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

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

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

At various articles, especially medical articles, and especially with regard to the leads, IiKkEe makes unnecessary stylistic changes that often leave the text in a less accurate, simply inaccurate, and/or sloppy state. It's not unusual for these edits to not align with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. It's not unusual for IiKkEe to change the context and/or meaning of things, and to give WP:Undue weight to things. And this includes articles that are of WP:Good or WP:Featured status. The editor can make many edits in a row, which, in addition to usually needing to be reverted or tweaked, can take up a lot of time when reviewing the changes. And the editor's content is sometimes unsourced. As seen here, here and here, the editor has also been known to edit war just to retain their edits. The editor has gotten a bit better about this over time, being more willing to go to the talk page to discuss, but it's not enough. Discussion can consist of the editor wanting their way, and then editing the article in some other problematic fashion if they don't get their way.

To get right into this matter, see the examples below.

Examples of IiKkEe's problematic editing, spanning years.

In March to April 2015, IiKkEe's edits to the Hypertension article, a GA article, were such an issue that an editor felt that that "it may need to be delisted now." IiKkEe responded by, for example, saying, "I agree the article was a good article and I acknowledge the major contribution you have made to it. I don't think that I completely reworked the article: I did make 134 specific edits with a justification for each in the Edit history notes, and I believe each were an improvement to an already good article. I could be wrong: please feel free to critique one, some, or all of my edits on the Talk page and voice your specific objections, and we can discuss them there in a spirit of mutual respect with the aim of reaching a consensus." Right there IiKkEe acknowledges making a whopping 134 edits, or however many edits, to the article. The editor who complained replied, "I have made almost no contributions to it - which just goes to show that you took almost no time to understand the standing of the article. I just noticed that you acted with terrible arrogance, and we probably need to delist the article." Indeed, IiKkEe's 2015 edits to the article contain numerous errors or issues, and, to save time, I can only point to a few. After the article was restored to its GA status, IiKkEe still needed to be reverted. For example, here, where the editor changed the text to state "fast heart rate at rest" (which contrasts what resting heart rate and tachycardia state), here where the changes were labeled confusing and it was noted that the definitions were already provided in preceding sentences, here where the editor removed an entire section that needed to be restored, here where the editor added birth control as a cause of hypertension (although birth control can be sourced as an increased risk), and here where the editor called a study a treatment. In April 2015, IiKkEe made this edit to the Cushing's syndrome article, stating, "clarify causes of excess cortisol in MEN I and Carney complex." This had to be reverted, because, as stated on IiKkEe's talk page, it's not two hereditary diseases that cause Cushing's syndrome. "More than two diseases cause pituitary adenomas." It was noted that the editor also "added details that are not supported by the ref in question." In 2017, at the Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion article, they had to be reverted on sourcing issues like this one, MEDMOS issues, and so on. In April 2018, at the Animal article, IiKkEe's had to be reverted on one of their edits that removed something as "unneeded." The article had just reached good article status via Chiswick Chap's hard work. And then there were more accuracy issues with IiKkEe's edits to the article in December 2018. In October 2018 at the Blackmail article, where I think I first encountered IiKkEe, I reverted IiKkEe because the editor added unsourced text in place of sourced text, and gave the unsourced and unencyclopedic example of "Buy me that necklace or I'm not going out with you." The editor tried a different version, I reverted again, took the matter to the talk page, and contacted WP:LAW. As noted by an editor on the talk page, issues with IiKkEe's edits included the fact that blackmail is not a statutory offense in every jurisdiction, and that "there is no need to separate the common and legal definition—it is the same definition written in a different way." The lead issues were remedied, but not before IiKkEe made a mess of the lead. In March 2019, IiKkEe made edits to the Obsessive–compulsive disorder article, which included IiKkEe asserting that "feel the need to check things repeatedly" was redundant to what was there. I reverted, stating, "Checking things repeatedly is not necessarily performing certain routines repeatedly. And we use 'or' for a reason. Maybe discuss on the talk page?" IiKkEe kept at it. Didn't bother discussing on the talk page. I took the matter to the talk page, stating, "IiKkEe, you need to discuss your changes because you are changing the context or meaning of some material. Keep in mind that this is a medical article, which is why WP:MEDRS has high standards. Why not just to stick to what the sources state? When reverting you here, I stated that checking things repeatedly is not necessarily performing certain routines repeatedly. For example, a person with OCD might feel the need to repeatedly check for an email reply. But this doesn't mean that doing so is a routine for them. After all, that is just one email reply. Once the other person replies, that matter is over. The person with OCD might not communicate via emails enough for repeatedly checking emails to become a routine. You went back to changing the lead. You made it so that the lead states 'the need to perform certain routines repeatedly such as checking on the status of something (rituals),' which led Doc James to remove 'checking on the status of something (rituals).' It's best to just leave the lead as it was and include 'feel the need to check things repeatedly,' just like we do in the infobox." In that same discussion, Doc James stated, "It is important to be actively reading the sources when text is adjusted." Since then, the lead of that article still doesn't have "feel the need to check things repeatedly." This is because I didn't feel like dealing with IiKkEe anymore at that time. And where the text used to state "Common activities include hand washing, counting of things, and checking to see if a door is locked.", it now states, "Common compulsions include hand washing, counting of things, and checking to see if a door is locked." The lead still needs tweaking since feeling the need to check on things repeatedly and performing certain routines repeatedly are both compulsions, but they aren't necessarily the same thing. In April 2019, at the Concussion article, IiKkEe spoke of "copy edit[ing] for accuracy." But like Doc James stated on IiKkEe's talk page, "What is this 'over 15 is interpreted as no traumatic brain injury (TBI)'? Are you reading the sources in question? There is no such thing as a score over 15." And Doc James, who watches a lot of medical articles, if not most of them, has had to revert IiKkEe at various articles, as the next few examples will show. In August 2019, at the Heart failure, Doc James had to revert this ("also known as") because it's not "formerly called congestive heart failure", and he had to restore text to its more accurate or just plain accurate form, after IiKkEe's edits. In September at the same article, he had to revert this unsourced material that IiKkEe added. And here he reverted IiKkEe, because, in his words, the text "did not make sense." In October 2019, at the Osteoarthritis article, Doc James reverted IiKkEe because of unreferenced material and because he was correcting IiKkEe's incorrect material. In October 2019, at the Human papillomavirus infection article, Doc James fixed IiKkEe's edits because "it is a step wise process, goes from precancerous to cancerous." Here he was clear about IiKkEe's edits not being supported by a reference. Here he was clear that "no ref [was] provided" and that he was reverting IiKkEe "to better match the source." No reference for this either. This edit shows Doc James reverting one of the stylistic changes where IiKkEe felt the need to explain what a Pap test is. This edit shows Doc James reverting back to a WP:MEDMOS setup (which IiKkEe has been made aware of times before, including on their talk page). Another MEDMOS revert by Doc James here. Also in October 2019, at the Subconjunctival bleeding article, Doc James repeatedly adjusted material, as seen, for example, here and here after IiKkEe's edits, and reverted IiKkEe here (after this change) because "usually it is one blood vessel, not multiple." Even with this October 20, 2019 edit at the HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer article, there's a problem with what seems to have been meant to be a simple copyedit...because IiKkEe removed "lack of any such evidence of a primary tumour" from the "occurs in 2-4% of patients presenting with metastatic cancer in the cervical nodes" text as redundant. So right now the text says "The occurs in 2-4% of patients presenting with metastatic cancer in the cervical nodes." What occurs? Today, at the Masturbation article, IiKkEe made edits like this, where IiKkEe strays from the source, saying, "delete unneeded and inaccurate 'or other sexual pleasure'. IMO it is only for sexual arousal." So IiKkEe calls "or other sexual pleasure" inaccurate based on his or her opinion? The first source clearly says "to achieve sexual arousal and pleasure." And the third source clearly says "for the purpose of sexual pleasure and/or orgasm." The only reason that our Wikipedia article says "or other sexual pleasure" instead of "and sexual pleasure" is because sexual arousal in this context falls under "sexual pleasure." With this edit, IiKkEe replaced "usually to the point of orgasm" with the "with or without inducing an orgasm" wording, stating that the new wording is more accurate. Again, "more accurate" according to whom? To IiKkEe? The first source clearly says "to achieve sexual arousal and pleasure, usually to the point of orgasm (sexual climax)." And the third source clearly says "for the purpose of sexual pleasure and/or orgasm." A variety of other sources also stress the orgasm part. People usually don't masturbate without achieving orgasm.

There are a lot of other examples of IiKkEe's changes that leave articles in compromised states, but I focused on the examples I reviewed and some that are mentioned on IiKkEe's talk page. This Potassium article example is another from IiKkEe's talk page. IiKkEe can be polite enough when interacting with editors, but being polite isn't enough to negate editing/competence issues. Furthermore, as indicated by this section on IiKkEe's talk page, IiKkEe has a tendency to thank editors via WP:Echo and go right back to editing disruptively. I've experienced this with regard to IiKkEe and other editors whose edits were riddled with issues. It can have the effect of seeming antagonistic even when it's not meant to be.

IiKkE's editing reminds me Anthony22's editing, except that Anthony22's problematic stylistic changes mainly concerned biographies. He was recently "indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia." Original thread on that is seen here. I'm not sure what the best remedy should be in IiKkEe's case, but if the community decides that he should refrain from editing medical articles, this should be broadly construed to include anatomy and sexuality articles since they often overlap and IiKkEe has edited problematically at some anatomy articles (such as Nephron) and questionably at a few sexual topic articles thus far. I just know that something needs to be done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Like Flyer22 Reborn said, there are many more examples of this behavior. Here are just a few that I've seen over the last 2 weeks:

• Here they changed "usually involves" to "is" purely for being "more direct", but had to be reverted because it ignored that sources vary.
• Here they removed "typically" in the 1st sentence, which caused it to be only about the female genitalia and making it contradict the 3rd sentence about the anus.
• Here at Oral sex they changed the 1st sentence significantly by changing "or" to "and". It went from saying "(including the lips, tongue, or teeth) or throat" to "including the lips, tongue, and teeth; and the throat".
• At the same article, they changed "female genitals" to "vulva", which had to be changed to "vulva or vagina".
• IiKkEe then, because they wanted the terminology to be "comparable", changed the sentence from "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the vulva or vagina, while fellatio is oral sex performed on the penis" to "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the female genitalia - the vulva and vagina - while fellatio is oral sex performed on the male genitalia - the penis and scrotum". Thus, they again made up their own definition for fellatio. They were rightly reverted. I also replied to them on the talk page.

Again, these are just a few very recent examples from just a few articles that IiKkEe has edited. This editor seems to put their own subjective and often poor style opinions ahead of sourcing and common usage. This results in problems, as explained by Flyer22 Reborn.

As shown by her examples, this appears to be an ongoing problem over many years. IiKkEe should have learned better by now. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

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

They are one of a certain type of difficult editor, who just tinkers carelessly or beyond their capacity. They have been around since 2014, very rarely engaging on their talk page. This pattern suggests English language competence may be a factor here. A widescreen topic ban may well be the only remedy. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I was mixed up with the Anthony22 issue a month or so ago and I agree that it's a big issue. In this case, it is even worse since he is making a flurry of small but significant changes to articles that alter the meaning (often making them inaccurate). This type of edit is hard for a user who is not a subject matter expert (e.g. someone like Doc James) to patrol since it is not overtly vandalism. It wouldn't be a big deal if this user was responsive on the talk page but he isn't -- like Anthony he just does whatever he wants and leaves it up to others to clean up after him. If this user is willing to be more responsive and to stop making such changes without discussion, I would be OK with letting it go but so far he hasn't been. 73.128.16.15 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

My reply. I may not be able to complete this in one sitting. Please allow me to finish before responding.

Based on the above criticisms, I will take the following actions:

First, I volunteer to stop editing WP for 3 months ie until February 1, 2020.

Second, I propose the following for any of my future edits: 1) I will not edit any article that Flyer22 Reborn has edited. 2) I will place a notice on the Talk page of any article I plan to edit, which will include which one paragraph or section I plan to edit, and will invite scrutiny of my edits. I will also notify any major active contributor(s) at that site. 3) I will accept any reversions of my edits and discuss them on the Talk page if I have questions. 4) I will make no more than 10 edits per day to any Article. 5) I will add a reference to any edit which changes the meaning of that already referenced sentence.

Third, I will respond to the speculation that I am not fluent in English, and that I am not qualified to edit the articles I have chosen to edit. I was born and have always lived in the United States; I am fluent in English. I graduated from Rice University with a BS in Biology. Undergraduate courses included physics, general chemistry, quantitative chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, geology, anthropology, comparative anatomy, physiology, histology, and electrical engineering. I am a physician, a graduate of an American medical school, Board certified in Internal Medicine, and an Assistant Professor at an American Health Science Center. I lecture to second year medical students in my area of expertise. I have reviewed articles submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine for accuracy and format. I have participated in clinical research published in peer reviewed medical journals. I have published a single-authored textbook of Internal Medicine purchased and used by thousands of medical students.

Next, I will respond to Flyer22 Reborn's criticism of my editing based on direct interactions with me plus a reading of my Talk page. I believe there are fourteen articles/edits discussed. I suggest that these are not representative of my total work product at WP: I have been editing for 5 1/2 years; my guess is that I have submitted around 17,000 edits to around 500-700 articles, and interacted civilly, amicably, and productively with around 1000 fellow editors. Most have shown appreciation for my edits either at my Talk page, clicking "Thank you", or by giving tacit approval by reading my edits and not reverting or modifying them. I would guess that over 90 per cent of my 17,000 edits still stand as written today. However, I have run up against about a dozen editors over the years who verbalize outright scorn for my edits, reverting them in toto. My reaction to this is to move on to some other article.

Next, I will address the allusion to edit warring. It is correct that twice I have been *accused* of edit warring. But I have never been turned in for or investigated for that allegation. When I asked for details of at which edits exactly I had done this, none were provided. Perhaps on two occasions I was *perceived* as edit warring.

Next, I will address my relationship with Doc James as I see it. [I have been interrupted by the duties of the day. I will return shortly. Again, please do not respond until I have had a chance to finish. Thanks.] IiKkEe (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Chuckstreet

Involved users:

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

Involved pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hasn't edited, though. I hope we didn't manage to drive another content editor away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't really feel like responding in ANI here since I thought this whole thing unworthy, but I guess I do have to set the record straight. Everyone has misconstrued this whole situation and blown it out of proportion (maybe to justify it being in ANI in the first place, despite it's triviality and inurgency?) Firstly, NinjaRobotPirate's misguided 31 hour (why 31?) hasty block (for "still" attacking?? he had already gone and there was no one to attack) didn't even give me a chance to respond and defend myself and show you all that I'm not the perpetrator of harassment nor the rogue rejecter of the almighty MOS, but the victim of AUU's (I shall call him for short) harassment and the one (among others!) that was trying to (vainly because he doesn't want to listen) teach AUU what MOS really said (someone else not me explained to him it wasn't a MOS:BEATLES violation) and how his edits were violating MOS and other rules, including Disruptive Editing and how he was going against long-standing consensus (in the 4 "List of Compositions" articles).

My main bone of contention with him was a problem I see frequently on WP: failure to follow the D in BRD. Oh he's Bold all right, but when he gets Reverted, he thinks the D stands for Dispute (as in DRN) instead of Discuss (as in article Talk page). It's not a simple failure that could be corrected in his case, but a refusal. That along with his God Complex, or at the very least, police mentality, as if WP were a fascist dictatorship where any infraction of a rule would elicit a severe Punishment akin to death by execution by firing squad (ergo Block by ANI), where AUU proceeded to Lay Down The Law, in the form of his own personal rules he Required everyone to follow (see his response to the fake posting that looks like it was written by me with my signature username (I didn't write that, he took a post of mine from elsewhere, modified it and posted it himself in his own private (attempt at stalling and diverting another) thread, on the "Nocturnes (Debussy)" article Talk page (where it was and is so grossly out of place and off topic) - that severely violates another rule and is just evidence of further harassment of me), is what bugged me the most.

Bad enough that he singled me out for reasons I still can't figure, harassed me on my talk page, after making a mess of the Nocturnes page that I grew to realize was intentional (thus it could be termed vandalism), and several other pages I had recently edited (what a coincidence, huh?), by bragging that he'd Reverted me (false, he reverted himself and Gerda Arendt, back TO my last good edit, and then made a new edit himself on top of that, that included messy changes that had nothing to do with his MOS claims) for 2 MOS violations (neither of which was true or applicable). Then when I reverted him, politely telling him in the edit summary (a place he erroneously thinks is improper to have a conversation (ever hear of a Dummy Edit? (and no, that's not an insult, AUU, calm down and read the real WP rules))) that there were no MOS violations (on any of the 5 articles) and there was already a discussion going on in Talk and he was encouraged to join (Debussy Nocturnes), and that his changes actually violated 3 MOS rules (the 4 List of Composition articles), and also went against Consensus engendered by a consistency with 200+ other List of classical music composers' compositions articles, he then proceeded to instead vomit on the Nocturnes talk page, diverting the discussion (the actuality of which he ignored) into a ditch, and immediately ran crying to Daddy DRN, and when that didn't work, whining to Mommy ANI, a place (as it says at the top, everyone should refresh yourself and read it please) for URGENT matters and EMERGENCIES and INTRACTABLE user problems, not for petty disputes (which this wasn't even!)

I do find his DRN and especially ANI "complaints" further harassment of me. You have to look at the chronology to get the idea of what I see here; I guess it may not be obvious. Just keep in mind that his "complaints" were merely intentional misuse, designed to get at ME; he wasn't really Concerned about any of the issues he was bringing up (which on the ANI page here suspiciously changed twice again rapidly, throwing up on the proverbial wall here and hoping some of it would stick). My point is: he never had any intention of Discussing anything (having a Conversation, hey what an idea!), he was there only to disrupt and cause havoc and strife (not to mention a very active attempt at deplatforming me). And don't kid (no pun intended) yourself, he wasn't feeling "attacked", don't be naive now. Besides, I didn't attack him, did I not mention that yet? (I never actually called him a vandal anywhere; I tried to be diplomatic about it.)

How about a chronology now, or have I verbosely worn out my welcome? It'd help I think. Including my analyses and recommendations too. But first let me shed a veil or two. I'm not tied to a computer, online 24 hours a day; I have a life (Gerda wonders where I went: I've been too involved with WP and have been neglecting certain urgent matters, so I took a break until I couldn't stand the suspense anymore). I am 68 years old, an ex-concert pianist and composer, ex-filmmaker, and retired businessman (running a non-profit-turned-profit), currently living in Oregon in the United States. Ex the first because my hands are crippled due to a botched operation and complete lack of healthcare, ex the second because I lost my eyesight and ditto. I type with one good finger on a tiny keyboard, so I'm slow. I'm not completely blind, but getting there, and though I don't use a screen reader (but do use Siri), I am concerned with visual acuity on Wikipedia (which is why the "formatting" discussion on Debussy Nocturnes talk page, among other places). (MOS Accessibility is an important subset (read: exception?), I'll have you know.) Some people seem to think I'm a newbie on WP, but I've been editing it as long as it's existed, almost 20 years (I can still remember my first edit), and I've been in cyberspace since the late 1970s, and I can recognize that the biggest problem is flaming. A few (somewhat contradictory) adages would suffice here, however: You can't have too thick a skin, Preponderance is not correctness, and Don't argue with idiots, (thanks Raymond). There are plenty more, but I might begin to sound like his highness AutocraticUnctionUbiquity, so I'll shutup. I'm here on WP to contribute by hopefully imparting some of my knowledge and expertise in the pages I edit. As well as a sort of anal OCD-ness in making Lists of classical music composers' works, a holdover from my childhood where I did such things before some of the now-known catalogs were published. Bringing us once again back to AUU, who is clearly here not to contribute, but only to be a nuisance and police everybody and demand everybody (or just me?) follow the rules or wreak the wrath, and follow HIS rules, every one of which (see Talk:Nocturnes (Debussy) again) he violated himself in such a short time as the current "situation".

Chrono: oh I'm tired now. If anyone wants me to point out the correct sequence of events, as opposed to AUU's lies (3 blank lines in between paragraphs?? I don't think so, dude: there was only one, and that for necessary (for me anyway) readability) and feigned-ingenuously sophistical deception (I hope you'll know when you've really been attacked, it's a necessary part of life's defenses), ask me and I'll try to be succinct.

Suffice it to say, he started it, and I tried to (gently or not?) correct him and naively encourage him to opine in our discussion, only to have him joker my batman, and while I tried to ignore it, it was too late. To the lions, Heraclitus!

So what to do now? As soon as I was blocked, AUU went and reverted my reverts in all 5 pages (shades of one-sided edit-warring?) I need to delete that talkpage thread (again) with the fake post by (not) me; I think I have that prerogative (including the one to edit or delete my own posts), and I need to put the four list pages back to the consistency and consensus we had before, and especially I need to restore and explore the experimentation with ways to make a certain page more readable, easy on the eyes (especially if you only have half-of an), and try to have have an Intelligent and Respectful conversation about it (continuing which we were doing, at least Gerda and I), without the dangerous (yes look at all those banners on his user page, including the one that says he WANTS to be an Admin, God help us all if that ever happens) AnUnnamedUser (please ban this sort of username, among reference problems, there is a tendency to Hide behind such a handle) reverting me, or worse: vomiting on me (and everybody else!) again. How about blocking him and putting on his userpage the reasons and what he did wrong? I'd like to keep him out of our hair, at least in the classical music pages I edit and talk in. At least one volunteer/admin wondered why AUU wasn't blocked and thought he should have been. How about now? So we can be in peace.

Oh, one more thing: Robert McClenon seems to have been grossly misguided as well. Aside from his admittedly bad advice to AUU to to take the closed DRN to ANI (when you should have told him what the brD really stands for), Robert also posted on my talkpage an unfounded accusation that I "attack"ed other "editors" (note the plural) on the Nocturnes Debussy talk page (where? there are no attacks there unless maybe AUU's own DRN and God posts), whereupon I started talking about vandals (plural, thus a generalization) and said I just had to laugh at them sometimes (it can be fun!). I think we may have been talking cross purposes: I was discussing in generalizations and using smileys (see those?), I wasn't talking about AUU specifically, but some bee had got in Roberts bonnet (and appears still trapped in there (what, teach ME about consensus? hardly... I'm an expert - and what consensus are you referring to anyway?? huh?)) about something I could never figure out what. I think Robert was listening to AUU spew (mommy, he's attacking me! look look he's doing it again! help me, mommy, i'm so innocent!) in ANI without actually going on the page in question and looking at it or examining the edit history. I really don't think he knows what went on, and I'm referring to his posts here in this ANI thread (which confuse and confound me greatly). But maybe with this current post from me, things will be more understandable (or do you really want a timeline?) I do hate fabrications of accusations, so don't be coming on my talk page with your nonsense, thank you. :-/ <sigh>

Oh almost forgot, there's another party here. AUU's only accusation against Gerda Arendt is that she "communicated" with me. Ooh bad! Consorting with the enemy! ;-)

I could go on further but I've been enough of a verbositron already.

Hopefully not too abstruse.

Hey is it all right to laugh now? (Just wanna check with the PTB on that one...)

— I-Like-Being-A-Weirdo-Chuckstreet AKA I-Hate-Vandals-And-Vomiteers AKA Am-I-In-My-Second-Childhood-Yet-Or-Am-I-Just-Old-And-Tired? Chuckstreet (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was not a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Harassment, bullying, persistent vandalism by Editor SergeWoodzing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I admire your optimism here. The deceptiveness here where they never stated that the image they wanted to use was theirs, the false edit summaries [4], [5], [6] saying add when it's really replace, and everything above. Much COI in their edits. And nothing from them saying they understand the issues being raised about their editing and focus on promoting their images (and by extension, promoting their business). Ravensfire (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal - TBan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support. I first ran into Glenn's self-promotion at the Bebe Rexha biography where he edit-warred his obviously altered and enhanced image of stiff-as-a-doll Rexha into the article, removing a much more attractive action shot of Rexha performing.[7] Misleading edit summaries were used here, too.[8] Glenn attacked another editor, calling them a "delusional troll" at Talk:Bebe_Rexha#Infobox_image_revisited. This disruption has gone on long enough. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• In 12 years of posting photos, I’ve only had one conflict, and that was with SergeWoodzing. diff gnu57 04:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a no-brainer. Deb (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I showed the falsehood of your statement that you have had "only one conflict" in 12 years. I assert that your photo was altered because it looks fake and because it lists "Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)" as the software platform in the EXIF metadata.[9] You waffled about that aspect – "there is this thing know as truth and facts" – without explicitly denying that you retouched (enhanced, "Photoshopped") the photograph. I also pointed out that you engaged in a personal attack against a good-faith editor from Rochester, New York, who you called "Drama Queen", "good riddance to you" and "delusional troll".[10] You didn't "resolved" the problem, you just put another of your photos into the article. Taken as a whole, your insistence on using your images is promotional, and a serious behavioral problem. Binksternet (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colin, we'll have to agree to differ on this. I don't think that any reasonable person could see Serge's actions in the way that you do, and I don't agree with your characterisation of the addition, or the subsequent removal, of the photo. Let's remember that it wasn't Serge who first removed it - it was an IP editor, who left an edit summary suggesting that it was promo. Toglenn reinstated it, Serge then removed it again, and Toglenn reinstated it again - already in the full knowledge that two editors disagreed that it was an improvement. This kind of behaviour is what I am seeking to prevent with the proposed sanction above - if a photo of his is removed, he should discuss it first before knee-jerk edit warring. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hard to understand where the assumption came from that I am adverse to female disc jockeys, and why that assumption has been repeated here more than once. It is uncalled for in any case, as anyone who knows my work (and me in the real world) would know. I added the female image to sv:Discjockey. I've also added women to sv:Bartender and Chairperson and Queen mother and List of Swedish monarchs and probably at least a hundred other articles, one as recently as last Tuesday. I try very hard to be fair. Perhaps, in this case, I was not as fair as I should have been and want to be at first, but that was not intentional. If we're all as fair as possible, we'll enjoy Wikipedia work more. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Girth while we can disagree how this user should be dealt with, can you at least accept that Serge was edit warring (twice removed the lead image without consensus). Serge should not be edit warring. Why are we not seeing both editors being equally warned not to edit war? Can you also accept that most articles should have lead images, and Toglenn's image was a perfectly good image of a DJ. So I maintain that his first edit to that article made Wikipedia better. Which part of my "characterisation of the addition" do you disagree on? And when I say Serge made Wikipedia worse by twice removing the lead image from an article, which part of my "characterisation of the removal" do you disagree on? And when I claim Serge's rational was very odd indeed -- suggesting even that the person might be an impostor and that the DJ was "an unknown person". Let me Google that for you. It seems to me that Serge would rather edit war and add little "citation needed" tags rather than bother to do some Googling and fix it themselves.

I agree all editors should not edit war. But also that all those caught edit warring should be warned. Why have you not criticised Serge? Do you suggest sanctions every time someone has been found to be edit warring and arrive at AN/I? Even when the person has a clean block log and has never troubled AN/I before? Sanctions are a last resort imposition of authority on another editor when all other means of discussion have failed. To request sanctions, and to continue to request them, even after the person has admitted they got things wrong and proposed a good solution, well that doesn't seem fair at all. -- Colin°^Talk 21:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin There's quite a lot there, and I'm on mobile so forgive me if I miss something. So, Toglenn started edit warring before Serge even got involved - and this appears to be standard practise for him - that's my chief concern. When the IP reverted him, he should have hit the talk page. When Serge reverted him, he should definitely have gone there. He's been editing for ten years - he should know that. Yes, we can agree that a lead should have a picture - but it doesn't follow that any picture is better than no picture. Without wanting to get into the content dispute here, there is a disagreement between two good-faith editors about whether the addition of the image was an improvement. After having been reverted twice, the onus is on Toglenn to gain consensus for his image - it's not on Serge to gain consensus for his revert.

If this was a one-off, I'd agree that a simple warning was appropriate - but it's not. There is a history of inserting images, being reverted, edit warring, and then resorting to insult and hyperbole. This is the first time it's ended up at ANI, but it's far from the first time they've fallen far short of civility requirements. If Serge also has a history of trolling, gender-biased image preferences, or removal of good lead images, no one has brought that up - that's why I'm inclined towards sanctions for Toglenn, but see no need for them for Serge.

And just to reiterate this point - my proposal above hardly constrains the editor at all. It simply requires them to gain consensus if they are reverted, and to use an explanatory edit summary when replacing an image - I mean, that's just good practice, it's hardly an impediment to contributing. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Garth since you seem to be deliberately avoiding apportioning any blame on Serge, I don't think it worth arguing with you not his. You simply aren't being impartial. I don't think many editors would respond to an IP edit/revert by striking up a talk page discussion, especially one who's only edit summary was "promo?" which is clearly nonsense. The history log show Troglen improving wikipedia and facing on occasion other edit warriors. You keep forgetting that. The problem I have with your "sanction" is that it is just that. You didn't ask simply that Toglenn be reminded never to edit war over his own pictures and warned that future edit warring may lead to sanctions. You went straight to the option where your (and other's here) authority is used to threaten, intimidate and coerce a weaker player (and Troglen is hugely inexperienced wrt WP editing, talk page discussions, etc, if you just look at the filtered contribs). That is the dictionary definition of bullying. As I said, there is little point arguing with someone who has as clear bias and is only interested in rationalising their actions. This AN/I topic should have been closed with a warning to both parties and that was the end of it. I'm unwatching. -- Colin°^Talk 08:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Colin I'm sorry you feel like that. I don't agree with your analysis, either of this current situation or of the various users' contributions histories. I won't respond to your other points, since you indicate you no longer wish to discuss this, but I'm saddened that you think that because I don't share your perspective, you conclude that I must be biased, and a bully. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

To GIRTH: To Girth, My apologies if my writing seems to be “Invective” (yeah I looked it up) I see extremely well presented, logical, researched, supported, organized, and convincing presentations and all stated in a very calm manner such as the writings here of Colin, GMG, Rhododendrites, and some others. I seriously wish that I could do that.

But all that perfect and eloquently written presentation is all in vain when speaking to someone so ignorant, biased, and totally unwilling to understand anything that they don’t want to. Those editors may as well be talking to a wall.

Girth, It’s not a matter of simply disagreeing with someone’s analysis, it’s a matter of you ignoring and shunning the extremely factual and obvious no matter how many people and how well they explain it to you.

• COMMENT: I only come onto Wikipedia to post a photo and then leave. I do not come here to argue with anyone, that's the last thing I want to. The only replys I make are defensive when people start attacking me. Those defensive replys of mine that people are posting are only posting what I said - they are NOT POSTING the reason I was forced to have to say them. They are not posting what the attacker was doing or saying to provoke me to have to respond. - That's the most important thing - WHY I had to say what I said.

So the people who are reading the comments and then saying 'support' have no idea what they are doing because they only have half the story and no idea what went on beforehand or why I responded as I did. Then there are others who just make up stuff out of thin air and call it truth. Example #1. From User: AnUnnamedUser writes (Referring to me) "even going so far as to add the pp-vandalism tag to a non-protected page (pretending to be an admin)" - This is an outright lie - I have no Idea what a pp-vandalism tag is, or a non-protected page - and would never even think of trying to pretend to be an admin. Example #2 "His image is not an image of a disc jockey disc jockeying, but of a disc jockey posing for a publicity photograph". No - It's a real DJ actually DJ-ing at an event as proven on the DJ Talk Page.Glenn Francis (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Toglenn, this is another example of your jumping straight to invective. You say that someone is telling an outright lie. Is it not possible that they have made a mistake about this? Or that you did actually do this once, perhaps even accidentally, and have forgotten doing so? Rather than accusing them of lying, why not ask them to substantiate their claims - AnUnnamedUser, you have said above that Toglenn added a page protection tag to a page inappropriately, but you didn't provide a diff - please do so, or you should retract this claim. As for your second point, whether it's a DJ DJ-ing or a DJ posing for a picture at an event where they also DJed, that's a matter for the ongoing content discussion on the talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit. You are correct and I thank you. I did not consider that the editor could have made an honest mistake. (I do that all the time). But I'm learning things. It's rare that I go onto talk pages or forums and I'm not a good writer - I hate it actually (that's' why I'd rather just take pictures). Here is the proof that DJ Bad Ash is a real DJ and that my photo was taken while performing at an event an not a publicity stunt. This link was on the DJ Article page but deleted by someone. real. http://www.prphotos.com/store/category.cgi?&category=search&query=%5Eevents%2Esql&q2=4th%20Annual%20%22Team%20Up%20for%20Tourettes%22%20Fundraiser%20%2D%20Arrivals&x-start=0&ps=5&xgrouped=1&results_per_page=100&start=96 Thanks again Girth

Revisiting this event, I acknowledge that these photos of DJ Bad Ash are not the usual photos you see of DJ's. This is Hollywood where the DJ's smile for the camera and are not hidden away in cubby holes.Glenn Francis (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC) COMMENT: In the 12 years or so that I've been posting photos on Wikipedia, I've never had any real problems until I posted a photo on the 'Blond' article that User: Girth Summit didn't like. He is the one who is leading this "Hate ToGlenn for posting photos on Wikipedia" crusade and disinformation campaign. It is vengeance, and should never be tolerated under any circumstances.Glenn Francis (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Toglenn, hi again - I just noticed that you'd added this. I can't really understand why you think I hate you, or I want vengeance - I'm not even sure what I would want vengeance for, you haven't wronged me in any way. I do feel the need to correct a couple of points you make though.

I don't know why you single me out as disliking your photo on Blond. As anyone can see, I was not the one who reverted it, I just participated in the discussion afterwards, where four editors (including myself) agreed that the photo was not an improvement, and no one other than yourself opined that it was better.

I also don't see why you are describing that discussion as a 'real problem' - it wasn't a heated discussion, nobody insulted anyone, it was just a discussion where you didn't manage to convince people that you were right. You did end up saying that we had WP:OWN issues, which seemed a bit odd, but other than that it was a reasonably civil discussion. Levivich's diffs above seem to suggest that you have had several much more heated interactions with users before and since that encounter.

To make my own position clear, I do not hate you, and I don't want to stop you editing. All I want is for you to stop edit warring over your images (that means reinstating without consensus when people revert you - see WP:BRD for the process as it's supposed to work), and I'd also like you to stop assuming the worst about other editors, calling them vandals and bullies etc., whenever they disagree with you. Whether this thread closes with a warning, or with a formal TBan, that kind of stuff needs to stop. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

• Support a topic ban on adding his own photos on any article here: he can propose an addition on the talk page of the article, but can't add them himself. And the main reason for that is that I don't agree with the claims by some here that his images are high quality, they're not, instead they're heavily, and crudely, photoshopped, with colours excessively saturated and sloppy sharpening (especially of hair) and softening (some parts of female faces softened, other parts not) in an attempt to hide the fact that most of them are blurry and badly lit (heck, from a technical standpoint even I could do better than that...), so the only use for them I see is in cases where no other pictures of the subject in question are available. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support at the very least. But it's likely moot now anyway since he's going to have his girlfriend do the work. Aside from an editor here and there attempting to whitewash and make excuses for the behavior issues, I still think we're looking at a "tip of the iceberg" problem here. We frown on professional writers coming in and doing paid editing, but I guess sliding a business card in with every picture is not a problem for some folks. — Ched (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no need, as shown by any evidence here, to go this far. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - ??? We have a user who routinely uploads high-quality images (more than 1000 of them) and puts them into articles. The vast majority of the time, it's a straightforward improvement and uncontroversial. Gets into some editwarring and a nasty disagreement. User has never received an edit warring warning, has never received a block, never received a sanction. We have two proposals which issue a warning or apply a formal tban on the problematic behavior. During those discussions he more or less agrees to abide by the rules set forth. ...and then comes the harshest proposal which just hurts Wikipedia? This is why ANI stinks sometimes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

"High-quality"? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Huh? Whether a specific photo is an improvement in a particular article is up for debate, but are you really going to go with the argument that these aren't high-quality images??? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See my comment above. The technical quality of the pictures (and I have looked at lots of his pictures on Commons, so I'm not talking about one or two of them...) is disappointingly low, which is why I wrote that they should be used only if no other pictures of a subject are available. And yes, I know quite a lot about photography, including digital photography. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

To Thomas.W: I did not come here to argue with anyone. But this reckless comment by Tom is so outrageous, so irresponsible, and blatantly false that I have to respond. I'm a press photographer and in addition to that I sell my photos on celebrity photo websites and on stock photo agencies worldwide. Before these photos are accepted and published, they have to pass a very stringent quality control process, and all of mine easily pass. How stringent? Here's the description on one site I sell on called Alamy https://www.alamy.com/contributors/alamy-how-to-pass-qc.pdf That said, there are defiantly less than stellar photos in my gallery. Those were photos that I took between 2005 -2010; 10 - 15 years ago. Digital cameras and software then was not what it is today, and I was in the learning stages of photo editing. Most of them are still on Wikipedia articles today. So to look at old photos and proclaim that all ALL my photos are poor quality is highly irresponsible, and inexcusable.

• Oppose This is going beyond ridiculous. Topic banning a photographer from adding photographs is akin to topic banning a writer from adding any article text. The evidence is that the vast majority of photographs are added without problem and are warmly received. In the few cases of trouble, other editors are equally to fault. Certainly the example that raised this (Disc jockey) does not support such a ban, and is more suggestive that User:SergeWoodzing should be examined wrt sanctions. As noted, the photographer has volunteered to let a friend do the Wikipedia editing, so really this whole topic should be closed to stop yet more ridiculous topic ban suggestions sprouting. I agree with Rhododendrites, this stinks. -- Colin°^Talk 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Like I said above let's PLEASE try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or perhaps how about: let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. Paul August ☎ 14:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is using a baseball bat where a fly swatter would suffice. Calidum 19:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT: I only come onto Wikipedia to post a photo and then leave. I do not come here to argue with anyone, that's the last thing I want to. The only replies I make are defensive when people start attacking me. Those defensive replies of mine that people are posting are only posting what I said - they are NOT POSTING the reason I was forced to have to say them. They are not posting what the attacker was doing or saying to provoke me to have to respond. - That's the most important thing - WHY I had to say what I said. So the people who are reading the comments and then saying 'support' have no idea what they are doing because they only have half the story and no idea what went on beforehand or why I responded as I did. It takes two to have an argument. So why aren't the people who were harassing and attacking me not being disciplined? They drew first blood -They were the instigators- whatever I said wasn't nearly as bad as what they said. And why not SergeWoodzing? Fair is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toglenn (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

COMMENT I see that some editors here have expressed concern that I’ve posted photos on foreign language Wikipedia’s, falsely stating that the reason is for self-promotion. That’s simply not true. This is a recent thing I started brought on by request.

Contrary to the popular opinion of many Americans, the U.S. is not the only country in the World. I know so many people who live in foreign countries and most are multi-lingual. Since I started posting to Wikipedia, around 2008, people have been asking me if I could post my photos on their countries Wikipedia’s.

As far as photos of people are concerned, the vast majority of them on the English Wikipedia are Horrible! It’s much much worse on the foreign Wikipedia’s. Most pages don’t even have photos. I simply give them an image in which they can do whatever they want with it. They can use it, delete it, turn it upside-down, I don’t care – it’s their Wikipedia and they can do with it whatever they want. The reception has been very positive.

With the exception of a few editors here who have commented on this thread, this sharing of Images on other Wikipedias is universally considered a good thing, and I receive a whole lot of Thank-yous.

I do not understand why there are actually people who oppose this sharing images for other people to see. Selfishness? I don’t know – I’m not a Psychologist. I believe the purpose of educational websites such as Wikipedia is to share information, not just locally, but globally.

Closure?

I don't know if there's much more to be said in this long thread - it might be good if an uninvolved admin were to close it. FWIW, I still think a TBan as proposed above might be the better way to go, but there also seems to be significant support for a warning as a first step, and I wouldn't contest a closure along those lines. So long as the edit warring and incivility stop, that's all that matters. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Persistent hoaxing from Fontana IP range

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

---

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

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

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

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

SPAM using edit summary

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

---

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

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

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

Tumbleman

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Administrator note I've rangeblocked an IP (Special:Contributions/2602:306:BCAE:4750:0:0:0:0/64) for a year that has been adding unsourced content like this since July 2015. The RFPP for the page has been declined, so this thread can now be closed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Quenreerer

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

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

To elaborate: Quenreerer added content to the Jermaine Whitehead page. I cleaned it up to conform with Wikipedia policy. These included grammar fixes, removal of excess URL code, removal of undue weight from the lead, and moved a stand-alone section to a more relevant part of the article. Quenreerer reverted my edit, stating the content was sourced and since the team was not involved in the incident it should not be included in that section (?). Since the user contested a small aspect of my edit, I made a series of smaller edits and explained each one in the edit summary so the user could understand what I was doing: [11], [12], [13], [14]. I then added to the user's addition with content found in the reference. The user then reverted all of my edits (except for the removal of content from the lead) with the explanation "sourced content. removed lead due to undue weight, but the controversy happened. it's all over the news." I posted on Quenreerer's talk page to try to resolve the situation, and an uninvolved editor then reverted Quenreerer's edit, stating "Per Eagles247, it's directly related to his tenure with the Browns". Whitehead was released by the Browns at this time, so I updated the article to reflect his release with a citation. Quenreerer then reverted to their version again, wiping out the new information as well. Over the next 25 minutes, Quenreerer slowly and manually restored pieces of my edits and responded on their talk page accusing me of POV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Yup. I have already explained why I was posting there (saw the article mentioned here, so responded on the talk page [15]). Evidently Quenreerer doesn't think WP:AGF applies to IPs - or to anyone else whom he/she disagrees with, by the look of it. 86.143.228.144 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

This whole AfD really needs to be looked into as so far we have had an undoing of prior consensus rather than a WP:DRV, and WP:OUTING claims. [16] Would any admin be willing to step in here and make a call regarding potential disruptive behavior that has gone on? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lightburst, given that it's likely to stay now, I'm now just trying to get it into shape, fixing things like release date (2019 for NGE not 1997; Casey wasn't around to voice the original released dub, see [17]). I think it should still have the notability template until the second articles are put in, but it doesn't require a call for deletion, especially if the person is slated to have more major roles soon to easily meet WP:ENT. So I have edited my comments on that AFD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do all of your problems continue to be AfD related? In light of everything that has happened in the last 40 hours maybe you should be topic banned from the process again. There has been little change regarding newcomers and the AfD problems since this revision: [18]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed topic ban for Sk8erPrince

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

• Support This will be the third time for a topic ban. My momma said, "You choose the behavior you choose the consequence." The AfDs need a break and the editor has shown that he cannot stop. Lord Roem has done a great job of articulating the reasons why this is appropriate. I only hope the editor can learn to operate on the project without the disruptions. They have been serious disruptions. Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support as the bare minimum required and I would be inclined to support a more severe sanction. In the entire discussion above, Sk8erPrince is repeatedly displaying textbook examples of battleground mentality, with constant simmering hostility, and constant comments about "your side" and "winning". The promises of improved behavior issued a few months ago ring hollow. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems a bit unbecoming to judge an editor based on their reaction to the repeated and unapologetic outing and other harassment by a clique of editors who showed up to !vote en masse and deliberately baited him until he displayed "battleground behaviour". If I had filed a good-faith ANI report on an editor who was posting nonsense in our articles, and was shot down by a group of editors who had clearly followed me from a recent unrelated discussion, I too would probably be a bit annoyed. (This edit would never have been made if the editor had been TBANned or the discussion of TBANning them had even been given a fair hearing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - the on and off wiki conduct has convinced me that regretfully Sk8erPrince just shouldn't edit the area of AfD's. The topic ban would be "AfD discussions broadly constructed", meaning participating in, and initiating. An exception for participation can be made for articles that Prince has created for rationale explanation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't speak for Sk8erPrince, but I would personally such a comment as implying you had an extreme level of interest in Korean culture or Korean people. Something like a Koreaboo but maybe less extreme [19] [20]. (To be clear, I've never heard the term Koreaboo until I just found it.) You generally get this more with Japanese culture and people in the West [21], still I think it's happening more with Korean culture and people especially with the rise of K-pop and the like. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If I edited Korean articles significantly (or even at all), then perhaps that would make sense. But I can't remember ever editing one! That comment comes around simply because I was involved in Sk8erPrince's ANI complaint against an editor who may be Korean! I don't see what warrants this personal attack! Nfitz (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose- if Sk8erPrince is going to voluntarily stay clear there's no sense in official proceedings. I considered supporting because of the "Korean fetish" thing but since the target didn't see it as a personal attack I'm not going to call it one. As for the transphobia allegations, either provide diffs and let arbcom handle the matter- or drop it. Reyk roaming (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I do consider User:Reyk roaming it a personal attack. Initially it seemed innocuous, but Sk8erPrince did then confirm that it WAS a personal attack - and surprisingly didn't even try and apologize. Nfitz (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Independent of the actual AfD recreation process here, which seems to be getting muddled into the discussion, there's clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior here with the more-than-occasional impulsive personal attack. This is just disruptive in general. I don't see how the civility issues have really improved since the incivility block and the "one final chance", so an indef honestly seems warranted as well. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose for now Primarily per ST47. The argument that battleground behaviour at AFD in general should merit a TBAN would be fairly compelling, except that several of the editors coming after Sk8erPrince in this case themselves appear to be guilty of the same, and giving them what they want is likely to make the problem worse, not better; I have also seen very little evidence that the "Korean fetish" and other such remarks were not the result of frustration at this ANI thread itself and the conduct of other users therein, and suspect that said may have been deliberate baiting. Encouraging such behaviour would be disastrous for the encyclopedia. Additionally, per NYB's comment at the top of the thread, the Casey Mongillo article was apparently recreated with the assumption that renomination at AFD was the proper procedure. (the original deleting admin had consented to re-creation and a new AfD -- note also that JJE's last words on the matter appear to be here.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As an aside, I think it was highly inappropriate for Lord Roem to close this discussion, essentially casting a super-!vote against an editor he was in a dispute with. Anyone who speaks Japanese can see that this edit was clearly disruptive and, yes, complete nonsense. A 3-1 majority, of whom at least two are clearly ignorant of the content and pushing an agenda against a particular user (one even admitted to not having understood the content before claiming it wasn't nonsense), is not justification for speedy-closing a community ban discussion after only 60 hours, especially not by an involved admin who is also involved in a dispute with the OP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that, User:Hijiri88 is a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of what I said! The content was referred to by Sk8erPrince as complete nonsense. I responded that while Ari doesn't mean "ant", the edit is not complete nonsense. I was not ignorant of the content, and acknowledged that at the time! The edit added information that the name existed in both Japanese and Korean, but got the Japanese meaning wrong; Sk8erPrince was significantly exaggerating. Nfitz (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that a girl's name comes from the word for "ant" is pretty much complete nonsense. Whatever it was that caused the editor who said to be subsequently blocked doesn't change that fact. I think you should keep an eye on that editor's edits going forward -- I certainly intend to -- to make sure no further disruption takes place. Also, claiming you "acknowledged" that your were "not ignorant of the content" is a weird turn of phrase; did you mean to say you were ignorant of the content? Anyway, feel free to not answer that; I had already posted twice that I thought it was time this thread was closed before you posted the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support I find it odd we can't link to his official Twitter account and point out what he has said to prove a battleground mentality, or personal grudge as some have called it. You have someone who is a less successful voice actor, who insults others on Twitter, and is clearly determined to delete as many voice actor articles as possible. Since past sanctions resulted in him simply sockpuppeting at least two accounts to get around them so he could keep doing what he was doing, and he simply refuses to change no matter how many times he is called out to do so, support permanent topic can on anything related to voice actors. If you haven't read what was said at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk8erPrince/Archive please look over it, he having a long history of this behavior. Dream Focus 10:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Your previous conduct can matter in helping us decide what action, if any, to take over your current conduct. If you've had related problems, it's quite reasonable for us to consider they demonstrate that we shouldn't give you much of a chance since you're not going to improve. For the reasons outlined below, I'm not going to look into this so it could be completely wrong, but my memory is your previous topic ban came about in part because of your socking, as you were using socks to submit or comment at AfDs. I think you may have disputed precisely why you decided to sock, but IIRC you did not dispute you were a problem at AfDs. If the community feels that only about 1.5 years ago you were so desperate to participate in AfDs to the extent you socked to be able to do so, and only about 2-3 months after the topic ban was lifted your behaviour at AfDs is causing major problems again, they may very well decide to re-impose the topic ban based on the sum total of evidence including the previous sockpuppetry. I do agree the Twitter stuff is not something we can consider at ANI for OUTING reasons so arbcom is the only one who can impose sanction over it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

• Support Site Ban Redacted As a result of the section below. Subsequent replies might not make much sense now. I suggest readers consider the concerns of the article subject as suggested by Sk8erPrince. —AdamF in MO (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC). _{Comment edited —AdamF in MO (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)}

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

  (comment redacted at community’s request) —AdamF in MO (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)_{edited —AdamF in MO (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)}

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

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

  @Creffett:, maybe you didn't mean to suggest this but I disagree that off-wiki harassment is the only element of someone's off-wiki actions that can be considered. If someone has given indication that their actions here are being carried out for the wrong reasons and not to improve wikipedia, or they have a view of what improves wikipedia that contradicts our policies and guidelines and are seeking to impose it not by changing those policies or guidelines but by ignoring them, then in some circumstances it may be appropriate to stop them being able to do such actions. I don't see why it matters that these were only expressed off-wiki. I appreciate this can be complicated since editors may have reasonable differences on interpretation of our policies and guidelines. And since they are meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive, to some extent they can change simply by practice. Also, since editor's are perfectly entitled to their own views and to express them where appropriate, we have to take care that there is sufficient evidence the editor's actions here, whether because they are inappropriately influenced by their views or whatever, are the problem and not simply their views. Plenty of editors can and do have differing views, but still respect how our community operates and act accordingly. Of course, the community cannot consider such issues if the comments are not publicly linked by the editor concerned, only arbcom, hence this is largely moot. In addition, due consideration needs to be given whether it's genuinely the editor here, and whether those comments are serious or could have been misinterpreted but most of this arises with comments left here on wikipedia too. Still, I think we need to be clear it's not only off-wiki harassment that may be a concern in off-wiki conduct. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, yeah, perhaps I was overbroad in that statement. I agree that off-wiki actions are almost always going to be a case-by-case issue (since what they did, where they did it, etc. all will affect how relevant it is here). My general opinion (caveated with the fact that I've never actually been involved in any incidents which crossed the off/on wiki boundary) is that unless someone's off-wiki actions somehow have a clear and direct on-wiki impact, they shouldn't be brought up. So if you, say, found a social media page which indicated that an editor might have a strong bias, I'd say ignore, but if the social media page is inciting its followers to go vandalize the 2020 US elections page, then that crosses the boundary and needs to be dealt with. It is a difficult balance between privacy and protecting the wiki, and one that I probably should think some more on.

  In this case, however, I feel that "so-and-so is having a meltdown on Twitter" and "so-and-so is a failed voice actor, just google them" aren't clear enough problems to justify outing. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

As per User talk:Sk8erPrince#ArbCom, it appears the Arbitration Committee is now looking at this situation, which is appropriate as off-wiki identifying information is apparently involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I will say that it was a smart move by @Adamfinmo: for suggesting a self imposed topic ban until ARBCOM could weigh in on the matter, and thank him/her for their efforts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

SP, has some serious editing flaws and I stand by my ivotes above because they are what’s best for the project. He is under some serious stress right now. I’m glad he took a moment to step back and lighten up a bit. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair outcome, and it is in the right hands now; time to close this ANI and return to getting to the right result at AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban - seems pretty clear that after the two previous topic bans, this user has returned to their same ways, and are exhibiting battleground behaviour in AFDs - or pretty much anytime they disagree with anyone about anything. I'd support further action if there was a clear proposal. There's no clear indication that Arbcom is looking at this user's behaviour, other issues -and no open case that I can see. No reason not to take action at this time. A voluntary commitment might make sense if they were co-operative and hadn't already been sanctioned twice for this issue - with the previous topic ban being lifted only weeks ago! Nfitz (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment there may be merit for a re-imposition of the topic ban based on available evidence but frankly I can't be bothered looking in to it. Maybe others don't feel the same but I wonder if it might be better to put this aside for now since my feeling from the crumbs I've read here is there is likely to be compelling reason for arbcom to at a minimum, re-impose the topic based on private evidence. About the voluntarily stepping away bit, I remember Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions. Is User:Sk8erPrince agreeing to a restriction which will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary? If so then this may be enough to allay the communities concerns. If not, then the main benefit would be if it's enough to allay those who feel we can't wait for arbcom. A community sanction will still be stronger since I think while a voluntary topic ban can be enforceable it doesn't need to be appealed to the community per se. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  It was slightly confusing in this long thread, but I found the voluntary proposal here [22]. Since it's explicitly only until arbcom comments, it supports my view the voluntary agreement is only useful in supporting us waiting to see if arbcom decides to take any action before we discuss any community sanction if people still feel there's a need, rather than in lieu of a community sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Update Now indeffed by Arbcom. spryde | talk 14:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Adamfinmo and WP:OUTING

Is it just me or does the comment All one needs to do is google search this user’s name and and you can see for yourself directed at Sk8erPrince very obviously violate the "opposition research" clause of WP:OUTING? It's pretty normal for editors who have admitted to engaging in this kind of behaviour to be blocked on site, but in the above section Adam doubled down on it twice. Whether or not his claims about what Sk8erPrince said off-wiki are "true" seems frankly irrelevant -- "failed voice actor" is not an objectively verifiable fact, and someone's saying it about themselves in a self-deprecating, self-pitying, ironic, or even sincere fashion would not justification for slinging it back at them in an aggressive manner, even if S8P had said as much on English Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, they should redact it entirely and refrain from repeats in the future. It's simply not appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Telling people to do an internet search, even an obvious one crosses the OUTING line. We might as well allow links to the results if people are allowed to do that. I also have no objections to removing this subsection once the concerns have been dealt with. Also when I first visited this thread I was confused why 2 different editors said the same thing. I'm still confused, but if's because of something the editor said off-wiki which hasn't been linked to by them, saying it is clearly inappropriate. (As for what to do if the editor had said it here, that's more complicated. It would be inappropriate for someone to just sling it back as an insult. But IMO there could be circumstances when it may be relevant to the discussion and can be brought up in an appropriate way.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I brought up the hypothetical of "if they had said it on-wiki" because while it would be difficult to determine the appropriateness of slinging a self-deprecating or self-pitying remark back at someone (due to the fact that we can't necessarily tell what the original intent was), it's even more difficult when we don't actually have their exact words and can't retrieve them without violating Wikipedia policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear that editors are mostly entitled to do what they want outside wikipedia provided it doesn't affect us here. If editor's want to read what some editor did elsewhere, that's their choice and none of our business. It's most definitely not a violation of Wikipedia policy to do so. However they cannot bring what they found here, cannot encourage others to look into it, nor should they allow it to influence how they act here (within reason). In other words, keep it private and off-wiki. If editors harass some editor off-wiki, then that may be a concern. As I pointed out above, there are also other aspects of off-wiki conduct which may concern us. Also, since it's difficult to put aside what you know, editors do have to carefully whether it may influence their actions here despite their best efforts and how they will handle this, which may include not commenting about the editor, and especially not taking administrative action. Still it's ultimately their choice and simply reading what some editor has said elsewhere without bringing it here is no violation. Or to put it a different way, the key point is that we cannot discuss it here in any way, not the it's illegitimate for other editors to know about it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What’s my best course of action here friends? Should I refactor my comments to remove the offending words? Would it benefit anyone to provide a longer rationale for my actions? —AdamF in MO (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologize, promise never to do it again, maybe help argue against the numerous SPAs, one of whom is probably the one who created the obviously fake Twitter account in question, and restore rule of policy and community consensus... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I’d just like to ask for clarification on the assertion that the twitter account (since redacted) is “obviously fake”. I would argue against it here, but as I’ve since learned, using off-site information that isn’t tied to the user from the user’s page constitutes WP:OUTING. So...I can’t do that, I guess. All I can ask is if I can know where you’re coming from with this.
What I can do, however, is give my word that I will see to more active edits outside of this current case where I can. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into detail, but if you can't tell why I would say that by simply holding down the "PgDn" button for about ten seconds I will say that I've got some land I want to sell you...

BTW, would you mind clarifying what brought you here? You appear not to have edited Wikipedia in six years, and your user page, as rewritten two days ago, reads like a textbook "I'm not a sock/meatpuppet! Honest!"

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, best sell me that land, because holding down “PgDn” for six seconds took me to the bottom of the page. So outside of previous WP:OUTING incidents, specifics pointing toward the alleged fakeness of the Twitter account would be appreciated.

As for what brought me here, in essence, i was alerted to the user’s off-wiki activity off-wiki (and I take it that counts as WP:CAN, though I was not notified in my capacity as an editor; the decision to become involved was my own), but the user’s off-wiki activity has not helped his case IMO — though as I understand now, again, using it as evidence in such arguments counts as WP:OUTING. And my userpage was last updated, before I changed it now, basically when I made this account as a darn kid, and it was kinda embarrassing to have that present still. So, forgive me for trying to make my page a bit more respectable than an MS Paint drawing of dinosaur teeth with the word “Rex” written, which was also a hyperlink to a subpage that was just kinda nonsense.

So, yeah. That’s that. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you notice how the reason it only took you six seconds to get the bottom of the page was that the account was apparently created two days ago? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, the twitter accounts. Off-wiki, Sk8 said he made the accounts in a means of basically doubling down — there is a LOT more than just wiki-related stuff on that twitter that points to validity. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo: (EC) Remove any mention of off-wiki issues or comments from your !vote and follow up comments. Especially remove any suggestion that editors should engage in off-wiki research. You should also consider carefully your !vote. If you cannot justify it solely from the evidence available on-wiki, then you need to change it to what you feel is justified by the evidence available on-wiki. If you have concerns about off-wiki conduct that is relevant but cannot be discussed due to outing, then bring it to arbcom although it sounds like one or more people have already do that so there's probably not much for you to add in this instance. Since others have replied, leave a note in a follow up explaining what you did and why to avoid confusion. In future, remember our outing policy and do not post any reference to off-wiki conduct unless it's been linked by the person themselves, and contact arbcom with off-wiki issues that concern you. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:I have refactored my comments. Please take a look and if there is a better way for them to appear I would certainly appreciate you fixing that for me. While I think, in this case the project is better served by ignoring outing, here, I get it, it’s not my call. If everyone evoked IAR on their own whims, this would be a sad place. Ultimate it’s not what I think right, it’s what I do. I choose to agree with the community that my actions were wrong, against consensus, ignored good principles like having good faith and charitable interactions. Thanks for your sane, cogent correction. —AdamF in MO (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo: IMO the manner you've redacted the info is sufficient. And we have adequate processes in place to deal with concerns over an editor that involve information not available on-wiki, as in fact this case seems to have demonstrated, so there's really no reason why outing should ever be required. IMO since you accept you made a mistake and have undertaken not to repeat it, that's sufficient. However you should be aware that outing is taken very seriously here, so do take care. It can lead to quick blocks. Nil Einne (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment:I just reported the OP Hijiri88 to ARBCOM last night for his own WP:OUTING behavior from yesterday. So it is quite WP:KETTLE on the OPs part. In addition the OP has a long history of outing others using one of many sock accounts. (Back then, Hijiri88 often edited under the sockpuppet account Coldman the Barbarian.) Here is a list of the OP's former sock accounts. I think this ANI should be closed. The editor could have been instructed without this drama. I will take this other matter up on the OP's talk page Lightburst (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lightburst: Would you mind clarifying what the list of alt-accounts I used in 2013 to protect myself from JoshuSasori has to do with this? Is it just random smearing? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

LB, you edited under that username for months. I slipped and accidentally referred to you by the username I had used for you in 90% of our past interactions. The kind of false equivalency between that kind of slip and the multiple, deliberate references to "Sk8erPrince"'s supposed off-wiki is laughable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there some reason to disbelieve this isn't a genuine mistake as Hijiri 88 has said? If it's a name you used on wiki for a long time, it seems reasonable that the editor could have it on their mind and accidentally use it. It's fine to ask for it to be removed, but it seems unnecessary to make a big deal over it. If Hijiri 88 keeps referring to you by an old username when you've asked them not to, then I agree there's a problem but it doesn't sound like this is the case. The other stuff seems like very old history since from what I can tell, those accounts were last used in 2013 or earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• There is always drama, following and harassment with this OP. He is a long time editor who knows better. I have accused him of harassment twice on ANI for following. This very ANI and AfD is a follow because he is smarting over the fact they several involved editors !voted against him in two MfDs. IMO he simply cannot be on WP without causing drama and friction. Feigns ignorance when caught (seems to work well). I am out of here, and I would ask any appropriate administrator to scrub these comments in relation to my  Comment: post and Hijiri 88's talk page outing. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Harassment and outing are related but not the same thing. You accused Hijiri 88 of outing but from the description here, it sounds like it was probably a genuine mistake in referring to you by an old wikipedia user name and I don't see any evidence against this. I've been in my own disputes with Hijiri 88 and doesn't necessarily disagree with some of the other stuff, but this is not the place and probably not the time to discuss it. I'm not an admin so cannot comment on revdeletion, but if it matters to you, I'm not entirely sure why you're drawing everyone's attention to it when it remains undeleted. The general advice is to privately speak to an admin about it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would my understanding is that per the WP:RTV etc is that while you can rename yourself, ultimately old references to your username will remain assuming there are any. You are allowed to ask people to not to refer to your old username, and people should respect that. If someone does screw up, you can ask them to correct it and they should do so. But there's little point revdeleting something which is already in not only the edit history, but probably in extant pages. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure the arbitration committee is going to appreciate being called upon to participate in Lightburst's protracted pester campaign against Hijiri. Reyk _YO! 14:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW I think we're done here. Adamfinmo and others definitely violated policy, but given how secretive ArbCom is about this stuff, we'll probably never know if they were "justified". Sk8erPrince is effectively site-banned. I and others no doubt still believe the page should remain deleted pending consensus otherwise; the only thing that would change that would be a revelation from ArbCom that in fact Sk8erPrince was actually a sock of another site-banned editor before he opened the first AFD. But ANI really isn't the place to hash that stuff out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Time to close?

From what I can tell, the original concerns over the way the page was recreated after AfD have been adequately dealt with. The proposal for a topic ban of User:Sk8erPrince is not worth continuing given the arbcom indef block. The outing stuff, IMO with Adamfinmo's modifications have been sufficiently dealt with. The complaints about Hijiri88 are just weird. If anyone objects then we can keep whatever section needed open but otherwise, it's time to close. Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It is all done, little more to be achieved here; let us get back to the AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You read my mind. I think there's a lot more that could be done with this thread even though S8P is likely gone for good, but I don't think anything good will be done with this thread. Might as well close. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Persistent misuse of minor edits and refusing to discuss

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

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

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

Reporting user: NEDOCHAN

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

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

Yes. Davidsmith2014, as I said on your talk page just to make it clear, you need to stop misusing the minor flag. I don't think there is anyone familiar with wikipedia and the minor flag who would consider your use correctg. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Page protection for Si King has expired. There should be no more warnings for the editor. If Davidsmith2014 reverts again, a block should be the next step on WP:NOTHERE grounds. Jerm (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks and hyperbolic rants from user Salamandra85

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

---

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

Just now, they stated that my request that they edit with a calm, neutral and encyclopedic voice is "act[ing] like [accused rapist and sexual harasser] Harvey Weinstein".[23] As I recently did some cleanup on the article this person is so upset about, and reverted their problematic edits, I would appreciate some additional admins stepping in here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Intractable behavior of users CorbieVreccan, Bishonen, Yunshui

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

---

The user CorbieVreccan ascribes to me words I never said, like suggestion to split the article based on race suggesting that I am a racist, which is personal attack (based on nothing), e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924429901&oldid=924318432, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMe_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924432202&oldid=919441977, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924432873&oldid=924431211 . Nevertheless, the user CorbieVreccan is not blocked for that. Also CorbieVreccan writes "this person is so upset" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=924636213&oldid=924635385). And how do they know my state of mind, whether I am upset or just whistleblower calmly watching the Wikipedia rules are obeyed? That could be considered harassment as if I violate something because I am upset. There are many other troubles with what the user CorbieVreccan wrote.

For example, if someone writes about "Impeachment inquiry" for Donald Trump, even on his personal page, that is not a personal attack but the requirement of the not negotiable the most important neutrality rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), and "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.".

The words of Ms. Burke about the movement, "If this grows big, this is going to completely overshadow my work", especially cannot be personal attack as long as that was said by herself. When I said "This is not how neutrality is defined by the Wikipedia rules. Maybe you want a simple and nice picture of the situation. With this you act like Weinstein." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMe_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924609930&oldid=924599548) I meant that Ms. Burke did nothing to deal with that case and those her words was an aid for him and was in fact threatening the movement (e.g., it failed in 2015, as provided by the section in the article, and fortunately succeeded due to efforts of Ms. Milano), and supporting that such viewpoint of Ms. Burke means to support the side of Weinstein, which is obvious and could be even placed in articles' body, or in other words, to act "like" (not "exactly as") Weinstein (covering and/or helping rapes, definitely not raping itself, as clearly follows from the context).

Then the user CorbieVreccan suggested me to edit other articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMe_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924599548&oldid=924538485). Then I suggested to do the same to them. I mention this just in case if this is supposed to be harassment.

Concerning opinions and original research in talk pages (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=924690573&oldid=924689679, in particular, in relation to some my explanations about the rules in Wikipedia just in case, with which there is nothing wrong), they are definitely allowed there. If I were not following the Wikipedia rules as explained on my talk page, I would just reverted the changes of CorbieVreccan, as they do.

The lead section (in a compact form, btw) of the Me Too movement articles has been existing without troubles until it was edited by Squishyg on Oct 25, 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=922967652&oldid=922966902), adding controversial original research, for which a later made minimal necessary corrections. That went yet normally. Then on Nov 1, 2019 CorbieVreccan extensively added original research, violating also the neutrality rule, in the lead section, inflating it, and partly in the article's body (starting from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924084881&oldid=924049691). Then I made minimal corrections if CorbieVreccan didn't like the previous compact lead section. At least I can ask for the sources for the extensive original research of CorbieVreccan with "citation needed". But even that was removed too! I added the very basic secondary and other sources fixing the neutrality. All that was reverted by CorbieVreccan on Nov 3, 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924429901&oldid=924304268 . Adding one more source by CorbieVreccan (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me_Too_movement&type=revision&diff=924433583&oldid=924429901) did change nothing because it has nothing to do with "workplace" in relation to Ms. Burke. I saw one source where a "work space" ("They are the survivors of sexual harassment and assault that occur in ordinary work spaces, or schools, churches, homes of friends or family members, or the streets of their neighborhoods.") was mentioned in relation to Ms. Burke, but as one of cases, not "especially in the workplace" as stated now in the lead section without a source confirming that.

Taking all that into account, the user CorbieVreccan demonstrated they are very biased about the article of Me Too movement, including insertion of the biased original research and removal of key points with secondary and other sources, violating the neutrality rule, and that they persisted, I assume bad faith of them, which is why I consider this vandalism (just to mention here) which seems to persist if the user is not blocked.

So I ask to block the user CorbieVreccan at least for months to prevent vandalism, and also the user Bishonen for supporting that, blocking me without a good reason and breaking the rules, and for selective judgment (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924690020&oldid=924616178 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924690179&oldid=924690020 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924859409&oldid=924690179 together with what is provided here). Also I ask to withdraw the admin rights of the user Yunshui for ignoring the corresponding unblock request from me (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalamandra85&type=revision&diff=924862541&oldid=924861175). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamandra85 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Salamandra85 is now reporting normal editing and admin actions as vandalism.[24] This is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLE.

Something I forgot to mention in the first report: While I'm not certain this is a legal threat (it's certainly wikilawyering and more chronic misrepresentation of policy), this comment of Salamandra's should probably be noted, as well: "(The Wikimedia Foundation) might have to intervene by the law, which is why they write they usually don't do that, but that is possible."

Not that it deserves to be addressed here, but, if anyone bothered to read that rant above: No one called Salamandra85 a racist. What this user did was insert text stating Tarana Burke's founding of #MeToo was specifically to empower "young women of color," and then deleted sourced text where Burke says it's also "an international movement for justice for marginalized people in marginalized communities." Then Salamandra85 argued on talk and in further edits that this somehow makes "Burke's movement" a separate one from "Alyssa Milano's", so there should be multiple articles, and that Burke should be removed from the lead entirely. This is Salamandra85's opinion, and not supported by the sources. This user's edits show a pattern of a fan of Alyssa Milano, pushing a POV that involves removing or downgrading content about Tarana Burke, who Alyssa Milano et al acknowledge as the founder. Also, I didn't add any new content to the article. The lede was flagged as incomplete, so I moved stable, sourced content from the rest of the article up there to flesh it out, and have since reverted weird OR and attempted POV-pushing from this user. That's it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User is now reverting to messed-up versions again, including adding commentary in article space: [25] I've rejected their edit (the article is PCPed), but this needs more intervention. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks so much.

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

TFBCT1's editing on longevity articles

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

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

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

2 Their original addition of this entry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have to admit, there's a kind of poetry in sending death threats to a longevity editor. EEng 09:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

All issues identified by Newshunter12 were except the few current ones on the List of the oldest living people summarily closed without incident or cause. He is trying to re-hash old occurrences that have no current relevance. I'm going to be very specific as to the current situation. In the past Newshunter12 had been the one to add new individuals to the List of oldest living people. In recent months he stopped doing this, so I put my time and efforts into taking up this task. I added nearly 25 entries in recent weeks. Newshunter12 showed back up again after a long absence and removed seven entries from this list. This resulted in a bout of edit warring on the page due to dissent with his decisions(which I was not a part of). Of the seven removed four had been added by me. (2) of the cases were "good faith errors" on my part. Newshunter12 then proceeded to open a talk page discussion entitled "sourcing issues" which the main purpose was to defame and attack me and accuse me of doing something deliberate. The posting was so inflammatory that another editor warned me via my talk page that I was being threatened by Newshunter12. So I proceeded to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFBCT1 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for adding a new way of referring to me as a child to your vocabulary. "Childish","Infantile", "Manic", and "you are about 12 years old" were getting old. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again. Reactionary. Defensive. Attacking. Non constructive.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm the one who's deleted most of the threats against Newshunter12, and I can understand if you didn't see what was going on at the time, but acting now as said notification was a good faith note of concern is just feeding the troll. And if you think this is blown out of proportion, I've gotten a few myself (I personally prefer leaving those out for others to see, but understandably most people would rather not). This certainly isn't to accuse you of being behind it or anything, but it is a genuine, serious issue. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

And how is this appropriate for inclusion in “talk pages” and “page histories?” And why should Newhunter12 be able to lash out at one arbitrary IP address and then another as the likely “death threat” perpetrators on public page histories? It is clearly not appropriate. And I strongly admonish you not to insinuate that I have any involvement. When in fact, I received a message from a Newshunter14 on 4 July 2019 on my talk page accusing me of being the one leaving threatening messages on his talk page and threatening to have me banned. Followed by a message from Newshunter12 stating that was an “imposter” account and he had nothing to do with it. I find everything about Newshunter12 to be untrustworthy.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As should be clear, and as was explained at the time in a couple places, the Newshunter14 account (as with the one which popped up today) was an obvious impersonator. I blocked the account for exactly that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect when I’ve been persistently attacked by Newshunter12 in situations which no other editor has identified, and go away when he disappears why should anything be clear to me?TFBCT1 (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: Please post diffs of these attacks. Tiderolls 20:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said previously, I’m not young, nor computer savvy and I don’t know how to post diffs. The last (2) times I felt attacked by Newshunter12 were 3 July 2019 when I received a threatening message on my talk page regarding the removal of a deceased Italian supercentenarian where sourcing had already been established on another page. It is very out of character for one editor to confront another editor in this manner in such a minor situation. The second instance occurred on the talk page for List of living supercentenarians on 3 November 2019 under heading “sourcing issues” where Newshunter12 proceeded to attack and threaten me as the main topic of the discussion which was just not justified. I was notified on my talk page by another editor that I was being threatened by Newshunter12. I also want to clarify that all this talk about me adding someone prior to their 110th birthday (and doing this knowingly). Yes, I read the date in reverse mm/dd/yyyy, instead of dd/mm/yyyy and I made a “good faith” error. Nothing deliberate. About a year ago, Newshunter12 added four individuals to this list with incorrect birth years. Instead of making a big deal about it, I just went in and corrected the mistake. Isn’t that how most adults would handle the situation?TFBCT1 (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no attacks at the places you mentioned. That's where diffs can make a difference. You would be able to point us to specific posts; see Help:Diff. Tiderolls 22:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I’ve done my best and I’m not sure what more I could provide, at both those locations he threatens me with no just cause, in my book that’s attacking. And I’m not sure what you’re really seeing. I made a couple “good faith” errors when filling in for another editor’s absence, was unjustly ridiculed for it on a talk page, notified by another editor that I was being threatened via my talk page, defended myself there, and ended up at ANI.TFBCT1 (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@TFBCT1: If you can't provide a diff (here is a how-to), could you at least provide a quote (and page location) of specific threats and attacks? — MarkH21 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The main threat is the entire section added “sourcing issues” to the talk page List of the Oldest Living People. This section was not added to discuss “sourcing issues,” but to bash me. It’s clearly identified in the opening comments where I’m identified directly. Then in Newshunter12’s second comment he veers the attention back to ridiculing me unsolicited. This is not the intended purpose of a talk page and was inflammatory enough for another editor to warn me I was being threatened on my talk page. I also don’t know what the collusion between Newshunter12 and The Blade of Northern Lights is, but if you notice every time Newshunter12 posts, The Blade posts 2-3 minutes later with some affirmative response. I don’t know this second editor, nor have I ever worked with him. I am confused why he would say he is “obviously involved.” His mention of adding random “I heard it somewhere names” has absolutely nothing to do with me or this case. And finally I never said Newshunter12 had OCD. I stated he demonstrated an OCD nature which is quite different. So this characterization is also false.TFBCT1 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, the reason you can't provide any evidence of my "personal attacks" at your talk page and elsewhere is because there were no personal attacks save the difs I posted of your personal attacks on me. Secondly, the person who "warned" you about me on your talk page is just the IP troll who has been stalking me since last year and who has a long history of screwing with other people to cause strife between me and those people in an attempt to get ME blocked, so please stop acting like it was Paul Revere or Sybil Ludington riding into the night to warn you of how Newshunter12 is out to get you. No one is out to get you, only hold you accountable for your own actions. Thirdly, it's false that you didn't make a big deal out of a one character error I made five times in a hidden section as this shows you used the tiny error I had previously made in an attempt to discredit me in a separate discussion.

Fourthly, the difs in my opening statement demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt your misbehavior has been ongoing for years, not some one off mistake. Fifthly, how is an explicitly general statement that any editor may be taken to ANI a personal attack on you? Sixthly, you have a history of pretending fewer people have problems with your edits then really do as the thread in my sixth dif above shows and again in the most recent dispute over invalid entries. DerbyCountyinNZ, LuK3, Georgia guy, CommanderLinx and even the troll for a moment have all helped remove these invalid entries or expressed support for my side of the argument, while only the troll has been on your side there, yet you pretend it's just mean Newshunter12 picking on you.

Seventhly, TBOTNL and I are not engaged in some conspiracy against you. Eighthly, how is "Newshunter12 has a habit of making up his own rules as part of his OCD nature" a hypothetical condition I might have? It's clear as day you are saying I have OCD, just as you have called me childish, manic, infantile and a 12-year-old. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think the personal attacks against Newshunter12 are unacceptable. Calling him a child, obsessive-compulsive, manic, blaming him for the actions of an impostor, calling him reactionary when he tries to defend himself, then feigning technological incompetence when asked for diffs is just gamesmanship and I think most people can see that. Reyk _YO! 10:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Fine. I will just stop contributing to Wikipedia altogether. Let’s see if the longevity pages are better without any of my contributions or daily updating for the past 15 years. This is causing me too much stress and I clearly have no advocates.TFBCT1 (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, drama quitting is one way to go. Or you could just issue a mea culpa, work to address the problematic behavior being pointed out, and acknowledge the importance of WP:AGF. I'll never understand editors who would rather scream about their victimhood than just say "Eh, you're right that I probably should have handled that better, and I shouldn't be getting personal with people with whom I disagree." And then, you know, just go back to editing having learned a little bit about how to be more effective as a member of the community. Grandpallama (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I will take the advice of the last editor. I apologize for the “OCD nature” comment. I have already apologized for other comments that surfaced which are quite old. I will be more careful when editing and try to avoid errors and not take on additional responsibilities because of other editors absences. I still may take a break from editing altogether because I am not “feigning” being old and this stress is not good for my hypertension.TFBCT1 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Potential account sharing

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

---

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

• The account hasn't edited since 2007... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• And in any case, they're having you/everyone else on : Passwords must be at least 8 characters. ——SN54129 19:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• The password is not literally what was on the page so I don't think we need to do anything here. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, I revdel'd the password, and figured as long as the 4 people above didn't try to hijack it we'd be fine, but (a) apparently it wasn't the password, and (b) xaosflux posted it here (!), so I guess I'll go unrevdel. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I did try to hijack it, it failed :) But no need to leave it visible on the page nonetheless, I didn't bother with deletion as it wasn't actually the pw (in which case I would have sent it in for a g-lock). — xaosflux ^Talk 19:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

How come, in the last couple of days, we keep bumping into each other, and you keep being right about stuff and I keep being wrong? It's annoying. Stop it. If I think about this long enough, I'm pretty sure I can figure out a way to spin this as incivility on your part. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Being right all the time very annoying. Bishzilla block the young Xaos, make Floquenbeam happy? bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 20:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC).

I do like being called young! — xaosflux ^Talk 20:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Renewed political POV-pushing and personal attacks by WhiteStarG7

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

---

WhiteStarG7 (talk · contribs) and his IP sock 2A02:587:3A0D:F500:1C5F:3FD1:6B8A:F0A6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), coming from a recent 48h block for edit-warring, have been engaging in their usual anti-communist POV-pushing by rearranging the position of combatants in infoboxes (!!!) to place the communist factions lower down at Greek Resistance, European theatre of World War II, and Italian Civil War.

When reverted by me and Havsjö (talk · contribs), he has reverted again, and launched accusations that we are communists [26] and [27]. The edit history at European theatre of World War II makes clear that the IP account is the same as WhiteStarG7, who just after logging himself in to get involved, also proceeded to attack another user at his talk page.

Given the hard ideological line evident with this user, his deliberate disregard for facts (claiming that EDES, a regional organization with some 12,000 fighters was "by far the largest organisation" compared to EAM-ELAS with over 50,000 fighters and a nation-wide political movement a million strong), the previous block, and the aggressive tone, he is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but rather to troll around. Constantine ✍ 20:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Same sockmaster account came to my talk with insults just because I warned him in the past about socking. This account needs to be indeffed. Dr. K. 22:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Noting that NinjaRobotPirate indeffed the account. Thank you NinjaRobotPirate. Dr. K. 03:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive and unpleasant editor

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

---

Editor SeasSoul is near the 3RR limits at Ford Corcel (I don't want to push the editor into violating them), refusing to discuss, deleting all messages left on their talk page and generally being unpleasant. I reached out to one of the other editors he is warring with and received this response:

Dear Mr. Choppers, you are absolutelly right about SeasSoul: this problem has been going on for a while. Weeks ago, I have asked help for the administrator MilborneOne who protected Fortaleza Airport for 2 weeks but at the end of which problems started again. Another well-known administrator, Jetstreamer tried to politely intervene but was received with coarse language on his talkpage. Epistulae ad familares also tried to intervene without any success. All notes that were left on SeasSoul talkpage were deleted and all messages left on Fortaleza Airport were disregarded. SeasSoul acts in many places; I am aware of his acts in Brazilian airports articles but apparently his actions go way beyond. In most articles he places new airlines services always without a reference; when they are correct - and most of them are - I just place a citation needed note and let it be. However, in the aviation project, the worst case is Fortaleza Airport: the article needs editing badly but almost any edition that is not according to his will is reverted. That's why we have a charter airline (Sideral) listed without destinations! I suspect but cannot prove that the same person acts under different accounts because similar situations have been found under the nick Mateusportuga and last year the account CBG17, which was very active at Fortaleza Airport was blocked indefinetivelly. Not being an administrator and not willing to start an edit war I do not know what to do. I believe, Wikipedia should be made aware of this. (Brunoptsem)

I am not familiar with the other problem editors' styles and cannot say whether SeasSoul is a sockpuppet, but SeasSoul is clearly not here to engage, discuss, nor to build a better WP. I would welcome either a comment on their talkpage, or a short warning block perhaps. Or perhaps someone fluent in Portuguese could get them to mend their ways? Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Going further in the situation presented by Mr. Choppers, there were at least twice clear vandalizations related to the president of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro and of the Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, and multiple issues with 2019 Northeast Brazil oil spill and the National Museum of Brazil. (Brunoptsem (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC))

One issue is that SeasSoul has marked 87% of his/her edits as minor edits irrespective of whether they were minor edits. See xtools.wmflabs and Special:Contributions/SeasSoul. Toddy1 (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems like this is either a case of WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR but in either case, the user should probably get a at least a short block for disruptive editing. I'm not a huge fan of an Idef yet but the user definitely needs a wack with a cluebat. CodeLyoko^talk 16:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, his talk page has been blanked once again. (Brunoptsem (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC))

With multiple complaints and no response from this user, I think a block is needed per WP:NOTHERE reasons. Jerm (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Quickly using some Hermeneutics tools based on types of editing, behaviour, vocabulary and themes there is a possibility that Cruks blocked in 2012 and Monart blocked in 2014 are related to SeasSoul, maybe even the same person.(Brunoptsem (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC))

They've blanked every notice/warning they've been given, including the one I left about WP:COMMUNICATE. Seems like ample evidence that they have no interest in working collaboratively. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, communication is required. Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 06:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC).

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

AFD with potential external canvasing or other shenanigans

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

---

I try to stay out of trouble and off the notice boards. In fact, I'm not sure if this is an issue for ANI or SPI or some other process. But an administrator who does probably ought to peek in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survival Edge Technology. There's certainly a possibility of external canvassing or sockpuppetry, but perhaps several new users with a keen interest in this specific topic merely need to be welcomed to the project... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely some socks here, but I don't know who the master is. Maybe the one who created the article? I'm just guessing though. A check user should find the master or link the socks to each other. Jerm (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Xavier2209 (talk · contribs) and Akshatver (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed to the article creator IKPlusOne (talk · contribs). The other two accounts created to comment at the AfD are more likely WP:MEAT. I've blocked the master account for two weeks and indeffed the confirmed socks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thnx! Now is there a clerk who can archive this as a SPI case? Jerm (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably quicker to just do it myself: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IKPlusOne.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jezebel's Ponyo Thnx again. Jerm (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Charles Burnett (director)

Charles Burnett (director) has been vandalised by Oberontheelfruler (talk · contribs) but a simple reversion is not possible because it would reintroduce links that appear to be blacklisted. Can someone else restore it? Dorsetonian (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Already fixed by another editor. MB 20:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup, done, just went ahead and removed the offending link during the undo. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Dorsetonian (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hoaxer inserting false references

• Special:Contributions/71.234.178.78
• Special:Contributions/2601:180:8200:63D0:440F:41BF:FCA1:A488/64

Both IP ranges have recently been used to insert misinformation into pop-music articles. All of this person's edits either are unreferenced or have bogus links to "dailyh.com" and "hothollywood.com": both parked domains with no content. He or she is predominantly concerned with adding false or unverifiable information to pages related to the singer Lizzo and promoting "Claudia Momen", a purported celebrity flautist who does not appear to exist. Cheers, gnu57 21:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked both the single IP and the IPv6 range for one month.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. gnu57 23:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

IP refusing to communicate

• Special:Contributions/2.217.39.9

This IP keeps adding subcats which are not needed as they are overruled by the parent category, as per WP:SUBCAT. Nearly all of the users edits are the addition of such redundant categories, and they have been asked to stop by several users. No response at the IP's talk page. At Toyota Starlet, the user has been reverted seven times by three different users but still persists. WP:NOTHERE as well as WP:CIR.

As a side note, will English language WP ever reconsider not requiring registering before editing? I am curious if there has been at least a discussion about this. Sometimes it feels as if half of my editing time is wasted mopping up IP nonsense.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Require registration. I blocked the IP for 48 hours. Please check their other edits and notify me if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I will reach out if the IP starts up again.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Targetted harrassment

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

---

Hi there, the administrator *Diannaa (talk · contribs) has been targeting the pages I've been creating for deletion without even studying to see whether her copyright claims are correct.

When a bot showed that text from my article Assyrian-Canadians matched text from aina.org, I was told that they owned the copyrighted material and I had all of my edits deleted, with no warning. It turns out that aina.org was plagiarizing the content on their website, and linking to the original article right on the page I referenced, just some slight due diligence would have shown that the statements made regarding aina.org being the copyright holder of the content were false, but the bot's consensus was used as truth.

Next the article The Assyrian Tragedy was placed for speedy deletion, for apparently violating copyright laws again.. this time I knew the website which wrote the article I copied from had a terms of service stating their material was free to be copied and in the public domain, however this wasn't taken into account by Diannaa before requesting a speedy deletion for the article! A rather rash reaction, for information that was in the public domain, but I was punished before this was even confirmed.

Perhaps you can see the unfair targetting by Diannaa and maybe place another administrator over my work, that doesn't react before understanding the situation.-Ramsin93 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ramsin93: - can I suggest that it isn't really indicated as targetted harassment - 2 instances, both quite easy actions to have taken. Obviously it's irksome at best to have your content deleted when it's legitimately here (though adding the notice template helps cut down on them) but they've corrected themselves on request both times and aren't pursuing all your other content work. Diannaa is quite an active admin (35th most in the last month), so it would take more than 2 pings to demonstrate targeting. Hopefully the issue won't reoccur. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Seeking de-escalation de-escalation over at User talk:Dennis Bratland#Kinda bitey reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett

I have also reached out to Bradv over at User talk:Bradv#Can you intervene over at User talk:Dennis Bratland#Kinda bitey reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett, but I carbon-copying this request here in an attempt to de-escalate the situation that arose at User talk:Dennis Bratland#Kinda bitey reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett following Dennis Bratland's concern over my tagging some potentially excessive citations post-my nominating Erica C. Barnett for deletion. I respect Dennis immensely, his discussion contributions, and editing, but feel that his replies to me have been somewhat bitey and he is failing to assume good faith by assuming that I would've read many WP policies (which are numerous). When informed by him that I should avoid tagging an article after nominating for AfD, I promptly heeded his suggestion to remove the tags. So, I'm just seeking either Bradv or another administrator to de-escalate the situation, remind Dennis to be less bitey and to always assume good faith, and remind me to update myself on certain policies that Dennis highlighted (i.e., WP:BLP).

Thanks,
--Doug Mehus (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've collapsed the discussion, since it's not helping those who only care about whether or not to delete the article. I stand by my complaints of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and gaming the system. We have an AfD nomination that claims all sources cover the subject only tangentially, yet the very sources that are specifically about the subject are tagged {{refbomb}}. The AfD claims the subject hasn't received significant coverage, yet the refbomb tags seek to suppress multiple sources. It's very hard to interpret that innocently. The claim that the sources are redundant is easily disproved: simply read them and you see that the cited sentences have facts found in one source but not all of them. And THREE footnotes is excessive? Why would any one say that except when they have an ulterior motive? Two handpicked editors are invited by name to join the AfD, one of whom has already !voted delete. Does not look good, does it?

  Dmehus says they've never read WP:BLP. Perhaps they are that innocent. But if so, they need to understand how WP:POINTy and gamey this looks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for collapsing the discussion. Dennis Bratland, I realize you have been editing more regularly than me so it may be difficult not to be at least somewhat cynical, but honestly, I wasn't trying to suppress any sourcing. I was just thinking they'd be helpful reminders to take a second look at some of the duplicative sources to see whether are all necessary. I've seen a number of articles at AfD whereby editors have added multiple sources for the most basic of facts where only one source was needed.

Nevertheless, I think there were incorrect assumptions made on both our parts. You failed to assume good faith in assuming I'd read WP:BLP (I haven't)—I've read through most of WP:Notability and some of WP:Citation needed, but not that one.

I acknowledge that my nomination statement could've been worded more neutrally and I shouldn't have added those tags, but on the latter point, when you suggested (albeit somewhat bitey) I remove them, I did. I do not want this to be antagonistic; you are a strong editor who does good work. You may be more of an inclusionist than my deletionist philosophy, and that's OK.

Can we move forward quickly and amicably, setting this to bed? I am willing to make any changes to my AfD nomination statement. In fact, if you would like to word it more neutrally, I am happy to have you do so.Doug Mehus (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, don't hesitate to rewrite an AfD nomination. The shared goal is to have correct AfD outcome, so the page should give other editors good information to make a decision. We can delete the collapsed discussion so nobody else gets drawn in. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, I am fine with leaving the collapsed discussion, in which I corrected your second top tag to a bottom tag, or removing it. I will leave it at your discretion. I rewrote the AfD, removing what I viewed as the most problematic word—all. If you feel anything else should be modified, please feel free to discuss on the AfD's Talk page so I can consider/make the change.Doug Mehus (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Two general notes:

ANI is more a place for escalating, and not all that good at deescalating. :)

XfD is one of the most contentious and policy-heavy areas of the project. It's a venue that has real consequences and can easily lead to bad feelings for those involved. IMO apart from perhaps an arbcom proceeding it is perhaps the most important place in projectspace to have a solid understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines beforehand, because one would surely run into lots of conflicts and accidentally take up people's time unnecessarily otherwise. Consider this food for thought based on this thread more than a specific comment about the discussions that led to it. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Stalking and ad hominem

User:Bacondrum has repeatedly accused me of being here having an axe to grind. Some of the accusations they used in Talk:Call-out_culture: "grind an axe about feminists or the alt-right", "attacking Wikipedia for being a leftist conspiracy", " recuse yourself from editing political pages" (nevermind that Call-out culture is not particularly political), "pushing partisan right-wing politics", "[I] post fringe conspiracy guff".

They even stalk me around in Wikipedia, looking at my contributions intent to reverting anything they could find, despite the page not being on their radar (eg: The Manipulated Man).

They first arrived on the scene reverting my change including claims from Jonathan Haidt in Call-out culture, totally disregarding the consensus of its inclusion in the Talk page.

I'm afraid they will continue to harrass me. Not that it would stop me from contributing to Wikipedia. Looking at User_talk:Bacondrum you can see they got recently banned for 2 weeks due to edit warring. Since this user has had a track record of such behaviour, how do you advice that I proceed?

(Note: I was advised to post here by User:DeRossitt who also wrote that User:Bacondrum "has a long history of behavioral problems that have been met with increasingly lengthy bans. And they mostly arise from the same few articles.".)

- Sridc (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc, Some WP:DIFFs would be helpful here. DeRossitt mentions "the same few articles". What would those be? Is there a specific area in which Bacondrum is having issues? A topic ban may be in order. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The accusations I quoted in the first paragraph can be found in this particular section: Talk:Call-out_culture#The_two_feminist_sources. Since you asked for diffs: diff 1, and diff 2. Elsewhere in that talkpage User:DeRossitt referred to a "behavioral roadblock" to progress on this article; presumably he was referring to reverts and edit wars from User:Bacondrum and others, but I'll let them respond. I do feel that User:Bacondrum has been hindrance to improving Call-out culture; but they are also particular problematic in another related wiki page: Talk:The Coddling of the American Mind (see under "undue detail, pov clunky" section). - Sridc (talk) 05:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum has removed a bunch of relevant text from both Call-out culture (see here for diff) and, mass deleted a bulk of The Coddling of the American Mind (see Talk:The Coddling of the American Mind), which is presumably the result of the "behavioral roadblock" which User:DeRossitt refers to. - Sridc (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

First, I've not accused old mate of anything. I would argue for a WP:BOOMERANG here. Most of the edits he refers to happened a fair few months ago, before he had made his first edit (so had nothing to do with this fella at all) - I removed fan cruft and massively undue content, I discussed removals, compromised when challenged, I've not edit warred or done anything else against Wikipedia guidelines. I can say with absolute confidence that I've done absolutely nothing wrong on this occasion. I and another editor Simonm223 have raised issues about a CoI with this editor. Look at this editors edit history - They've been edit warring, and going on the twitter feeds they have shared with us, I have reason to suspect they have an agenda, editing with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and are WP:NOTHERE, they certainly have a expressed strong redacted and this redacted. Shared this with us about redacted yesterday. I've not made personal attacks or stalked this fella, just looked at recent edits and a twitter feed they shared with us without prompting. Bacondrum (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have struck some off-wiki links per WP:OUTING Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc shared the tweets with us, here and here. Sridc is harassing me if anything, talking about my past edits, from September - accusing me of stalking and ad hominum attacks. I'm responding to this accusation by pointing out their recent edits over the last few days. I've not used Sridc's twitter feeds (which they were sharing with us) to challenge anything, I have challenged some undue content on the grounds that it was undue and some piped links that worked like an advent calander. Remember Sridc shared the tweets with us and I am merely pointing out that they suggest a strong bias on the subject and I cautioned them against bias editing, nothing more. Investigate properly and you'll see what I'm saying is true. Bacondrum (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't think either of us had done anything wrong, it's a content dispute. I don't think either of us deserve any kind of sanction, but since Sridc wants to make spurious claims against me I think a Boomerang is in order. Bacondrum (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

(EC) I just expressed strong views about inappropriate outing, but the problems here seem somewhat minor. One of the URLs is in their diff posted here at 05:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC) [28]. Although that diff isn't of the edit which introduced the URL, the previous diff confirms it posted by the OP [29].

I don't know who made the Tweet the OP posted but I believe it isn't the OP. While we should generally refrain from talking much about what random other people have Tweeted (or whatever) for BLP reasons, to some extent it happens. More to the point, talking about someone having posted that URL seems fair enough if appropriate and that often means it's best to post the URL so it's easy for people to understand what you're referring to.

Another one of the URL's is one of the four links currently on the subject's personal website they disclosed on their user page [30]. Given the indirect linking I'm not really comfortable posting it here without very good reason, still it's not like this was highly indirect given how short that website is. Also to some extent talking about how someone said "I like cats" on their website that they voluntarily disclosed isn't that different from talking about someone posted a URL for an external account on their website.

The third link, well it looks like something posted on the account linked from that personal website. We're starting to get to a stronger level of indirect linking that I'm less comfortable with.

But still I think the major issue is it's not clear to me there is sufficient reason to post those other 2 links, from what Bacondrum said although I haven't looked at them myself. Even if the OP has views most of us don't like, the key question is, what's the evidence they're letting it inappropriately influence their editing here?

Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, DeRossitt repeatedly urged Sridc to make a report against me and referred to me as a "behavioral roadblock" here and then advises Sridc about what a bad egg I am here. Is that not harassment? Bacondrum (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that you aren't the one who started this thread, but while I did not look in great detail, even if there is some violation of something, those diffs seem to minor too worry about at ANI. And I say the exact same thing to User:Sridc. It's probably best if you both just try to put aside any personal disagreements and work together to improve Wikipedia, using whatever form of WP:Dispute resolution as needed. For example, if I look at Talk:Call-out culture#The two feminist sources, I see a case which looks like it could have been a simple case where both of you agreed on some change to the article, but unfortunately it wasn't, starting when you left some comments which although I'm sure intended in good faith, were IMO never likely to help. Nil Einne (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think NE is right on the nose here. The diffs are pretty mild for both sides. Y'all should take a breath, forget the past, and get some dispute resolution; I recommend a third opinion, or a formal entry at WP:DRN. But in the future, both of you ought be more civil, and always remember to focus on the content, not the contributor. Sniping back and forth is not an effective way to make content. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both, I appreciate your feedback and agree. Bacondrum (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editor returns

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

---

• Shadegan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ANI report from June 2019

Back in June I wrote on this board hoping to force Shadegan to communicate his concerns instead of keep reverting removal of clear POV and going on personal attacks.[31] The user has now returned and continues his disruptive editing. Firstly, they have changed the status of Iraqi Lurs as a revert directed at Feylis and the issue here is that the former is a povfork of the latter. I have consequently opened an AFD (Articles for deletion/Iraqi Lurs).

Secondly, they have readded information based on references from the early 20th century that has since been debunked (like Laki language not being a Luri dialect.[32]. When I confront his edits, he calls me edits ethno'centric[33]) Shadegan has been a disruptive editor since 2015[34] on various pages and I cannot understand why they have not been sanctioned. --Semsurî (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the user indefinitely for having continued with the "ethnocentric" personal attacks despite having been repeatedly warned to refrain from those. El_C 16:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive edits 41.113.67.29

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

---

Could someone with rollback rights look at the edits that 41.113.67.29 is making at [35] and [36] They are disruptive and may be vandalism. Netherzone (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for finding and reporting this vandal, but you can use Twinkle to revert vandalism yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you NinjaRobotPirate for letting me know. I did not realize I had that right. Netherzone (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Netherzone, the thing to know here is that "rollback" means a couple different things. Twinkle has a rollback function which restores a page to a specific revision (through what I can only assume is a mix of JavaScript and black magic), and anyone can install and use Twinkle. Separately, there's a rollback permission which does something similar. Confusing, isn't it? Anyway, going to close this, but if you have any questions about using Twinkle feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Jokestress: Topic ban violation, resumption of bad behavior, and POV pushing

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

Jokestress, who is open about being Andrea James, has recently resumed editing Wikipedia after a 6.5 year break, and went right to making problematic edits to a transgender related article. Essential background for this user should be read at the Sexology Arbitration Case. That case found that Jokestress has repeatedly asserted, without evidence, that users she is in an editorial dispute with have a conflict of interest with the topic at hand.[37][38][39], that Jokestress is a prominent party to an off-wiki controversy involving human sexuality, in which she has been sharply critical of certain individuals who disagree with her views, and has imported aspects of the controversy into the English Wikipedia to the detriment of the editing environment on sexuality-related articles.[40], and, most importantly, decided that Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topic of human sexuality, including biographical articles. The information in the preliminary statements (and in the links therein for additional background) is also very revealing as to her behavior patterns and POV.

Some concerning statements made by Jokestress touched on at ArbCom

Stalking Hello. Your username suggests you have an official connection with Wilfrid Laurier University in Ontario, Canada. Your idiosyncratic communication style and edit patterns also suggest a connection with this school and the province in which it is located. I am happy to provide diffs off-wiki if you wish....Thanks for the reply. As I said, I am happy to provide diffs off-wiki. Also as I said, I didn't include them because they do include identifying information. [41] Statements about pedophilia Another major issue with how this is presented is the undue weight we give to the term as co-opted by psychology etc. to describe a disease/disorder. Saying "pedophilia is a disorder" is merely reification of the concept and a violation of WP:NPOV. The term paidophilia existed for centuries before being appropriated by Krafft-Ebing to describe a psychopathology. It's only since the moral panics of the 1970s that a whole cottage industry of catching and "curing" this population emerged. [42] "...survey of human adult–child sexual behavior worldwide indicated it has occurred throughout history with varying degrees of acceptability and was much more prevalent in the past...."; "Intuitively it is obvious that the sexual abuse of children inflicts deep psychological harm. But there are also reasons to distrust this intuition. First of all, it could reflect an irrational taboo about the sexuality of children. The idea that children should be sexually innocent is not universal; in fact, it is relatively modern..." [43] Note: this is a quote by Herostratus of a now deleted article written by Jokestress, who never denied having written those words, and who had just recently created the article. [44] Those interested in getting this policy reviewed should do so at Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection and should make no mention of their reasons for involving themselves in this topic, particularly if their sexual interests have any connection with this subject. [45]

After that case, she left Wikipedia for 6.5 years. I joined Wikipedia during this period, and first learned about the details above while looking into an article of hers that got deleted at AfD.

During this period, she has apparently continued to maintain her activist mentality of bending Wikipedia to a certain POV, the hostile us-against-them approach, and her attitude about WP:WINNING, as evidenced by some of her tweets.

Tweets

This @CreativeCommons infographic I made ended up in a 2018 @thamesandhudson book by @sally_hines! One of my dim bulb haters tried & failed to get the accompanying article deleted from @Wikipedia. Support my newest #dataviz - The Transphobia Project: [link] [46] Deletionists continue stripping @Wikipedia of helpful disambiguation pages. Now they are even stripping away redirects that might help young visitors. Amazing to watch the site slowly gutted from within like a termite infestation. #wikipedia [47] Now that @Wikipedia drove away #sex & #gender minorities, deletionists & fringe ideologues have free rein to distort coverage. They even want to delete helpful redirects, having already gutted articles, disambiguation pages, & images. I could be banned just for citing this: [image of transfan definition] [48]

Now, her recent behavior. At her return, she went straight to the lead of the article Detransition, adding in that Direct, formal research of "detransition" has shown political parallels between the ex-trans movement and the ex-gay movement. along with adding a Vox piece that claims The debate about transgender children and “detransitioning” is really about transphobia. Jokestress was rightly reverted by Genericusername57 who said Rv per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Please discuss these changes on talk. She then went to the talk page to claim This is a classic "phenomenon vs. term" political debate. This biased article reifies a transphobic ideology akin to the ex-gay movement. She then proposed an activist, totally non-WP:MEDRS source. She later suggested another such source in the following section, even though it was after getting the first warning about her topic ban (mentioned below).

Making a comparison to the "ex-gay movement" is a direct violation of her topic ban. Additionally, it is clear that the Sexology arbitration case was about transgender issues just as much as sexuality. She was warned about this by two editors on her talk page, [49][50] but both times she removed it claiming it was being archived, which it wasn't. [51] Note that a similar topic ban handed out recently was on human sexuality, broadly construed, but For the sake of clarity, this includes all articles and other pages having to do with transgender topics and issues. Likewise, the Sexology ArbCom case's discretionary sanctions, though now rescinded as redundant to the GamerGate discretionary sanctions, were authorized for all pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification. [52]

Given this editor's pattern of behavior, the same as that which got her topic banned by ArbCom, I am suggesting a reaffirmation of her topic ban on human sexuality, and a clarification that the topic ban includes transgender topics. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It's been interesting to watch so many productive editors who are sex and gender minorities be brought up on similar charges over the past few years. Look at how many trans editors had to be driven from the project just to get deadnaming deemed unacceptable. Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at the double standards sex and gender minorities face as editors. My 50,000+ edits and thousands of created articles have stood the test of time, except in cases where Wikipedia was made worse because I and others are unable to respond to people less knowledgeable about the topic, like the removal of Transfans mentioned above. I can't even quote a dictionary to help save a useful redirect without someone running to someplace like this to get me banned. Here's how I see it: I am one of the most productive and notable Wikipedians in history, but people want to ban me from discussing my area of expertise because of the medicalized bias pervasive on this project's coverage of sex and gender minorities. It's almost as if that bias could be measured. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately, which is why I stopped by again. I actually care about the stated goals of this project, but the hemovanadin drama, the Transfans drama, and similar problems like these charges here need to be addressed in a methodical manner if this project has any hope of representing the full breadth of human understanding. Jokestress (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"I am one of the most productive and notable Wikipedians in history" Wow. 2001:4898:80E8:9:3553:4405:E938:1AE (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is a crystal clear violation of the (admittedly relatively old) topic ban. I was about to explain to Jokestress how she could go about appealing the topic ban, but I get a little confused with the older ArbCom cases. It appears from the Case page (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Appeals and modifications) that Jokestress could appeal this at WP:AE, WP:AN, or WP:ARCA. Is that true? Or since she was directly named in the ArbCom case, does she have to go thru WP:ARCA? Also, why isn't this listed at WP:EDR? Hopefully, someone more expert in ArbCom-ology will chime in soon to explain the particulars.
  Anyway, @Jokestress:, if you want to resume editing in this topic area, you'll need to get the topic ban rescinded. Sometimes it's better to ask forgiveness than permission, but ArbCom sanctions are generally not one of those times. Until/Unless the sanction is removed, further edits on the topic of human sexuality will result in a block of up to 1 month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  With the caveat that I'm in no means an expert on ArbCom, my read of the appeals and modifications section is that AN/AE could be used to appeal whether a specific action should have been sanctioned, whereas ARCA is the place to go to get the TBAN lifted wholesale. The whole thing is confusingly worded - "Important Notes" bullet 3 mentions that "these provisions" don't apply to people directly sanctioned by ArbCom, but isn't particularly clear about what provisions do apply to people directly sanctioned by ArbCom. Anyway, I suggest being bold and heading for ARCA, since one of its listed purposes is Requests for amendment are used to: ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans). (emphasis mine) ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Floquenbeam. If someone versed in the byzantine world of ArbCom tells me where to beg for absolution, I'll stop by. Jokestress (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It should go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Take a look at [53] for an example of an appeal of a restriction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded! Jokestress (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Reaffirm topic ban for transgender clarification. I see no reason this can't be handled here. We clarify or reaffirm topic bans all the time. The sexology case clearly concerned transgender issues as well. And human sexuality is a broad topic, which significantly overlaps with gender (including transgender) aspects. We have various articles, including Transvestic fetishism, Gender variance and Childhood gender nonconformity that show this overlap. Childhood gender nonconformity, for example, very much aligns with an eventual gay, lesbian, or bisexual sexual orientation. Prospective studies have shown this. Furthermore, even Jokestress' first suggestion at Talk:Detransition shows overlap between sexuality and the transgender topic. But even if one thinks human sexuality doesn't cover detransition, it's still the case that making a comparison to the ex-gay movement], as Jokestress did at Talk:Detransition, is definitely on the subject of human sexuality, and therefore a topic ban violation. I do not see that, given their views (including on our policies and guidelines) and how they notoriously try to go about getting those views implemented, this editor should be allowed to edit sexual or gender topics. This is a person who considers all medicalization a bad a thing, and has repeatedly tried to undermine Wikipedia rules such as WP:MEDRS. I especially don't see how anyone (except for pedophiles, child sexual abusers, and related POV-pushers) can be comfortable letting this person edit pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics. For anyone thinking "that was years ago"? As seen by their off-Wikipedia activity and recent behavior once finally back on Wikipedia, Jokestress has not changed in all of these years. Jokestress has simply behaved the same way off Wikipedia. Because the editor hasn't changed, I expect them to go on about how I'm supposedly the problem, but I stand by what I stated (back in the ArbCom case against this editor and now). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Boeing720

Boeing720 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that he simply must violate our WP:BLP policy to "expose" the father of Greta Thunberg. While Greta Thunberg could be considered a public figure, her father clearly is not.

Relevant comments violating WP:BLP by Boeing720 follow, with responses by other users.

• 06:46, 29 October 2019 It's her dad , [name of father redacted], who uses her. I suppose he is some kind of communist. And I'm ashamed to carry the same national passport as [name of father redacted].
• 13:17, 29 October 2019 warned
• 04:13, 30 October 2019 BLP discretionary sanctions alert
• 04:13, 30 October 2019 warned
• 05:01, 30 October 2019 warned
• 23:10, 30 October 2019 And by that I mean what I wrote about [name of father redacted] running Greta. I think the dad is a very dangerous man
• 00:01, 31 October 2019 Cullen328 blocked Boeing720 with an expiration time of 31 hours
• 16:42, 7 November 2019 The not adult girl, like I wrote, has at national television SVT, program Skavlan brought up her psyciatric diagnosis at least twice. ... The dad owns lots of shares in a company that has gone sky-high at the Stockholm stock exchange ... But without being experts, the dad has through his daughter pointed out not just aviation wrongfully, but range of products.

I find the continued attempts to imply that Greta Thunberg has psychiatric issues caused by her father to be especially egregious, yet he repeated the implication after his block expired.

At this point it is clear that Boeing720 is on a crusade to right great wrongs and has no intention of ceasing his behavior. Further warnings or short blocks are unlikely to have any effect. We could try a topic ban -- I am 99% sure that he will violate it, but we could try. One way or the other, this behavior has to stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, why repeat it here? Wouldn't diffs suffice? That said, I would support a tban from Greta Thunberg broadly construed, since they seem able to make constructive edits on other topics (based on edit count and block log). Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If he was posting this sort of thing on some obscure page I would have limited myself to diffs, but because all of the above has already been posted on the very visible User talk:Jimbo Wales and because Boeing720 has repeatedly failed to understand or acknowledge warnings, I felt it to be worthwhile to add the extra information. I have no problem with it being deleted instead of archived after this case is resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)