiki evidence and let them take it from there. Lev!vich 18:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• While there are cases where off-wiki evidence can be useful, this is usually best handled on-wiki via looking at the content and behaviour. WP:NOTSPAM is a policy. If someone is spamming admins can and should block without the need to involve functionaries looking at private information: the private stuff is rarely actionable (though it sometimes can be), and even in cases where it is actionable, you’re likely going to get a quicker response by handling it at WP:COIN and having one of the admins who regularly patrols that board block based on what can be seen on-wiki. If it really absolutely needs to be private, then yes, you can email ArbCom, but really most of this should be handled on-wiki without the need to involve private evidence. Admins can block for advertising without needing to see an off-wiki ad. My view is that they should do it more and be more comfortable with it. It’s not just about PAID— we have a policy that prohibits all advertising whether paid or not. If you enforce that, the paid question largely handles itself. Tl;dr— use on-wiki evidence and file a report at WP:COIN. In most cases that should be sufficient. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is what I decided to do:

• Warn editor: User talk:Andreolf1#Paid editing warning. Note that I did not mention where I got the "in your own words" information.
• Revert paid edits: [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69].
• Propose merge: Talk:Digital Asset Holdings#Merger Discussion.

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Supercomputing in India

I have edited and in my opinion improved the article Supercomputing in India from c. July to August 2020. The revision before my cleanup tag and changes be seen here. On 21 September 2020 my revision were reverted to the old state without much explanation by User:Mohan Rose Ali. As my changes were a clean-up I did revert this. I left a comment on why I did this on Talk:Supercomputing in India to encourage debate assuming good faith. User:Mohan Rose Ali has reverted again per this revision. You can see the edits made, the change to the actual page, and the comments on the revision. I am not happy about this for multiple reasons: (1) I did try and engage in good faith, (2) it has now disrupted the article, and (3) is what I perceive as quite an aggressive and bad faith attack directly on me. I have not edited the false accusation out yet preferring to see if I can find a neutral admin to help with this. I considered arbitration, however I have tried engaging, but I also cannot let false accusations stand. Could someone point out the best forums to deal with this please? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Normally I'd suggest that a content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page, but Mohan Rose Ali's edit summaries and strange additions to the content smack of extreme bad faith and WP:OWNership. Mohan Rose Ali - why on earth did you add the following text to the article:

[ WARNING - MOUSE TRAP FOR CYBER ATTACKER : One Wiki-Hacker identified anonymously as 'Master Of Ninja' and listed as 'WikiProject Football Member' had collapsed the original content of this page by 32 unauthorized changes in the contents starting from 18 July 2020 up to 22 August 2020. After reverting and restoring 27 of them with 5 remaining to be re-edited as on 22.09.2020, again he made the cyber attacks on 22.09.2020 and 23.09.2020 and made 4 collapsing changes. Reverted and restored those changes too. A cyber complaint is made to trace the cyber attacker and the matter is pending with Wikipedia.org ]

What does 'A cyber complaint is made' mean? Why are you describing another editor as a hacker? Specific issues with the edits should be discussed on the article talk page, but from the look of that article's history I'm not sure that Mohan Rose Ali is competent to be editing that or any article. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked them from editing Supercomputing in India. They seem to have some sort of CoI as they are adding their name to the page. See here. Remove or extend ass required. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

_{Ah, the Freudian typo. Remove [...] ass required.}Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I support the partial block, but I'd still like to see an explanation of what on earth they thought they were doing putting stuff like that in an article; also I see the accusations of bad faith on the part of Master of Ninja as unacceptable personal attacks, unless the editor is willing to substantiate them. If they're not willing to come here and either retract those accusations or to explain themselves, I'm getting a CIR / NOTHERE vibe. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've warned them that repeat occurrences will be treated as disruptive editing and/or personal attacks. Come back if they start up with the same stuff when the partial block expires. This can probably be closed for now. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It's a bit unnerving when you get quite personal attacks like that straight on the page. Although something that I think CambridgeBayWeather that I hadn't initially was that the user inserted his own name into the article. It could be that he was involved in the topic involved, although the formal citations don't seem to support that. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Extra Eyes on Margot (activist) Please

Experienced editors and admins with a free moment are kindly asked to keep an eye Margot (activist) for the near future. There has been some heavy duty edit warring there involving potential MOS and BLP vios (trans naming etc.). A brand new account also showed up for the party. I have blocked the editor I think most responsible and issued warnings to the others. Additionally I reverted the article back to the point where it was semi-protected by El C and have bumped the protection to extended confirmed. Thanks in advance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Ad Orientem: I think the ECP should be enough. I will say that Ad Orientem was incredibly lenient on User:Subtropical-man, however; I would have indeffed at this point. Black Kite (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Ah, no. I've just looked again at this. The reply (to Ad Orientem) was "user:Plunginge xtremely (99%) agitates towards the promotion / defense of LGBT, you don't see it? Even Steve Wonder will notice it. If you think the destructive action by user:Plunging is good then you should be blocked indefinitely." I have therefore increased their block to indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW Plunginge does actually look pretty suspicious to me. Might be worth a look if anyone reading this has access to a magic 8 ball. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh indeed, however Subtropical-man is going to have to explain why they made eight edits to deadname a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

No disagreement. His history, quite beyond Margot, suggests somebody with an agenda. I have no issues with the indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Unpleasant RFC at Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch

This is a request for administrative attention at

• Talk:The King: Eternal Monarch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

There is an RFC in progress, which was started on 7 September: Talk:The_King:_Eternal_Monarch#RFC:_Second_Paragraph_of_Lede

I started the RFC in order to try to deal with a content dispute between User:CherryPie94 and User:Lizzydarcy2008 (when it was clear that mediation would not resolve the dispute). In my opinion, both principals are personalizing the dispute, and one of them is bludgeoning the process with walls of text. I had stopped following the RFC until I was pinged by one of the principals, and then another editor has asked for help just because the discussion is too long. I haven't observed any actual incivility, just far too much text. I think that maybe an admin who speaks softly and doesn't use the big stick but keeps it handy might help. It will also need a closer in the second week of October, but that is then and this is now. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism at Cardi B discography

Some rev/deletion requested for WP:BLP business, and since several disruptive accounts are involved, possibly page protection. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:D0BA:8243:1C8D:D9A0 (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

BLP page would be more appropriate please see links at the top of the page. Games of the world (talk) 06:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Incivility by Deacon Vorbis

I very recently had an interaction with Deacon Vorbis which started out mildly brusque, and ended with strong vulgarity directed at me personally, which by my standards I never consider civil.

My recent interaction started at Template talk:Radic#Improving_appearance. In the course of conversation, Deacon Vorbis helped me understand the context in which this template was being used, and to refine my proposal. I thought they were being a little pushy when they started demanding I delete the file I had just created to explain what I was proposing, but I tried to focus on discussing the proposed changes. They didn't support my proposal, which is fine, and said any changes "would at the very least need a pretty strong consensus – from more than the few people that are watching this template." (14:35, 21 September 2020) I agreed to solicit more opinions, but after a couple more back-and-forth refinements, I read this:

It's not broken and it doesn't need to be fixed. I don't know how many different ways I can say this. Please just let it go already. (02:15, 22 September 2020) Paul Augustx.php?title=Template_talk:Radic&diff=979667355&oldid=979663755&diffmode=source diff

It's fine to disagree with a proposal, but I started to feel like I was being bullied into not seeking the opinions of other editors. That seems inappropriate in a consensus-driven community. I often seek the opinion of at least a third editor if a one-on-one conversation gets stuck with both editors being fully informed but just coming to different conclusions (usually because they weight different factors differently). In this case, I continued the conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Improving rendering of radical symbol and found several editors seemed to agree with the refined proposal and who had some constructive things to add.

When Deacon Vorbis joined this thread, the first thing they said was:

Eh, I said a hell of a lot more than that it would be a waste of time, and oversimplifying my rationale like that is kind of dishonest. (17:42, 22 September 2020) diff

I think the way I referred to the previous conversation was fair, especially given I wasn't trying to vote on someone else's behalf and that I cross-linked the conversations to disintermediate myself, but I apologized anyway because the sensation of someone else putting words in your mouth, even unintentionally, is never pleasant. I leave it to the reader to judge that in context whether this was a fair complaint or if it was Deacon Vorbis assuming bad faith. Anyway, I didn't think too many people would care about this math typography issue, so I tried documenting what seemed like a quick snowballing consensus in the Manual of Style. That resulted in this exchange:

@Deacon Vorbis: I see you reverted the addition using a minced vulgarity as an edit summary. I don't think this was appropriate, both in terms of civility and because so far editors seem to prefer that solution 3 to 1. This WikiProject and the Mathematics MOS page are the places I can think of that are most likely to find editors interested in these issues. Is there some other forum you think should be alerted to this proposal to test for consensus? -- Beland (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC) diff, revert being referred to

Really? You're going to complain over "BS"? Really? The fact is, you should just drop this. Trying to steamroll longstanding practice by 3 people is not appropriate. This isn't a problem that needs fixing. And I don't have the energy to devote to arguing over this constantly. I'm doing other things here. You haven't even remotely fucking listened to a word I've said in earlier discussions, just plowing ahead with your fingers in your ears, and it's tiring. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) diff

Another editor much more politely suggested we give the proposal more time before considering the consensus to be firm, and that's an entirely fair request which I honored. And I filed an RFC as suggested by yet another editor, just to cast an extra-wide net to affirm consensus.

From my perspective it seems like every time I don't do something Deacon Vorbis wants, they just get angrier and more strongly demand that I follow their commands. But I feel like compliance for the sake of calming them down would mean not solving a problem which so far a supermajority of editors agree is a problem that should be solved, albeit minor. So this anger loop ends up harming the project, which is why I opened this report. My concerns about a toxic atmosphere were deepened and I was also more motivated to report this when I saw another editor (I don't remember on which talk page) complaining that they often ran into difficult people when editing mathematics articles and sometimes avoided participating because of that. I'd say the same thing about style pages, and I assume that's why the relevant page (MOS:MATH) is under discretionary sanctions. -- Beland (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. Yes, I'm fucking human, and yes, when I get the sense that I'm talking to a brick fucking wall, I might let my fucking frustration show and drop a fucking F-bomb. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Fucking great work, DV. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: I would never say anyone's feelings are wrong, and I've had the same reaction when dealing with certain people in text exchanges like this. Usually, for the sake of maintaining a productive conversation, when drafting my reply I ignore those feelings or wait until they pass. If it gets quite bad or I feel it would be helpful to express those feelings, I try to do so using civil language, like "I found your response frustrating because..." Getting loud and swearing a lot and calling people names might be a natural response and acceptable for a venue like a protest or a bar, but not for a civil discussion forum like a library or NPR or Wikipedia talk pages. That said, we should be able to work through disagreements without getting frustrated at each other, and I'd like to work to resolve the source of that frustration. I don't think it was fair when you said I hadn't read a word you said, as I found many of your responses quite helpful in terms of information content, and greatly improved my proposal. When you say it feels like you were talking to a brick wall, was that because I failed to drop this matter as you requested? -- Beland (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Beland: I find your description of the issue difficult to follow. In the places above which you claim to be quotes, could you give diffs please? And could you also please mark them as quotes, by either using quotation marks (as you did for the first one) or better yet templates like "tq2" or "tq"? Paul August ☎ 15:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: Done. -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Enough of the swearing comments guys. I would say Beland it seems that you are over reacting a lot. I agree that DV's revert of you with that comment is very unhelpful and unproductive, don't understand what he thinks was going to happen, since nearly everyone would just revert him until he gives a proper reason. From what you have said and provided so far it seems an like overreaction. But I stand to be corrected if you give us more examples of actual incivility. I would suggest looking at Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Personal attacks before continuing with this one. Games of the world (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Deacon Vorbis, none of this is acceptable behavior from you, including your comment above, and if you cannot treat Beland with respect, then I would advise avoiding him and his edits, or the subject(s) that are in contention. There are other editors who can respond to him civilly and without vulgarity, and can focus on content and policy rather than personal attacks and insults. Softlavender (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have had many problems with Deacon vorbis and his disruptive behavior. He has edit warred with me consistently for the past month. His behavior at AfD is extremely disruptive, he has erased my comments, hatted my comments, moved comments, and he has messed with other editor's !votes. On one AfD he enlarged his !vote to 300% size with a sophomoric edit summary mine's bigger so it counts more here. I have tried to discuss with the edotor and have even sent him an olive branch, however the editor continued to be hostile. I will just provide the two edit warring reports for anyone who is interested. Here. and here DV will edit war until he is reported then revert himself with uncivil edit summaries. You can follow the many links in the edit warring reports to see the incivility and my efforts to discuss. Even here his language is uncivil. I would support sanctions against this editor, and perhaps a 1RR. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly, your incivility is plain to see:

• Deacon Vorbis you should !vote on a few more AfDs so it does not look like you are following the ARS after a contentious ANI - NPA, ABF (1).
• DV has been disruptive and hostile as of late - PERSONAL, INCIV, ASP (2)
• Stealth deletion is for real. Nobody of the keepers from the prior vote was aware or showed up. The usual suspects voted delete. An agenda fulfilled. - BATTLE (Us vs Them in particular), ASP (3)

• What I am struggling to find in the many links is the efforts to discuss. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr rnddude. That last green quote is not from me ^. FYI: if you think the behavior of DV is fine carry on. I have found him to be disruptive. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• My apologies, you are correct, that comment came from another user. Struck. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Mr Rnddue I would still be concerned with link 2 and DV's edit summary again very uncivil and not language you would expect to find. Games of the world (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

From looking into the evidence that Lightburst has given, the first one I think DV was just trying to be funny, although probably not the correct forum for it. DV should stop trying to alter other people's comments by removing them or moving them, even if he feels that it is a PA or affects the flow. Lightburst you cannot revert an edit in which DV removes his own posts that is as above altering other people's comments. In addition you should refrain from comments about others behaviour, I wouldn't say it was an attack worthy of action in either case but come on you can't make an accusation and then complain about his reaction. Overall DV needs to stop swearing in edit summaries and take a moment before he posts and read some of the policies around discussions to stop tedious edit wars, take note of Beland's comment to you. Lightburst needs to stop trying to provoke him with comments about him at deletion discussions. Games of the world (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

right there is supposed to be a bright line of 3rr, apparently not any more because no action was taken when he crossed that line four times in the past month. DV regularly crosses 3rr. I think you are correct in saying that I reached a level of frustration with his behavior and esp his warring. He regular wars to his preferred version. It was mentioned by another editor above, and by Green Means Go, and by his previous block earlier this year for 3rr. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• My 2c: "BS" is not a "minced vulgarity" or a "vulgarity" at all. It's not even the kind of profanity that is censored on television. I disagree with folks who want everyone else to not use profanity because they are sensitive to profanity. Certainly there are some words that should never be used, like racial epithets, but complaining about "BS"? That's just total BS. Lev!vich 18:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It sure looks like a minced oath to me. These are exactly the terms that are allowed on American broadcast television in place of those that would otherwise be censored. This is not the standard Wikipedia uses; much of what is allowed on American broadcast television is not at all civil. I'd argue even a less vulgar edit summary like "this is hogwash" or "ridiculous" is not particularly civil, as it's being insulting instead of or in addition to being explanatory or productive. A more civil summary would be something like "no consensus for this change" or "needs to be discussed more" or "I strongly disagree; see talk page". -- Beland (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Right. What about Pigeon chess? Just one of his uncivil edit summaries. Lightburst (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

First time I've heard that term but yes, this is starting to feel like pigeon chess. Lev!vich 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It took me a minute to figure out what you were referring to: this edit summary. I mean, heck, let's talk about all of them. The 300% size increase "DELETE AS IS" is a comment on Dream Focus's long habit of always !voting an all-caps "KEEP", in the case of the AFD at issue, "KEEP ALL", which I do kind of find mildly annoying, I wonder if DF thinks that the !vote will count more if it's in all caps. But DV's 300% size increase !vote in response to that isn't uncivil; it's a way of making a point with humor, and acceptable in my view if it's a one-off (as opposed to increasing the size for every AFD !vote, which of course isn't the case). As to the two ANEWs you linked to (the second one involving the "pigeon chess" edit summary), I can see why they weren't actioned by an admin. It's true that edit warring over the removal or removal of uncivil or off-topic comments isn't great, the substantive comments of yours that DV was removing/hatting did contain personal attacks, by you, against DV. In the first, you accused DV of following you (no diffs), and in the second you accused DV of "disruptive", "hostile", and "tendentious" editing (again no diffs). These are inappropriate comments to be making in AFDs. I'm actually, again, disappointed to be reading these, Lightburst. After two recent ANI threads about your fellow ARS members' making inappropriate comments at AFDs, here we see recent diffs in September of you casting aspersions against editors you disagree with at AFDs. You all need to stop attacking people at AFDs, or you're all going to get TBANed from AFDs. Lev!vich 19:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also want to report personal harassment behavior by Deacon Vorbis.

[a] On Sep 19, I added a simple comment to section "3 Squarefree" on Deacon Vorbis's talk page. I wanted to relieve the "decision pressure" in naming something clearly (i.e., the wording "non-squarefree") with 2 contradictory definitions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=prev&oldid=979187995) This post stayed undisturbed until Sep 23. No objections.

[b] On Sep 23, I discovered that the editing interface had changed the string "defs" (definitions) into "refs" via autocorrect likely while saving. That's not what I intended to write. So, I changed "refs" back to "defs". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeacon_Vorbis&type=revision&diff=979808535&oldid=979807310)

[c] This was almost immediately reverted to the previous version by Deacon Vorbis with the reasoning "Don't edit others' commennts". (XX) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979808535). I assume that this action was in error. Note however, the above reasoning (XX) is difficult to explain (it's off-reality), since my contribution was properly signed, and there was no other contribution than the original question and mine in that section.

[d] I reversed again in good faith replacing "refs" by the intended more clearly written "definitions". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979810197) Also, I gave a detailed explanation for Deacon Vorbis to understand:

<< I wanted to write "defs", a shortcut for "definitions", as "refs" is a shortcut for "references". Autocorrect seemingly changed that to "refs" while saving. I then changed the letter r back to d as I had typed. This reflects my typing at the time, and what I intend/ intended to express. I find your revert not acceptable. >>

[e] Here comes the personal harassment. Deacon Vorbis immediately deleted my whole contribution which, obviously, seemed acceptable to him when he assumed that someone else had contributed it (XX). (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_Vorbis&diff=next&oldid=979812115) The change of mind happened within ~15 minutes. At the time when the version (XX) above was generated, Deacon Vorbis let the contribution stand. Only after recognizing that it was my contribution (thus, it's personal), the contribution was removed. This claim of personal attack is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by Deacon Vorbis' reasoning for the removal:

<< oh, it was yours...responding to something stale and pointless; rm >>

"oh, it was yours" proves an anti-person motivation, since the same contribution was acceptable 15 mins before. The remainder of the wording is demeaning.

LMSchmitt 19:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Beland, Have you ever thought of maybe starting an RFC on it ? That would solve all of your problems, Bullshit thread should be closed. Keep up the fucking great work Deacon Vorbis. –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010 three editors have come here saying that DV is uncivil but you call for a close? Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I see nothing that warrants any sanctions or even a thread at this time. –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my initial post, I did start an RFC, though so far no one who did not participate in the Mathematics Wikiproject conversation has commented on it. The problem was not finding enough opinions; the problem was that Deacon Vorbis objected to me seeking more opinions and then started responding in a verbally abusive manner when I did so over his objection. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sure if Deacon were a newly registered editor, an indeff. would come swiftly and case closed, especially if the editor was showing a continuous amount of disruptive behavior like frequent cursing. That alone would've been enough for an indeff on a new editor despite being asked to stop by multiple editors. Let's be real here, we as veteran editors don't engage in discussions that involves cursing because it's uncivil, a contradiction to behavioral policy, immature, and overall, beneath us as Wikipedians. @Deacon Vorbis:, you've survived four years of editing. You should know this already. I know you can do better than the behavior you're currently displaying in this discussion. Happy editing & cheers to everyone. Jerm (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You could have picked most of the discussions off this page tbh and made the above stick. Agree that everyone should be held to the same standard. He has never been warned for this from what I can see. Best solution here would be warnings all-round and then hit them if they do it again. Games of the world (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Speaking of the alleged harassment, that depends on perception by the "targets". Typically, the harassment is defined as "unwanted behavior that you find offensive". So, if people are telling in a good faith they have been harassed, this is true. What might be a reason for saying the F... word so many times right on this noticeboard? I think it is obvious: the accused contributor wants to trivialize such expression, thus making it more acceptable. Yes, that may be acceptable for some people, but not others. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Davewikifan2020

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

---

• Davewikifan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have run into User:Davewikifan2020 on two occasions, coincidently. On both occasions, they were arguing that Turkey is part of Europe, using extremely charged political and racial arguments. See example at this diff. They have posted this or similar on numerous talk pages, including my own, recently. From a review of this user's edits, I have concluded that their only purpose on WP is to promote racial ideas relating to the ancestry of the Turkic people, specifically promoting the idea that they are European/white. On one hand, I would not argue against an indefinite ban of the user, as this is a single purpose account meant to promote racial theories. However, my first thought would be to topic ban this user from promotion their racial theories. In any case, this user's edits are completely unproductive and do nothing to improve WP. They are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to promote their own racial beliefs. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Davewikifan2020 is now blocked 31 hours by User:Doug Weller for using edit summaries to attack others. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Sushant Singh Rajput spam at WP:HD / WP:TH

Background: Sushant Singh Rajput was an Indian actor who died recently. All reliable sources so far say he committed suicide, but for some reason conspiracy theorists have decided it was actually murder. As a consequence, they are spamming Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, as well as Wikipedia:Help Desk and Wikipedia:Teahouse to change the article (to say either that it was murder or that nobody knows). (Needless to say, those requests do not include any source, let alone a reliable one.) It is not a huge deal; it is averaging something like 1-2 threads per week; but it is a bit annoying.

I do not think there is much to be done about the article talk page: we probably cannot put an edit filter without an absurdly high rate of false positives, and (semi-)protecting a talk page is probably too harsh. The help forums are a different beast, though; every single hit for "sushant singh rajput" is that kind of spam (Help Desk archive search, Teahouse).

What are the options here? I assume edit filter: would that be justified, what would be the settings? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Remember, all edit filters affect every edit to the site. i doubt very much that would would be justified for this. In addition, regulars at the Teahouse and the Help desk deal with lots of people wanting unjustified changes to various articles and drafts, this is not significantly different. I see no need for any special protection measures here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The talk page has actually had to be semi'd in the recent past; the flood of edit requests is because it came off of semi. We've actually thrashed out an FAQ on the matter and put it as the top section of the article talk page (nobody seems to be reading it) and we're starting to get persistent users who won't read the FAQ or drop the subject on the talk page, so I foresee a re-protection in the near future unless something changes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 19:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The short answer to posts at WP:HD and WP:TD is: Wrong venue, content issue, post thataway at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. (Where you can expect your spamming proposal to be speedily declined, and perhaps that a CU will see a justified reason to have a close look at your account.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

CU won't help here since the vast majority of these are drive-bys. (We did have a sockmaster in the topic area, but they seem to have ceased for the most part.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 22:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Nishtunishaa and all things Sushant Singh Rajput

Articles related to Sushant Singh Rajput including related talk pages have for months been the subject of campaigns to influence Wikipedia to change the |death_cause= parameter of the infobox. Shortest possibly explanation: Subject was an Indian actor. He was found hanging from a ceiling fan, dead. The Mumbai police employed medical examiners to evaluate the situation. They determined it to be a "clear case of suicide".[70] Since then, the family filed a report accusing another actor of abetment to suicide (not murder), and criticised the Mumbai police's investigation, so it got bumped to a CBI case.

Since then, there has been an ongoing social media campaign to influence Wikipedia to change the "suicide by hanging" determination to "mystery" or "under investigation" or "murder" or any variation of these labels. (I can't link to Twitter searches without triggering protection filters, so I won't. But searching for "Sushant Singh Rajput Wikipedia" and clicking "Latest" will give you some idea of what's happening.

TL;DR: As for Nishtunishaa, they edited a few times in 2016, and now they're back with a taste for SSR justice. Most recent edits: "Hello what the hell is going on...can Wikipedia change to under investigation...boss truth can never hide and we are not blind. Or else we will request Our pm Modiji to ban Wikipedia in India" "Sushant singh Rajput was murdered on 13th June night and the case is under investigation. I request you to change the Death to "Under Investigation" "Cause of death is Murder not suicide" and then after contacting them on their talk page to explain why the article says what it says here, they inserted two more pissy responses about "fake information" and accusing the encyclopedia of supporting terrorists.

So, Remedy #1": Editor Nishtunishaa is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and I think their privileges should be pulled.

I would also hope that other administrative eyes could be directed to this article subject.

We've tried educating SPAs and out-of-retirement accounts like Nishtunishaa about community policy, we've crafted a FAQ on that talk page, but these accounts just keep dropping by for political shots, totally ignoring stuff like FAQs. (I don't even know how mobile editors find talk pages, since the mobile interface is so piss-poor, but still they come!) It's very disruptive at this point, and I know that Jéské Couriano filed a talk page protection request here, so I consider that Remedy #2. While it's not preferable to semi-protect talk pages, when there are active social media campaigns to influence the content that Wikipedia has, I think Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput should probably be semied until the CBI releases their final determination, whenever that is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Please note until and unless investigation is not over you cannot write suicide by hanging. Please note CBI is investigating the case so the cause of death must be either unknown or under investigation...in case of sushant Singh Rajput... Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishtunishaa (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We have sources that say the death was a suicide and that Chakraborty's being made for abetment of suicide. We go with what the sources say (especially because biographical protections still apply. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I would request Wikipedia to please go through electronic evidence and wait for their judgement and put cause of death in Sushant Singh Rajput case as under investigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishtunishaa (talk • contribs) 04:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't do that. We're an encyclopaedia; we rely on what credible secondary sources say, and so far they're of one mind that it is suicide. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

And a random doctor who's armchair-gumshoe'ing on Twitter is not a reliable source for this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

For your information, Subramanian Swamy is an Indian Member of Parliament. Just thought I'd point that out though it only implies that even prominent politicians are involved in spreading unconfirmed theories. 45.251.33.88 (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, wouldn't threatening to get Wikipedia banned in India amount to trying to initiate legal action? It's almost like a legal threat. 45.251.33.88 (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Technically speaking, no. But it's still a very clear sign that they're not here to actually discuss the article other than the same demands drive-by accounts have been making. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I request you to please look into the petition signed on change...the entire world knows it was murder but we all want CBI bring you out the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishtunishaa (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The change.org petition is irrelevant. Provide a credible source or stop pressing the issue. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Those sources are talking lies and you believe in lies. Truth is he was murdered... please put cause of death as under investigation please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishtunishaa (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I heavily doubt Hindustan Times, the BBC, Reuters, or Mumbai Mirror would deliberately print a bullshit story that would draw a libel lawsuit. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 05:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Preparing for my interview... My debate in reference to cause of death ends here .. Hope you will do the needful...and stop supporting sources are talking lies Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishtunishaa (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We're not changing it unless we see a credible secondary source. You have been told this and asked point-blank to provide one; your responce is to resort to ad hominem attacks against sources no reasonable person would consider unreliable. If this is an attempt to browbeat us into violating several site policies, it will fail. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nishtunishaa: I'm very sorry if you were led to believe that this is the place to discuss the facts of the Sushant Singh Rajput death. It is not. We're here to discuss your behaviour. You came out of a long stasis to rant about your beliefs about Rajput's death, which you failed to substantiate. You were told to read the FAQ, you vandalised other editors' comments, you were asked to read the talk page FAQ but apparently didn't do so, and now you're again harping here about the case instead of observing that your behaviour is disruptive. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, you're here to push an agenda. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor for not being here to build an encyclopedia. All their recent edits showed a stubborn resistance to this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Participation in this ongoing wave of disruption should not be tolerated from any editor Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen. Now to wait for the RPP request. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Good block, Cullen328. Indeed, Nishtunishaa is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen, had you not blocked them I would have. And thanks to YMBlanter for protecting the talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

How on earth did this slip by?

I know there might be some debate to be had about a lot of userboxes, but I seriously was not expecting to find ones that were literally pro-Hitler. How on earth did we get to that point? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 19:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I deleted it as G10 which is probably a stretch. Any administrator may restore if they wish without checking with me, though in this case I would expect it to end up at MfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

How did it happen? Honestly, not every userbox is looked at as closely as articles. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Good delete. No Nazis. GiantSnowman 19:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) We got to that point by trying to be a social media site rather than by concentrating on the task at hand, which is to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I saw the wrong page but I don't see how "Adolf Hitler should be viewed in a non-bias point of view as just another mad man who ruled a nation" is "literally pro-Hitler" or a G10 candidate (is this a Nazi dog whistle I'm unfamiliar with?). I'm sure Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:FerrousTigrus/ub/non-bias hitler would have resulted in delete anyway, though, so the deletion I think is fine on snow or iar grounds. Lev!vich 19:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Was the word "mad" in there? I read "as a man who ruled a nation". Maybe not quite so clear-cut, then, but... still. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 19:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The word "mad" was there. It's an insult to people with poor mental health. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam: If it had said "just another man" I'd agree with the G10, but I think it said "just another mad man". I read it as a version of the old argument about who was worse, Stalin or Hitler; those who say Stalin are not pro-Hitler; saying "Hitler wasn't the worst" isn't really pro-Hitler in my book. Lev!vich 19:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't accept that there's any mileage in comparing the "big three" dictators (Hitler, Stalin and Mao) of the twentieth century. Each of them was responsible for many millions of deaths, and in this context, a few million any way does not make any of them people you would want to invite to tea. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree there's no mileage in it but people do it anyway. Wikipedia got some mileage out of it: Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism Lev!vich 20:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that madman is not much in the way of praise. If I'm being honest, I'm more concerned about the second UBX on the MfD created by a now blocked user which states, literally, this user is a third positionist. A neo-fascist, in other words. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah IMO User:Krzyzowiec/Userboxes/ThirdPositionist and User:Dwscomet/My userbox creations/AltRight2 are more likely G10 candidates. Lev!vich 19:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if it didn't say mad; "Hitler should be viewed in a non-bias point of view as just another man who ruled a nation" seems just fairly blase about him. It seems more of a statement of indifference (or possibly irreverence to what he did) or potentially some academic statement(?). I'm not quite seeing how this is overtly pro-Hitler, it's not like its saying "I love Hitler". Not sure if it warranted a G10 but I'm not an admin and it probably would have gone at MFD anyway given the current climate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite seeing how this is overtly pro-Hitler, it's not like its saying "I love Hitler". This, however, is. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

They're not saying that on there @BlackcurrantTea:, am I missing something? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) I'm still in two minds as to whether or not to take {{User fascist}} to WP:MFD. Fascist != Nazi, but still. Narky Blert (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at current pages transcluding the Third Positionist userbox also led me to this (transcluded 67 times!) User:Oren neu dag/my userboxes/Coming of Eurabia, which doesn't appear too constructive either. Black Kite (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• There's an entire category dedicated to 'anti-religion' userboxen. E.g. User:Soumya-8974/NoChristanity. I fail to see what makes the one you're linking to special. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• @Black Kite, it may not be helpful, but at the same time someone is allowed to be opposed to an ideology and express it on their talk page. If we keep going down this road ultimately most userboxes will end up being deleted. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  all most userboxes deleted? sign me up. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• We lost a great administrator today who retired in protest against userbox factionalism. I deleted the userboxes from my user page today, and encourage other editors to think about doing the same. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• The vast forest of userboxes has become a menace. It would be great if we could just delete them all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Babelboxes are useful and a few more such as location or age. But I agree the majority are just garbage. This must have been an evergreen topic though, I am sure it is being discussed on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

People are emotionally invested in them. Just try suggesting that we add a "hide" link to the infoboxes and watch the howls of protest. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

request for comparison of recreated article

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

---

Jessa Rhodes has been recreated recently in one go, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessa Rhodes (2nd nomination). I am currently on mobile, so I cant do much now. All I did was checked her awards in the current article, which still doesnt make her notable. Are there any big changes in article or new signs of notability? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yup that was pretty much a word for word copy of the deleted article. Deleted per G4. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Rick. How is the weather in Baltimore these days? —usernamekiran (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice, pleasant the past week or so, comfortable with a bit of fall in the air. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hehe. Good to know :) Thanks again. See you around. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Twice draft-ifying an article unilaterally over objection

I recently came across a seemingly mature Draft:2021 MotoGP World Championship with 31 references and maybe a dozen different contributors. I initially posted on the draft talk page asking why was this still a draft article. I quickly realized there was no real reason that this should still be a draft, so I promoted it to article space.

Grdijk (talk · contribs) unilaterally moved it back to draft space. [71]. My comment on the draft readiness has now been relegated to a deleted version of the talk page. After a quick check of WP:DRAFTIFY which clearly states that:

"Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD."

Following this, I moved it back to mainspace and left a note on User_talk:Grdijk#Wikipedia:DRAFTIFY clearly referencing WP:DRAFTIFY and asking Gfdijk not to move pages from article to draft space outside of a deletion discussion.

This was ignored and re drafified unilaterally.[72].

I requested that the user undo the last move on their talk page[73] but no engagement.

I request this article be restored to mainspace and the draft WP:SALTED. Toddst1 (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That entire article is a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Even just read it. 1) there's no proof it will go ahead and 2) the dates even say "Dates currently estimated based on historical dates". It deserves to be in Draft space or else nowhere. Canterbury Tail talk 22:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That they are estimates was Grdijk's editorial comment [74].

The article clearly states "The following Grands Prix are scheduled to take place in 2021:" with sources. Discussing a significant series of events with extensive sourcing that is scheduled is not WP:CRYSTAL (per the definition), just like the 2024 Summer Olympics article is not inappropriate. Besides, this isn't a deletion discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Just about every line is sourced, so not WP:CRYSTAL, and the only date in it is 2021. Grdijk's edit summary for the move states that they want to keep it in draftspace because moving the page from draft space has resulted in significant page vandalism and unsourced edits at this early stage (which doesn't make much sense as other editors were editing it when it was still in draftspace). Grdijk should have communicated with Toddst instead of move-warring, but they seem to be weak in the communication department (in 4.5 years, they've posted to a user talk page once and never to an article talk page). Schazjmd (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

• I didnt see the article, and not discussing about current issue either. Just pointing out to notability: timeline/unscheduled events have nothing to do with notabilty. We already have articles on "hopefully it happens" (colonisation, and terraformation of Mars), projects that didnt even begin, projects that failed, projects that were created just on paper with plans for not starting the project, and hypothetical stuff like Dyson sphere. The CRYSTAL refers to (among others) predicting notability of subject. But not everything has to exist, or has to have scheduled dates to exist to achieve notability. Project Daedalus. Courtesy ping @Canterbury Tail and Toddst1: —usernamekiran (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair points. I withdraw the objections above. Canterbury Tail talk 00:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Toddst1:, it looks like you can now go ahead and move it back in without issues Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Suspected Undisclosed Paid Editing by Micah Street on Draft:Micah Street

User:Micah Street has submitted Draft:Micah Street to WikiProject Articles for Creation. However, they are believed to be engaged in undisclosed paid editing since the article is heavily biased and at the end of the page, they stated (in revision 973670953) that "Please consider this wikipedia page, I have added a multitude of sources to support the biography I have written for the artist that I manage "Micah Street". We have secured a multitude of industry deals and need his page up ASAP. I thank you for your understanding." This significantly proves that the editor in question is engaged in paid editing, but they have not disclosed such through:

• a statement on your user page (as of revision 971048430),
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (no talk page found on the draft in question), or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions (as of revision 973670953);

in accordance to policy of the Wikimedia Foundation and English Wikipedia as stated in WP:PAID. Thus, I would like to report Micah Street for violation of undisclosed paid editing. Thank you. WikiAviator (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have only notified them - the first such notification by any editor - of our policy on paid editing less than half an hour before raising the matter here (if you have previously done so, please provide a diff). They have not edited since then nor indeed or the last week. Please await their response before coming back here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If this was reported at WP:AIV, it would go nowhere. We don't block people who haven't edited recently. It's been 5 weeks since any activity by this editor. You can hardly say they didn't disclose their COI, as their last edit on August 18 said this:

"Please consider this wikipedia page, I have added a multitude of sources to support the biography I have written for the artist that I manage Micah Street. We have secured a multitude of industry deals and need his page up ASAP. I thank you for your understanding."

And that was before you notified them. I find no violation here. — Maile (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Harassment and block evasion from huge IP range

Could an administrator have a look at the discussion at the bottom of my talk page please? The IP editor should have been affected by a /20 rangeblock. I'm not sure what to do there, even; the harassment is persistently spread across multiple pages and huge IP address ranges. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)