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

User:Moylesy98

Moylesy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just come off a block for edit warring and has resumed hostilities. Short of an indefinite block, I think that the only way this can be dealt with is by means of an editing restriction:-

"Moylsey98 is permanently prohibited from adding an image to, removing an image from, or changing any image contained in, any article or list."

He may propose additions, removal or changes at talk pages. Any additions, removals or changes may be made by any editor of good standing if there is consensus for same. Any breach of this restriction to be enforced by a block of not less than three months duration. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Moylesy98 has been notified of this discussion Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• And 5 minutes later they're indef blocked? C'mon give the guy a chance to at least reply!

I would support this indef block (rather than a TBAN) because it's fundamentally behavioural and failing to see what the rules (do source, do follow consensus, don't edit-war) are, rather than narrow enough to filter. Maybe they can make some case for "OK, I get it, I'll stop" and we could at least try that. But surely they get time to respond, at the very least? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see the point. They've been blocked four times this year alone for doing exactly the same thing over and over again, and they clearly haven't understood why they've been blocked. The latest block was for two weeks, and they came back straight away with reverts of the exact same material that got them blocked for edit warring (i.e. replacing good images with their own sub-par ones), with edit-summaries like "Reinstatement following removal by a spammer" and "Deliberate removal of image owing to jealousy". We can only have limited patience with this, I'm afraid. If they come back with an unblock request that addresses the problems, then yes we can try a limited unblock, but they need to understand why they keep being blocked first, and they clearly haven't. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, he's indeffed but has TP access. We can discuss the proposal and it can be made a condition of unblocking. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We should at-least unblock them to make their case here. Blocking a few minutes after talking here is extremely unfair. I would support a block, but give them enough rope, so that they can respond. The Duke 18:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• They've just posted an unblock request which is going to be rejected on sight: it's a reasonable case for what they believe to justofy their editing, but it's entirely not an unblock request, as it doesn't address the reason for blocking. As such, yet another blocked editor is just going to have their unblock request refused summarily, leading to yet another angry ex-editor.

Their "request" still fails to address the underlying problem, and is a complete misunderstanding of how image selection for articles is, or should be, done. As such, it shows no long-term hope for a real solution and unblock here. But we have to at least explain this to them! As it is, we're steaming straight into the typical, and terrible, standard WP response and we need to do better. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Meh, I have difficulty seeing any of this as a real failing on our part. Lots of people have tried to talk to Moylsey98 long before it came to this. I see plenty of non templated comments on their talk page, including from you. Moylsey98 has barely responded (even from looking at their contrib history). They've shown zero real willingless to learn and seriously engage with people to try and understand where they're going wrong. It's not like they've come back and done things slightly differently each time. They've generally just done the exact same thing. By their own admission, the only real reason they've been adding the images is for spam like reasons, they want to promote their own work. As with a number of spammers, their COI means they likely genuinely believe their work is better than anything else, but really there's no reason for the community to waste a lot of time educating them when they're so unwilling to learn. If individual community members want to try and teach them that's fine. But there's zero reason to waste time at ANI on what's a clear cut case. If people are able to teach them on their talk page, they're free to request an unblock and I'm sure some admin will get to it. But it's not something the community should be expected to spend a great deal of time on. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's not forget this is not the first time Moylesy98 has been at ANI. Even given that this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#User:Moylesy98 was perhaps not worth responding to, I recall this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002#Uncivil and threatening comments by User:Moylesy98 on an issue fairly related to what's going on here was at ANI for quite a long time which is also supported by the time stamps. And their block log shows they were unblocked for all of it [1]. And Special:Contributions/Moylesy98 shows a small number of edits during a fair amount of that time. So frankly, we've already given this editor way more latitude and waited more than long enough for them to seriously engage with us than we needed to. They've completely failed to do it any meaningful way, and instead have just continued to spam (by their own admission) in numerous ways. If anyone ever gets through to them then good. But really it's no major failing on our part that we didn't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'm actually a strong believer that we're way too reluctant to unblock someone to allow them to participate in an AN//I discussion about them. IMO the copying over from talk business is more complicated for everyone than it needs to be. Unless there's good reason to think the editor isn't going to obey the condition, I think we should as a matter or routine on request, unblock someone to allow them to participate in the discussion about them with the understanding it's the only thing they're allowed to do. Any violation of this condition will of course lead to an instant reblock, and is likely to destroy their chances. (And we should perhaps also remind editors that WP:Bludgeoning discussion is likely to harm them.) But in my mind, this isn't really an issue here because 1) No one really seems to think the topic ban proposal as a replacement for the indef is worth it 2) They haven't asked. (This comes up most often with cban appeals.) That said, if a serious proposal did develop and Moylesy98 were to request, I'd support it here as well. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite - would you be amenable to Nil Einne's suggestion of unblocking in order to participate here? Nil Einne - the reason nobody is addressing my proposal is that they are all arguing over the merits of the block. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I support an indef block. But only once we've at least tried to explain it and given them a chance to respond. Even if that doesn't work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In haste, I may have more time later, but I wanted to comment before this was closed. I am not an admin. I have seen editing from User:Moylesey98 which has lead me to believe that there might be difficulties in both understanding and writing in English. I alluded to it in [2]. They may have difficulty in making an unblock request. A young editor (that is young in development of skills; I am unsure of their age) might become better. A young editor might be understandably proud of a new camera and want to see their images used. I have seen images added by him which I found as good as most, and deserving of a place in articles. I have not time to find them now.SovalValtos (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No need to rush. The closure made earlier was my fault, and because I didn't realize that the proposal was still ongoing... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have now found how to see some of User:Moylesey98's image uploads to commons[3]. I think there are images of value. They do not have to be of immediate use and even poor quality images may turn out to be of value in the future when some unsuspected aspect of the image is identified as being of use. I think some of his images may have been denigrated, which could have exacerbated the situation. A few examples in the gallery should give an indication of how this editor's contributions might be of value. If totally blocked their interest in contributing to commons as well might be lost. The lack of competence in other aspects might well persuade admins to block for a while. I would not object if that were the case as much effort has been spent on dealing with this editor's incompetence already.

• 
  Defiant and Earl of Mount Edgcumbe at Tyseley
• 
  Hunslet 0-6-0 no 3696 "Respite"
• 
  Andania's builders plate
• 
  Avonside 0-6-0 no 1883

To clarify for you, the problem isn't that Dave occasionally takes good enough photos that are, or might be, useful. The problem is that he doesn't seem to know what he's doing, so he takes many more poor quality photos than the accidental good ones. But then he persists in insisting that "his" photos, are included in articles, regardless of whether they are better than others. If they happen to be better than others, we should include them at least until better ones are available. But more often than not they're not, and we therefore shouldn't. If you want a few examples, take a look at these:

• 
  Composition wtf?
• 
  shutter speed too slow! You need 1/500 at least.
• 
  horrible shadow across the subject which is in the middle of the frame
• 
  overexposed mess
• 
  Composition - subject in the middle of the frame
• 
  Distracting snowstorm
• 
  Overexposed sky, odd composition
• 
  A mess of nonsense in front of your subject.
• 
  It's mostly a tree!
• 
  subject in the middle
• 
  too dark
• 
  This is a photo of... nothing in particular.
• 
  Yes, take photos of the crowds, though this is not really of them nor of the engine, which is placed too centrally. Also, sky overexposure.
• 
  subject in the middle, overexposure...
• 
  Overexposed sky, and top of firebox.
• 
  Taken from the side in shadow;
• 
  meh
• 
  Subject in the middle of the frame, exposure problems from bright sky, subject in shadow.
• 
  The sky is overexposed in this one but it is illustrative and should be used in the article.
• 
  This is OK

He's got a Flickr account where there's pages and pages of this stuff. Tony May (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Let's not get all steamed up about this. EEng 08:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  tldr - I completely lost track. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  Shame, you missed vital points.SovalValtos (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  I want to express my disappointment at the limited participation. EEng 14:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  Now, now let's not derail this discussion. --Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, that's enough, this conversation terminates here. All change please, all change. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  You heard Ritchie: that's the end of the line. Roll along, now. Leviv ich 16:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Seems like discussion's come to a halt. EEng 19:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not an admin, just an editor who has come across User:Moylesy98. Please could someone explain what more is required here in the way of comment/proposals/action for progress to be made, as progress seems to have stalled?SovalValtos (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Black Kite has indeffed the user, which seems to be a reasonable solution to the problem. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals

Look at ‎#Northamerica1000 disruption at MfD and #Legacypac and portals on this page, WP:AN#Thousands of portals, the hundred or so portal nominations currently at MfD, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal issues (which is heading towards being declined) various other discussions linked in those threads and it is clear that something needs to done to stop this getting even further out of hand. I suggest that community discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals (including but not limited to MfD) is a simple and necessary first step. Specific restrictions on specific editors can then be placed as needed with much less drama than at present.

Note to everybody please keep this discussion on topic. It is not the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of portals, the merits or otherwise of portal MfDs, portal speedy deletion, portal prods, etc, etc. It is also not the place to discuss specific incidents and/or specific users (use existing sections or start new ones for this), it is intended solely for discussion about discretionary sanctions for the topic area. Proposals for and discussion of specific sanctions to be applied if sanctions are authorised should also not take place in this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, at this point at least - there are a fair few negative discussions, but I don't think there's been sufficient attempt made to handle the disruptive conversations using the regular means (I suspect the prevalence of experienced editors has discouraged stricter de-escalation beyond conversation (which is a great first step, but clearly not enough at this point)). Until standard conduct review methods such as ANI have been shown, to a clear and convincing level, to not work then I don't feel we should escalate to DS - which are frequently overused and an absolute nightmare to ever get rid of. With regards to breadth, it's a relatively small group of editors throughout, rather than this absolutely hoard of disruptive editors that require a shoot first, review later policy. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nosebagbear: Would you then care to make an attempt to handle the ongoing disruption using the usual means because nothing that anybody else has actually tried has worked so far. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as an overreaction which would not even need to be suggested if all the major parties involved turned off their PCs for 24 hours; with less WP:BLUDGEONing of each other and other commentators, preferably. ——SerialNumber54129 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support for 45 days (or other similar range of between 30 and 90 days). The purpose of GS/DS is to empower administrators to take actions to benefit the encyclopedia which might otherwise be difficult to impossible to do. As someone who doesn't see much value behind Portals but also has a "hey I'm already weird because I edit wikipedia and even among these weirdos I'm weird because of my niche" live and let-live attitude I'd welcome a chance for community discussions to play-out and consensus to form. It seemed, at least from my casual observations, that things had cooled a little when the ARC was filed but as it has become clearer that this would be declined (which I think is the right thing for ArbCOM to have done) it seems that the temperature is heating back up. It further seems from the threads I've observed at ARC, AN, and ANI (as well as the occasional talk page) that it's the same players going at each other time and time again. A timelimited GS would hopefully allow some neutral administrators the leeway to help cool the temperature back down so there is space for editors who care about Wikipedia but cannot muster the passion of a thousand burning suns around Portals and/or their deletions to (re)join in and help guide us to a conclusion but also then not continue to stick around forever. Because after we (hopefully) reach a point where consensus has been reached, there will be alignment about the way forward even if there's not complete agreement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't seen widespread disruption as yet. The discussion is getting long and tedious, but being long and tedious is not sanctionable. --Jayron32 18:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No admins will be sanctioned without a long ArbComm case where every benefit will be given the Admin, meanwhile DS will dangle a sword over the head of ordinary users who would be subject to immediate restrictions or block without discussion. DS is just another path for the proposer to get what they failed to get with complaints at ANi and ArbComm. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If you liked the Infobox Wars, you'll love the Portal Crusades. EEng 01:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This seems like a permanent solution for a temporary problem. With the discussion on portals spread out over so many pages, I think this adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. I'll be the first to admit that the issue of portals has brought out less than ideal behavior by some editors but I think this can be handled wiith blocks for regular disruptive or tendentious editing, if this is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose without any indication what kind of discretionary sanctions the proposer has in mind in which situations. Would too many nominations be sanctionable? Too many !votes which don't match the end result? Repeating arguments, already debunked in one or two MfDs, in other MfDs? !Votes without "proper" argumentation? It's unclear which problems the proposer is trying to tackle here. Fram (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  Fram I'm clearly on a fairly small island with Thryduulf in seeing benefit for this so let me give a go at answering your questions: the problem that GS would try to tackle is general disruption to the project caused by editors who are fighting, as EEng says, the Portal Crusades. So for one disruptive editor the answer might be a limit on MfD nominations per week. For another it might be that they may not initate/comment at ANI about portals related behavior. For a third it might be a more typical behavior warning. Essentially it's appropriate sanctions ala User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions. The goal should be to decrease the temperature and allow the project to come up to alignment for a way forward with Portals. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, I have read and re-read the discussions at both AN and ANI, and from what I've gleaned, NA1K has done nothing wrong; certainly not anything even remotely considered unbecoming of an admin. She is indeed a creator of portals - many of which represent excellent work - and has also demonstrated -0- opposition to the deletion/nomination of any portal that fails to meet inclusion criteria; therefore, not a steadfast inclusionist or deletionist as what we've seen in the infobox wars. With regards to behavior, I have never known NA1K to be either impolite or refuse/deny any editor an opportunity to openly discuss an issue in the proper venue. What I've gleaned about Legacypac is that he appears to be focused on the clean-up and deletion of portals, a large number of which resulted from a brief episode of mass creation that has since been addressed. Quite frankly, the evidence/argument he has presented against NA1K simply doesn't support his steadfast position. Based on my experiences, it seems out of character for Legacypac, and it saddens me that 2 highly productive editors are at odds over issues that can be easily resolved with a bit of productive collaboration at the proper venues. I remain cautiously optimistic that Legacypac will step back long enough to realize what a mental strain and absolute time sink this entire incident has been, and will turn his focus to other areas of the project where his contributions are much needed and appreciated, such as AfC/NPP. It's time to let others handle the portal situation for a while. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Atsme I feel like I made the case for this as best as I could. It's very clear the community doesn't agree with me on this and so out of respect for the consensus model I am not going to belabor this by arguing further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Good God no. Never in the history of Wikipedia have discretionary sanctions "decreased the temperature"; they just increase the toxicity of already-toxic issues by forcing disputes to fester because people are afraid to comment. If an editor is being disruptive then treat them as we would any other disruptive editor. To hammer home a point that hasn't been hammered enough here, this is not an important issue since 99.99% of readers never see a portal; yes, malformed portals are a nuisance and need to be culled and yes, the mass creation constituted intentional disruption, but hardly anyone will ever see the malformed portals and I'd like to think nobody would be stupid enough to try to restart the mass creation. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• No, per Iridescent. The intention is good, the plan of execution is not. Everybody involved in this mess needs to wind down the aggression and combative attitudes that have made it so much more unpleasant than it needs to be, and instead work towards resolving it in the quickest, easiest and most amicable way possible. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

When a trout just isn't enough...^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose but what if we topic ban all editors from discussing portal-related user conduct on any page other than WP:PortalFight2019, enforceable by a 24hr first-time no-warning block by any uninvolved admin? Not a joke suggestion. Leviv ich 22:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal_MFD_Results may help Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary, per above. SemiHypercube 🎂 13:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - A few editors need to be topic-banned from portal discussions. ArbCom said that the community was handling the portal issues, so the community should handle the portal issues in the same way as the ArbCom would have, by empowering administrators to take draconian action. Strong support. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The Original Poster of this is Thryduulf, who is an advocate for portals. I am a strong critic of portals. But we agree that sometimes a Gordian knot needs to be cut. (Yes, the tool that is used to cut a Gordian knot draws blood, but that sometimes minimizes total injuries.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Iridescent. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Iridescent per Levivich's earnest suggestion, but strong support for their oppose per cygnis insignis, and McClenon's support of Thryduulf's original proposal. And my axe! Insincerely, cygnis insignis 22:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Something needs to be done. I'm not sure ArbCom sanctions are necessarily needed at this point, because a topic ban as suggested by Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) might be sufficient. We really do need better guidelines on what qualifies a portal for deletion, and then purge the ones that don't fit and update the ones that do. Something that stops the portal crusades in the short term will be desperately needed... SportingFlyer T·C 01:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Something needs to be done indeed. There are many people here saying that discretionary sanctions are nor required because the usual processes are sufficient. However this requires that people actually engage with the usual processes - since I started this thread there have been at least two more ANI threads related to portal issues that have not had sufficient engagement by uninvolved admins for anything to actually result, and those listed at the top are also still open, tacitly permitting the disruptive behavior to continue. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Doing something at random has no chances to improve anything. Only doing some right things could do that. First point that needs some right thing. The Portal:Dangun is a just created 2,857 bytes page. But it's deletion will not delete 2,857 bytes of information. To create this marvelous portal from scratch, only the 14 bytes incantation: {{subst:bpsp}} were needed. Therefore deleting the $3000+$ content-less portals will not delete $\approx 3000\times 3000$ bytes of information, but exactly nothing ($=0$ bytes of information). What to do with the repetitive clamors about don't kill our precious $10,000,000$ bytes ? Second point that needs some right thing. Many SPP=Single Purpose Portals seem very similar in their intents to these SPA=Single Purpose Accounts that are chased across the wiki. I don't think we have to try to provide a commercial advantage to KFC versus McDonalds or conversely. For the present, these portals score 448 versus 199 views per month (probably most of them from the deletion discussions): rather ridiculous than COI... but big holes start by small ones. Pldx1 (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox there is a single MfD where over 2600 portals are nominated for deletion in a single discussion. If there was ever an attempt at fait accompli this is it. It is claimed that all of them meet a criterion set out in the discussion but it is not possible to verify this and given the track record in this area, I am not able to trust without verification. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf, it is indeed possible to verify them, because as I promised in discussion at MFD, I have described in detail the process by which I made the list, complete with the code for the AWB module I used. The process is set out at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/Selection process. The AWB module which I used is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/AWB module. As you will see there, I have asked for others to verify the list. You are of course very welcome to test it yourself, and I hope you do so.

I note that as usual, you have made no substantive argument to make against the rationale for deletion. You neither defend nor reject the deletion rationale. Instead, you object to process solely on the basis of your assumption of bad faith. One way or another, you object to every single process used or proposed for cleaning up the portalspam.

And as usual, there is the bucketloads of ABF and smears you which deployed even at the Arbcom case request.

The claim of fait accompli is a risible piece of your usual WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. A group of pages has been nominated for deletion on the basis of clearly set out shared criteria. Editors are free to decide whether they support deletion on those criteria, so there is no more fait accompli than in any other XFD nomination.

The funniest bit of all this, is that you proposed discretionary sanctions. That is truly hilarious. Given your repeated misconduct in smearing and maligning the editors who work on cleaning up the portalspam, you'd be near the top of the list for any sanctions applied. Luckily for you, your proposal is going nowhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• The biggest fait accompli being, of course, the mass creation of something clearly inapproproate and then a refusal to assis in the clear up. Happy days indeed. ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The biggest waste of time is having to explain multiple times in every discussion that just because many portals were created without consensus does not indicate a need to delete them all as quickly as possible, does not create a need to ignore consensus, and most prominently does not mean two wrongs make a right. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

    If you have to explain something in every discussion, whatever you're explaining does not have consensus. Leviv ich 23:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

    @Levivich: I only have to repeat things because those who feel that the sky is in danger of falling in if these are not deleted asap (a slight exaggeration, but at times it doesn't really feel that way) did not repeat things based on the same assumptions that very clearly do not have consensus - principally that there is a deadline, that these portals are actively harmful, and that because something was created without explicit consensus explicit consensus is not required to delete it. Every discussion to date has resulted in exactly none of these achieving widespread agreement (let alone consensus), yet almost every day there is a new action, proposal or comment based on at least one of them being a statement of unarguable fact. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No one does have to say [the same thing] every day; but when one feels one has too, it's pure, distilled, unadulterated WP:BLUDGEON :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf - I understand your frustration but my familiarity with imposed DS (and there is no denying DS and AE can be highly problematic) raises justifiable concern that the proposed resolution may create a worse nightmare than simply undoing what caused the problem in the first place. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Completely unnecessary. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose An un-needed proposal, which would only increase drama. The only possible benefit of it is that it would very likely lead to discretionary sanctions against the proposer Thryduulf, whose long stream of assumptions of bad faith and unevidenced smears against other editors have repeatedly poisoned the discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't the way, and the naughty step discretionary sanctions would probably only serve to cause further polarisation and disharmony. I am so sad that what was last year's common sense community recognition that Portals were of value and merit has somehow turned into a Pyrrhic victory. It is such a shame that experienced and competent editors can't all work more sensibly and cooperatively for the common good of this encyclopaedia. That we are even talking about DS is quite an indictment of our behaviour over this issue. How must this look from the outside, I wonder? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Portal? What are they? Don't think I've ever seen one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have struck my support above because I have re-thought the issue. On the one hand, discretionary sanctions could be imposed on the portal platoon of editors who are recklessly creating portals that are broken and need deleting. However, the community has shown that it is capable of dealing with reckless portal creation without DS. On the other hand, in portal deletion discussions, the point has been made that discretionary sanctions are never imposed on administrators. The current conflict over portal deletion involves disruptive activity by an administrator supporting the creation and retention of portals, User:Thryduulf, and one non-administrator, User:Legacypac, who is nominating portals for deletion and expanding MFD nominations in a way that confuses and gums up the debate. Discretionary sanctions would, in practice, only be applied to one non-administrator who is trying in a sloppy and frantic manner to clean up the portal mess. The playing field is already unfairly on the side of retaining unsound portals, in spite of the valiant efforts of administrators User:BrownHairedGirl and User:Fram, who need the community's support. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: A few points of order are necessary here: discretionary sanctions can be and are applied to admins when needed. I support the creation and retention of some portals, and support the deletion of others - please stop repeatedly mischaracterising my position in nearly every discussion. I have never (attempted) to use ANI as a weapon or anything of the sort. Finally, the contributions of BHG, Fram and yourself have been a mixture of helpful and unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - What ought to be done should be to restrict User:Thryduulf from using WP:ANI as a battleground for allegations against critics of portals. However, the ArbCom has declined at this time to hear the case, and the case against Enigmaman really is more urgent. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti political shills

This account is being used only for promotional purposes. POV pushing on articles related to Balkan states. Reported to AIV twice, but was told to come here. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 20:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Diffs and an explanation of what they are promoting would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: You also failed to notify the user as you are required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Woshiyiweizhongguoren is obviously collaborating with Jingiby to push Bulgarian views on Balkan articles, all I'm doing is cleaning out the obvious agenda pushing in these articles as my history indicates. Jingiby has been abusing WK:NPOV for over a decade (Redacted). Clearly a breach of | WK:NPOV, and Woshiyiweizhongguoren is supporting him in this act and is sending threats to me to discontinue my editing. Jingiby has a highly negative reputation, as can be seen by googling his name. All I'm trying to do is make articles which he has edited have more neutral perspectives. I can give examples of Jinbigy's edits which are obvious breaches of | WK:NPOV that I neutralised.

Bulgarian Australians

Jingiby's statement: "... who count the Bulgarian Australian and the later Macedonian Australian diaspora together for historical reasons, estimate a total number of around 100,000 [Bulgarians in Australia]"

The above is obviously a fraudulent statement that pushes Bulgarian narratives, and it is highly contradictory with the Australian census.

Taga za Yug

Jingiby keeps on removing and white-washing references to Macedonians and Macedonia while primary sources and the poster on the article clearly refer to Macedonians and Macedonia Anti political shills —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Three more issues regarding this user:

1. He may be abusing multiple accounts, see the first message on his talk page. He then tried to clarify things by listing an IP address he used, but IPs aren't accounts, so I'm not sure.

2. His username may be a bit too inappropriate and POV pushing for Wikipedia.

3. His allegations of me collaborating with Jingiby are 100 percent false. His dishonesty is just making things worse. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Really sounds like you are scraping the bottom of the barrell here to create a smoke screen for yourself and Jingiby. Anti political shills —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: As Bbb23 already mentioned, if you could provide specific diffs and explanations of the bad edits in question that would speed the process along greatly. Accusations are worthless without evidence. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Diff. Moving pages against established consensus. I'd also include a diff for the multiple account issue on his or her talk page, but that's the first contribution. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anti political shills: This is kind of interesting. "Rv sock." Tell me, how many accounts do you have? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: See my talk page. You really need to stop with the false allegations Anti political shills

This is also a concern [4] considering WP:OUTING issues. And while I don't think it justifies a block of itself, these edits [5] [6] [7] misusing the term WP:vandalism are a concern. Still despite this poor response [8] to concerns, they don't seem to have repeated it yet. This move is also a concern [9]. I have no idea what the current MOS is regarding Macedonia and frankly don't give a damn but it has been at the title long enough [10] to make such a move highly inadvisable without an RM. (I do think the admin made a mistake when protecting, it should have been labelled as protecting due to a dispute and not vandalism, but I guess maybe they just clicked the wrong button.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway at a minimum, I've given Anti political shills a WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions alert. It was my first time, so hopefully I did it right [11]. I did not give Woshiyiweizhongguoren notification as despite APS's claims to the contrary, Woshiyiweizhongguoren doesn't seem to be particularly involved in the area. I did not give Jingiby an alert as I assume [12] is still valid for a few weeks at least for the Balkans despite it being subsumed into EE. Incidentally, despite APS explicitly bringing up and accusing Jingiby of wrong-doing above, they were not notified of this discussion until I did so [13] Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne left me a note about being mentioned here but I'm not sure which bit applies to me. If it was the move protection then it had nothing to do with it being North Macedonian or Macedonian but that it should follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Elections and referendums and the date goes first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I see that there is a discussion in which my name is mentioned, but the editor who intervened me in it User:Anti political shills did not let me know. Thanks to the administrator User:Nil Einne who did it. I understand what Anti political shills accuses me of, but I do not understand why. At the same time, the User:Woshiyiweizhongguoren accusations against him, seem to me to be not without reason. Jingiby (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Outing is a big no, no. Other claims made by @Anti political shills go into casting WP:ASPERSIONS territory. I'm really concerned about this editor and looking at the examples presented above of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, @Anti political shills appears not to be here to build an encyclopedia.Resnjari (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Resnjari's conclusion. Apcbg (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree the outing is very concerning. The Google search this user is already a concern, but the actual mention and screen shot of an external site IMO clearly crosses the line. I only noticed it after I'd made my post and quickly redacted it. I didn't otherwise comment as I privately emailed an admin to see if it qualified for revdeletion so wanted to avoid drawing attention to it until this has been assessed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of sock puppetry, I'd like to know what other accounts belong to Anti political shills, besides the diffed IP. I won't open an SPI, since the admins may already know which account(s) I'm referring to. If Anti political shills gets blocked for all of this, please remember to block all associated sock puppet accounts and IPs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk • contribs) 10:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

As a Balkan topic area editor myself, who is watching the articles closely, I am not surprised to see someone with POV agendas such as User:Anti political shills casting WP:ASPERSIONS against editors such as Jingiby who are simply doing their job in defending Wikipedia's articles from people who did not come to build up an encyclopedia. Like how the others above said, User:Anti political shills is ought to explain and defend himself without besmirching the reputation of other editors. If the Admins know or have evidence of WP:SOCKPUPPET, then I have faith the appropriate actions on the matter will be taken without delay. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. A WP:NOTHERE and sock puppetry block forever would do. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I have opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anti political shills to determine whether User:Gaylordbush69 is a sock. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 13:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok! Jingiby (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if not a sock, certainly an inappropriate username. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

SPI results: Gaylordbush69 is most likely not a sock puppet account. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 21:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Anti political shills continues to edit tendentiously again today here and now is supported by oppenly disruptive editing User:Gaylordbush69 who was suspected as his sockpuppet. Both were warned already not to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, respectively here and here. I hope, they will stop this disruptive combination. Jingiby (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

3 IPs displaying signs of meatpuppetry/ sockpuppetry

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

---

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

---

123.150.182.177, 123.150.182.179, and 123.150.182.180 are repeatedly editing in concert. They regularly remove warnings from each other's user talk pages, and often act in concert in editing other pages, as can be seen clearly in their individual contribution records and more clearly at Special:Contributions/123.150.182.179/29. Just one recent example is on Cross-Strait relations where the 3 IPs acted together in a series of edits, including the unjustified removal of the template {{pp-pc1}}. The repeated rapid jumping between IPs does not look like reallocation of a dynamic IP but more like deliberately deceptive pretence of being a number of independent users. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I had opened A SPI before and they say having a dynamic ip is not a sin by itself. And so far the ip is civil to willing to sit down in Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949), and yes, he may be have more than those 3 ip from 123.150.X.X. and you should prove his "disruptive editing" by providing real diff and/or post it to edit warring noticeboard. Matthew hk (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

As well as Talk:Nationalist government and Talk:Pahlavi dynasty. Also, 123.124.233.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem him. Matthew hk (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) also can you add extended confirmed protection to the page.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit-warring is getting bloody silly. ——SerialNumber54129 13:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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

IP-hopping edit warring continuing on Kingdom of Tungning with no attempt to discuss on the article's talk page. Obviously not a dynamic IP but deliberately switching between static IPs. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agreed that the ip had so many battleground. (see his edit log and warning and previous block log), but i doubt the nature of the ip as purely "static ". It rather seem a private VPN or one of a few ip that VPN service provider to use. I am not sure the Great Firewall of China had blocked en.wiki or not, or may be with or without firewall and VPN, out bond traffic was rerouted to a handful of ip. Matthew hk (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, the provider may able to provide fake info to update local registry, so that WHOIS is wrong. One of the 4 associated ip above, was registered to China Bank (may be in fact Bank of China), but the ISP was actually China Unicom Beijing branch. Another name in the WHOIS data, TIANJIN HUITIANTONGXINKEJIJISHU LTD ("HUITIAN 同心科技技術"?), may be entirely fake. Matthew hk (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

And now it became a fully troll that tagging multiple talk page for merge. see Talk:Mexico/Archive 11, Talk:Iran/Archive 19, Talk:Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Alessio Pasquinelli 's WP:NOTHERE

• Alessio Pasquinelli (talk · contribs)
• Spalding (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BLK (sportswear) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Acerbis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Macron (sportswear) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tovio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry for cross-posting from WP:COIN. However, the person based on his linkedin profiles (the Alessio Pasquinelli one and Alessio P. one), is some sort of brand sponsorship agency (Pasquinelli Work Advertising; "PROFESSIONAL MARKETING ACCOUNT PROMOTER EASTERN CONSULTANT SPONSORSHIPS MANAGER ", "EX PROFESSIONAL MARKETING ACCOUNT PROMOTER SPONSORSHIPS BROKER CONSULTANT Manager"). But for ANI matter alone, he keep on removing content without giving a real reason, see Special:Diff/891391353, Special:Diff/891278286. His explanation for BLK (sportswear) also seem not satisfactory. Matthew hk (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

After the ANI, he just ignore the warning on minor edit again by performing this edit . Special:Diff/891393477. Matthew hk (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yet again tagging controversial edit as minor edit on top of paid editing. Special:Diff/891821732. Matthew hk (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Acupuncture: not sure what to do here

• Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have two questions about this edit/revert[14][15]
and about these two talk page discussions:[16][17]

Question #1: Is it true that according to the RfC cited, It is impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture? Is there something that needs to be done about Middle 8's editing of Acupuncture, or should I advise Roxy and JzG to stop questioning Middle 8's editing of Acupuncture?

Question#2: If something needs to be done here, is this something that should be discussed at ANI, or should I go to WP:AE?

I don't know what the right thing to do here is.

Possibly related:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard discretionary sanctions.
• User:Middle 8/COI
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 139#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's actually fairly straightforward - the RfC said "Do practitioners of alternative medicine ... have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice? - in other words, do they automatically have a COI - this was opposed. It did not say "Can practitioners of alternative medicine ...", because clearly, yes they still can, depending on what and how they're editing. Indeed the RfC close specifically said this - "Editors are reminded that any role or relationship outside of Wikipedia may undermine their primary role here of furthering the interests of the encyclopaedia and that editing articles directly in such situations is strongly discouraged.". Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• That makes sense. Should Middle 8 be requested to not make the claims he makes on User:Middle 8/COI and on the two talk pages I cited above? Should I withdraw this ANI report and bring up the question of whether Middle 8 has a COI at WP:COIN? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• An editor's on-wiki conduct bears on problems like TE and ADVOCACY, not COI. Per EXTERNALREL and the recent RfC clarifying same, COI arises from an editor's external relationships "within their field of expertise" (e.g. The Who's manager has a COI for The Who but not band manager). Otherwise we'd be seeing COI tags and COI/N cases with lots of professional fields. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 23:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC); edit for clearer example, 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't want to re-litigate something that has been the topic of one Arbcom case, at least two RfCs and a boatload of talk page discussions (ANI deals with user behavior, not article content), but I would like to address Middle 8's "it isn't a COI at all and thus I am not guilty of any COI violation" argument. The counterargument (which may be something Arbcom needs to rule on -- I still would like advice on that) is that our band manager article doesn't contain anything remotely resembling the "Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge" claim that is currently in our accupunture article. If our band manager article said that bands that only pretend to have a band manager work just as well and make just as much money as bands that have them then the band manager for The Who shouldn't edit that article. The key here is that Middle 8, like all acupuncturists, suffers direct financial harm from the fact that our acupuncture article documents through WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that it doesn't matter where you stick the needles in, and that it doesn't even matter whether you stick the needles in -- the outcome is the same. Direct and personal financial harm caused by the content of a Wikipedia article equals a clear conflict of interest regarding that article. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• You already made those exact same reasonable arguments at the RFC (right down to the band manager example), where they were duly considered alongside other reasonable arguments. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 02:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That RfC was about whether alternative medicine practitioners in general have a conflict of interest. This ANI report is about whether you personally have a conflict of interest, and was triggered by you repeatedly claiming that the RfC in question had a result of "It is impossible for Middle 8 to have a COI regarding acupuncture". And you were the one who brought up the band manager argument. Did you really expect such an argument to stand unchallenged? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if you're having difficulty extrapolating from the general case to a specific one. Please see my comment here. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good, give a pointer to a place where you tried to explain basic logic to a PhD mathematician after they corrected you. Brilliant. The RfC as decided cannot possibly settle the question of whether any particular individual has a COI. (Although probably at this point you should be blocked for tendentiousness and wikilawyering.) --JBL (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You're not wrong about negation, you just picked the wrong statement to negate. Take the heat down a notch, please, and see my reply below ("If A, then B"). addendum: No, the RfC can't say that a given editor has no COI of any kind, but it can and does say that the principle that profession doesn't cause COI generalizes to CAM professions. This, as far as I can tell, is what Guy Macon disputes: he thinks I might have a COI because acupuncture (.... repeat arguments from RfC). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC); fixed 20:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC), 20:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC), 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC); addendum 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, this isn't the right venue to (re)litigate my putative COI -- COI/N is. The "is it impossible" issue is really a red herring (the article tag being minor) -- the main question IMO is whether am I being accused of COI, and why, and whether in light of the RfC result it's even proper to do so. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 09:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• As it applies to this instance, would it be fair to state the RfC question as, "Do acupuncturists have a conflict of interest with regard to Acupuncture?" (Acupuncture being "content describing their field of practice".) Leviv ich 18:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Simply having a profession (doctor, engineer, needle poker) doesn't create a COI for that profession, including CAM's -- that's how I read the RfC. And remember, COI by definition comes from one's roles off-wiki, not from one's edits. So I can't imagine any other way one could have a COI for their (or any) broad professional area, can you? If I'm wrong, then I retract my assertion that it's impossible. But I maintain that that COI tag doesn't belong on any article about a profession, and that being an acupuncturist doesn't give me a COI for acupuncture. I really thought that RfC laid such issues to rest, and that we could refocus on content, not contributors. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 01:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Just get an admin or two to tell me that your interpretation of the RfC is correct, and I will gladly switch to telling Roxy and JzG to stop complaining when you make edits like these[18][19],[20][21] Clearly neither of them agrees that you don't have a COI. I am fine with telling them to stop accusing you of having a COI and I am fine with telling you not to edit pages where you have a COI, but please don't expect me to decide which to do simply because an acupuncturist tells me which he thinks to be correct. You are hardly unbiased. There is nothing wrong with me asking what to do in this situation, so please stop implying that there is.[22] I will get an authoritative answer, either here or from Arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• This seems like IDHT. You already have a clear and authoritative answer from the RfC (which was closed by three uninvolved, experienced admins). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• ...and doesn't say what you have repeatedly claimed that it says. Don't forget that part. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• If it doesn't mean that simply being an acu'ist doesn't confer a COI, then Aristotle was wrong. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 06:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• As I've already pointed out to you elsewhere, the negation of "X is always true" is "X is sometimes not true", not "X is never true". This is, literally, a basic failure of logic, and the fact that you repeat the error after being corrected reflects extremely poorly on you. --JBL (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, JBL, it's "If A, then B" ("If I practice a CAM profession, then that causes a COI for that CAM profession"), the negation of which is "A and not B" ("I practice a CAM profession and that does not cause a COI for that CAM profession"). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC); improved wording 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• P.S. More than happy to reword my comments to clarify [23], fwiw. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy)

• Eh, who cares. We are talking about two edits about an edit notice that no one has probably even read. If it stays or goes who cares really? Other than drama what is the point of this and why did you ping JzG? If you have an issue then take in to AE.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I pinged JzG because, if the admins here or Arbcom say that Middle 8 doesn't have a COI, JzG and Roxy are the ones who I will be telling to stop saying that he does. Likewise, if the admins here or Arbcom say that Middle 8 does have a COI, I will be telling him not to edit pages where he has a COI. So far no admin has advised me to close this and go to AE, but I am perfectly willing to do that. I just want to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• What makes you think any of the people involved need your input? You already opened an ill advised RFC that wasted countless hours and ended in the obvious conclusion. If you want to do something then do it but this is just a drama magnet, and you don't need permission to go to AE.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy, don’t bother to tell me that M8 has no COI. I won’t believe you. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't completely decided, but I am leaning towards Middle 8 having a COI. Clearly you, I, and JzG all think Middle 8 has a COI, and the existence of an RfC that essentially says that alt med practitioners don't automatically have COIs has not convinced any of the three of us that Middle 8 doesn't have a COI. Of course Middle 8 thinks that it should convince us, but he would say that, wouldn't he?

That being said, if I were to see several admins (or Arbcom) tell us to stop saying that Middle 8 has a COI then we need to abide by that decision whether we agree or not. It doesn't look like that is going to happen here, so if the admins continue to be silent on the question I intend to take it to AE as something that ANI is unable to resolve. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think, as I said above, the fact of whether Middle8 has a COI here is completely dependent on his edits. If he's making neutral sourced edits then it doesn't matter anyway. If he's making disruptive or anti-consensus edits that show a clear POV then he may well be said to have a COI. But more importantly in this case, he should not be removing the edit notice because COI editors - whoever they are - should not be editing any article that they have a COI on; this one is no different. Not only that, but (as I quoted above) the RfC that Middle8 is using to justify removing the notice actually backed up this fact. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow: could you specify which fact you say the RfC backed up, and why? And again, you're mistaken re how COI arises. It doesn't come from biased edits. It comes from one's off-wiki roles. See WP:COINOTBIAS. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we're focusing on the wrong thing. What behavior of Middle 8 is being contested here? Which edits were problematic? What has been done in response to those edits? Has Middle 8 showed a continued pattern of bad editing after being warned about such? Your focus on the conflict of interest is a distraction. The focus should be on good or bad editing behavior, and that's it. The minutiae of the COI policies are a distraction, so focus instead on the behavior. --Jayron32 18:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Paul August ☎ 00:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd love it if we could refocus on content; then bad reverts like this would be avoided (cf. WP:PRESERVE). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 21:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC); revise and abridge 01:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy, if Middle 8 was defending his particular practice, then yes - absolutely a COI. But the sidebar tactic of declaring someone has a COI because they practice a certain whatever, then you'd be preventing every declared liberal from editing Dem political articles and the same as it would apply to conservative who support Repubs. The same would apply to every dentist, dermatologist, massage therapist, etc. I think you see my point. Worse yet, we can't even get a majority to agree that paid editors should be prevented from editing articles they were paid to edit. Major time sink here. Provide the diffs you oppose or just start an RfC at the article, and get ready for the "come what may". Just my 5¢ worth. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, agreed re other professions, and the thing is, this was all discussed in the RfC and the "No COI" arguments (like yours) were found to outweigh the "Yes" ones. Yet Guy Macon is now suggesting I have a COI using -- wait for it -- those exact same arguments from the RfC (i.e. alt-meds like acupuncture are pseudoscience-y etc.). [24] How is this proper, and why did we even have the RfC? And why isn't this at COI/N? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 09:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice obfuscation. First you tell a blatant lie about what is in an RfC ("it's not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture, per recent RfC")[25] then when someone calls you on it, you write "this was all discussed in the RfC" and "How is this proper, and why did we even have the RfC?". I predict that if this ANI report closes without a consensus that you do have a COI and without a consensus that you do not have a COI, you will start claiming that "Per ANI I have no COI" and if anyone disagrees you will say that ANI settled the question and ask "why did we have a discussion on ANI?". --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a lie at all, a reasonable inference from the RfC result^[26] as I've explained before you even posted here,^[27] in this thread,^[28] and later on your user talk page,^[29] which at the moment you're still ignoring^[30] in favor of this war/drama forum. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC); minor ce 05:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There's nowhere in the RfC that someone can claim that acupuncturists cannot have a COI at least. The RfC can mostly be summarized as while having a numerically higher oppose count, the arguments for the supports have stronger arguments, but a specific proposal wasn't needed since current guidelines already cover those viewpoints.

Comments like simply having a profession isn't COI tend to come up here a lot which is true, but that doesn't exclude that specific professions can have one. The key determinant is if that profession runs counter to Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia. Being a university professor, etc. doesn't have very much COI aside from an editor promoting their own research, etc. since their job is essentially presenting encyclopedic knowledge. Someone engaged in alternative medicine or pseudoscience though has a conflict since furthering encyclopedic knowledge runs counter to their profession as outlined in the first paragraph of WP:COI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You read the RfC closing wrong, Kingofaces43. Consensus was on the 60%-ish majority "oppose" side. It said "We find, however, that the oppose arguments are stronger. ... Thus, the proposal to single out alt-med practitioners in policy as having a COI is opposed."

I agree that the financial connection is tighter for the average alt-meder than the average professor, but you can read (or may recall) counterarguments from the RfC (that the slope is slippier than that, and that financial connections for any broad area are much more tenuous than the classic COI example of one's own business, et cetera). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'll pile on here as well, the RfC very obviously decided against singling out alt-med practitioners as having an inherent COI relative to any other area of interest or specialty. It refused to make a pre-emptive blanket ruling that alt-med practitioners have a COI by default. That does not make it a pre-emptive blanket ruling that alt-med practitioners cannot have a COI, and that is what Mid 8 is quite literally arguing here. Mid 8's supposedly-amicable demeanor is severely betrayed by his inability and/or unwillingness to accept that his unrealistic interpretation of the RfC is not correct. This alone is grounds for serious consideration of sanctions. That said, if accusations of COI are being made, the underlying evidence should be examined. There is no pre-emptive default stance either way as a result of that RfC, beyond the default stance that accusations of any kind need supporting evidence. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Specific edits

As requested,[31] and without receiving a definitive answer regarding whether Middle 8 has a COI, I am posting a summary of Middle 8's edits that may or may not be COI violations, depending on whether or not he has a COI.

If you are looking for a smoking gun edit where Middle 8 has made blatantly biased or incorrect edits that would be sanctionable whether or not he has a COI, you can stop reading now. That did not happen. If you are looking for edits that paint acupuncture in a favorable light -- the kind of edit that would be OK if he has no COI but not OK if he does have a COI, read on.

(If you are sensing an undercurrent of me disagreeing with the basic plan of examining his edits without a determination of whether he has a COI, you are correct. I am not looking forward to the inevitable criticism that will follow me posting the following edits, but I realize that I will also be criticized if I don't post them.)

Middle 8 has spent the last ten years editing on and off in the area of Acupuncture. Middle 8 also has a direct financial interest in the Wikipedia acupuncture page and related pages painting acupuncture in a favorable light. I do not believe that Middle 8 is editing in bad faith. I believe that he wants Wikipedia to lean towards portraying acupuncture in a favorable light because he honestly believes that the existing content is too unfavorable.

In my opinion, the COI question is the key. If he doesn't have a COI, then making edits favorable to acupuncture would not be a problem. If he does have a COI they are a problem. That being said, here are some diffs:

His very first edit after registering was to change

"Complementary and alternative medicine treatments, including chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture and energy psychology, have never been proven effective in randomized controlled trials."

to

"Complementary and alternative medicine treatments, including chiropractic, homeopathy, and energy psychology, have never been proven effective in randomized controlled trials (RCT's). A review of 26 RCT's studying acupuncture for nausea and vomiting showed some effect, but those effects were equivocal for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting."

Diff: 10:56, 28 January 2009 [32]

The next day he changed

"TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, lack of evidence, and since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. "

to

"TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, lack of evidence, and since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. (Hypotheses exist, however; e.g. Langevin and Yandow (2002) postulate a relationship of acupuncture points and meridians to connective tissue planes.) "

Diff: 05:46, 29 January 2009[33]

I am not going to list a bunch of edits from years ago unless specifically asked to do that, but here are a couple of samples.

"Unlike established "woo", acupuncture's efficacy and mechanisms are unclear. The jury is out..."

Diff: 10:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC) [34]

"A perusal of Pubmed and Cochrane reviews also shows that acu is taken seriously and shows some evidence of efficacy (see here and here, as does the fact that it's used at numerous academic centers] including some of the best (Harvard, Stanford etc.). Yes, for most conditions acupuncture has been shown not to work, but certainly for pain and nausea there is mainstream debate, cf. Cochrane. All these results are the fruit of recent, "wide and serious study". In fact, the single best MEDRS there is -- Vickers et. al. (2012) -- concludes that acupuncture "is more than a placebo" and a reasonable referral option."

Diff: 10:25, 8 January 2015[35]

This brings us up to recent edits:

"Harrison's states that acupuncture is of some benefit in dysmennorhea, and lists it as a non-pharmaceutical treatment for pain in ADPKD and an adjunctive treatment in knee osteoarthritis, for which it "produces modest pain relief compared to placebo needles" According to Harrison's, acupuncture can be considered a useful adjunctive treatment in PTSD and comorbid depression in war veterans if, despite the lack of evidence, patients find it calming and relaxing."

Diff: 05:47, 5 January 2019[36]

Removed "Individuals with a conflict of interest (COI), particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

Diff: 07:48, 7 April 2019[37]

Again, I posted the above edits because I was asked to, not because I believe that they answer the question I asked. And I really am asking whether Middle 8 has a COI, not trying to prove that he does have a COI, so please put your flamethrowers down. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Middle 8 here. The advice from Jayron32 above is superb, but that's not (at all) what Guy Macon is doing. The diffs are selectively quoted (hence the wall of text and not just links), omitting material critical of acu, sources used, how I responded to any reverts, et cetera.

COI arises from one's off-wiki activities and not one's edits (a too-common misconception). Of course some of a non-COI editors' edits could be improper if they had a COI, but it's illogical (and unfair) to insinuate that such non-COI edits imply a COI. That's putting the are-my-edits-conflicted cart before the do-I-indeed-have-a-conflict horse. It's not how you handle either COI or editing concerns. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Another view

It seems to me that proponents of pseudoscience, in which category accupuncture clearly belongs, must be held to the highest standard when making claims about their particular brand of woo. For a start WP:MEDS ^{edit +}WP:MEDRS^{end edit} seems like a bare minimum when making claims about possible health treatments. Whether of not an editor is a practicing accupuncturist or whether or not they have a COI, all edits about such subjects need impeccible citing to reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia correctly subscribes to the mainline scientific view of such subjects and it is always going to be problematice when proponents edit in the areas of their particular interest. It is not akin to an engineer editing an article on engineering practice because there are going to be multiple RS to back up the engineer's claims. The same cannot be said for accupuncture. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC) edit to correct link - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nick, and will add that it is important for us to exercise a level of caution in order to avoid excluding well-sourced material our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia; i.e., all relevant views presented with proper weight and balance per NPOV. We provide the whole picture, not a Photoshopped version of it in an effort to pursuade readers to accept a particular POV - we simply present the facts with proper weight given to the scientific mainstream view. If material is poorly sourced, UNDUE, etc. it is subject to removal. If the editor in question has created disruption (such as 3RR or is repeatedly citing unreliable sources) or has acted uncivil (PAs, threats, etc.) in an effort to prevent removal of poorly sourced/UNDUE material, then you have an actionable behavioral issue, but I have not seen any evidence to support such a claim. Circumstantial evidence may establish patterned behavior but is the behavior actionable if there is no evidence to support an actionable claim? What I'm seeing is an editor with a professional perspective. What professional doesn't have a noticeable POV involving their chosen profession? NPOV tells us to include all relevant views published by/cited to RS so our readers can make their own determinations. Just curious...in comparison, do you consider Britannica's accupuncture article to be overly promotional or possibly authored by proponents of pseudoscience, or well-presented? Perhaps such a comparison will help answer your question about COI. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Good points that apply all around. When acupuncture has mainstream acceptance such as use in academic medical centers^[38] and the National Academy of Medicine calls it a "powerful tool" in pain management,^[39] perhaps the pseudoscience and quackery aspects shouldn't overwhelm our treatment of the subject and its practitioners and their possible COI's. One might wonder based on this thread, and the lede of acupuncture, how well we're doing that. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 02:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that Brittanica are parroting the chinagov deception that the Chinese use acu to anaesthetise patients for surgery. How accurate is the rest of that article? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What Britannica does is irrelevant to this issue, because they do not claim to follow anything like our WP:NPOV policy. Many of their articles are written by a single person and reflect that person's point of view. That is a feature, not a bug. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Re Atsme's insightful comment above about avoid excluding well-sourced material our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia and simply presenting the facts with proper weight given to the scientific mainstream view, in the cases of acupuncture, the proponents really do believe that the scientific mainstream view is far more favorable towards acupuncture than the Wiipedia article is.

As Upton Sinclair once observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it".

So, how do we reach a balance between avoiding the exclusion of well-sourced material and the natural tendency of someone like Middle 8 to not understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it? We simply require him to read and obey Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. Right now the problem is that he honestly believes that an RfC was closed with a conclusion that Best practices doesn't apply to him. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I do take COIADVICE seriously, and am careful, but I'm not 100% all-the-time bound by its mainspace-avoding-advice without a COI finding -- and it's disingenous to suggest I should have one in all but name. You may recall that you opened an RfC with me in mind that concluded (paraphrase, from one of the closing admins): The result of the RfC was that an alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner."^[40] Instead of forum-shopping and repeating old arguments from that RfC, please offer a reason why its result doesn't cover me -- IOW why my case is somehow more financially-connected than the default alt-med practitioner. Which per Ernst is small -- he thinks the idealogical "COI", almost evangelical fanaticism, is the much bigger problem. Which we call bad editing. If that's your concern about me, handle it the proper way, not underhandedly like this. Like an actual conversation on user talk, which you have been avoiding. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 23:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC); minor ce23:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC), 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC), clarify to avoid another soundbite 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel like you need to follow COIADVICE if, as appears to be the case, you have a good-faith belief that you don't have a COI and absent a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom that you do have one. And likewise JzG and Roxy shouldn't feel like they need to stop telling you to follow COIADVICE if, as appears to be the case, they have a good-faith belief that you do have a COI and absent a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom that you do have one.

It is clear from your disparaging comments about my filing this ANI case and about the second RfC that you do not want any definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom. You clearly want us to simply agree with your arguments. It is equally clear that Roxy (and I presume JzG) will never stop telling you that you have a COI and that you should follow COIADVICE unless they receive a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom telling them to stop doing that. So what do we do when editors are unable to agree about how to apply Wikipedia policy and ANI is unable to resolve this disagreement? We take it to arbcom, which I intend to do once this thread is auto-archived without a definitive answer.

Related discussion: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Is it impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop IDHT-ing and address the crux of the matter: exactly why I should be an exception to the RFC that you brought because of me. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 01:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ginjuice4445

Ginjuice4445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gab Dissenter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is an SPA exclusively editing on Gab (social network) and the closely related Gab Dissenter. ((43+10+242+2+20+6+2)/337 = 96% percent of their edits are on these pages, relevant talk pages, and admin noticeboard threads. They demonstrate an impressive degree of rejecting consensus and community input, most notably in this overwhelmingly rejected RfC they proposed for the replacement of well-sourced material for idiosyncratic, promotional interpretations completely unsupported by sources. In this RfC alone, they, per Softlavender[41], managed to produce 80 talk page posts within 29 hours. Aside from talk page sealioning and bludgeoning, they earned a month-long TBAN in January from Lord Roem for tendentious and disruptive editing, as well as continuing to edit war after being informed consensus on talk page. After I asked them to clarify if they have undeclared paid editing on March 2, they disappeared for a whole month, until today, when they, in direct violation of uw-paid, reverted a merger of the two articles [42][43] in violation of the consensus achieved at the merger RfC which they participated in, declaring in edit summary that "No consensus for merge on talk page, AT ALL". At this point I believe it is evident that this user is not here to improve the project, and only here to push a promotional POV in an extremely disruptive manner. Actions may be required to remedy this egregious WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE problem. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit is particularly egregious, because it's the exact opposite of what the close was.--Jorm (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I've fully protected the redirect, indefinitely. Should consensus change on that issue, it can be unprotected. Am looking at the rest of it now. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• If no diffs will be provided for alleged talk page disruption, a boomerang article ban should be considered. Tsumikiria has persistently made personal attacks on the talk page and is an overall net negative to the atmosphere there. FWIW, Ginjuice was wrongly T-banned in the first place in my opinion, while the paid editing concerns are very worrisome. wumbolo ^^^ 22:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oh please. You know how to look at his contribs; that's the point of saying "all of his contribs are to here." Do you want a diff link for each of the 80 talk page posts mentioned up there? --Jorm (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  If you don't think Tsumikiria has provided sufficient explanation or links, you could perhaps ask them to provide more direct links before jumping straight to proposing a boomerang article ban for what appears to be no reason (and, notably, with no diffs of your own). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Here are diffs:

Battleground mentality and WP:BITE (29 October 2018) – Oh you blame me for the shooting? When did I say I endorse them? Good job constructing a straw man, and congrats that this is your 5th ever edit on Wikipedia. [44]

PA (29 October 2018) – Plus your experience and concept of racism may be far limited. [45]

Straw man argument (31 October 2018) – If by "there" you mean we have to erase any mention of white supremacist membership and state up front that Gab is a completely innocent angel of free speech human rights etc, please, no. [46]

Completely unnecessary comment (5 November 2018) – If you believe that Wikipedia shouldn't present things that are not to your liking, you are free to continue your quest on finding somewhere that serves you better. Maybe Conservapedia. [47]

PA (22 November 2018) – It is understandable that you think your favorite gathering place is not getting good treatments, but your own opinion matters nothing to Wikipedia. [48]

PA (3 December 2018) – Wikipedia policies does not back your filibustering that suggests a motive of whitewashing your favorite website. [49]

Loaded question (18 December 2018) – D.Creish, are you ready to defend that "cuck", "f* off" and saying "build the wall" twice, first screenshot quote and second replying in the context of reading upon that the previously quoted person is a latino, isn't insult? [50]

Battleground mentality (20 January 2019) – I hope this will be your last attempt at warring to whitewash the page to your POV narrative, else you might be walking toward a topic ban. [51]

Battleground mentality (20 January 2019) – You just happend to find the PG source I added have a particular sentence that favors your viewpoint and used it to flip the article to your narrative. Stop. [52]

Issuing an ultimatum / AGF failure (21 January 2019) – We will not submit to your incessant sealioning texts, regardless of the number, and we're not obliged to respond to every one of them, either. [53]

Battleground mentality (21 January 2019) – On the other hand, this editor is rather reminiscent in their arguments and tactics, to the previous POV pusher on this page User:Ridiceo now site-banned by the comunnity, with plain denials, exhausting sealioning, and demands to others to work for them. This will certainly not be the last civil POV pusher we see here, but we're becoming adept at this. [54]

Completely uncivil comment (22 January 2019) - (emphasis mine) This editor is likely trying to score brownie points from Andrew Torba, so that their outright abuse of process here can be painted as some sort of heroic dissent being "censored" by evil Communist editors on Gab's Twitter account. The editor is heading towards a topic ban at the very least per the standard process under this kind of situation - and this is exactly the advertising opportunity Torba wants. He's certainly quite updated on this talk page's development and may have already engaged in conversation in this page. [55]

Snarky (supervote) comment in (involved) RfC close (15 February 2019) – The proposer's disruptive sealioning efforts aside, [...] [56]

Righting great wrongs (28 February 2019) – (emphasis mine) The fact that they specifically advertised for the use on Wikipedia is indicative that this is Torba's retaliation against his failed canvassing attempts here. And we're not going to give him another chance. [57]

I did not make accusations of other policy violations because that would be unnecessary. I'm not comfortable with these comments though: [...] writer of the website Popehat. This should definitely be noted. Shall I contact him for more source? [58] and I've contacted Michael Hayden myself. [59] (emphasis mine), I simply notified him the existence of this discussion and that we hope his collegue publish his story in a future work. [60] (emphases mine), esp. in light of Tsumikiria accusing others of COI editing. Also look at this edit, where Tsumikiria strikes comments made by an IP editor, citing an apparently fictional "CheckUser-confirmed block evader" while the IP has never been blocked. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's nice. And all these old diffs have WHAT, exactly, to do with User:Ginjuice4445, the actual topic of this thread? --Calton | Talk 17:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate this, although your analyses left out the context of those old discussions and would not be to the extent of being relevant and helpful to this thread other than potentially falling into tu quoque category. I've sure made mistakes. Joined last June, This is my first attempt to make major contributions to an article that isn't some subcultural video games and I have not read or informed of relevant guidelines until I was waist deep in the discussions. The first diff you cited, I was responding to someone calling me personally responsible for the October 2018 synagogue massacre. While the other things you cited for battleground mentality and else, in the presence of now-sanctioned WP:CPUSH editors, and SPAs, it'd be admirable if you could remain totally calm throughout, for that would be a difficult endeavour. The RfC close you protested, it was on an RfC that was almost unanimously opposed where the subject of this thread made those 80 posts within 29 hours. For the COI concern you mentioned, I was unaware of the COI guideline nor did I consulted another editor prior to tipping Hayden. The content in question were never published anywhere and were not for once added to the article. The comment by I striked where you commented "apparently fictional" was indeed made by a block evader who was checkuser rangeblocked by NinjaRobotPirate. They were previously blocked twice. Should you still wish to continue this discussion, it'd be a courtesy to start another section. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup crew and block needed for 123.150.182.X for WP:NOTHERE by tagging so many talk page to merge for not valid reason

• 123.150.182.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 123.150.182.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 123.150.182.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Talk:Federal Republic of Germany, Talk:Germany/Archive 24
• Talk:United Mexican States, Talk:Mexico/Archive 11
• Talk:Republic of Iraq, Talk:Iraq
• Talk:Persia, Talk:Islamic Republic of Iran, Talk:Persia/Archive 2 Talk:Iran/Archive 19
• Talk:Transleithania, Talk:Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918)
• Talk:Kingdom of Sweden (1809–1905), Talk:Kingdom of Norway (1814-1905) , Talk:Union between Sweden and Norway
• Talk:Siam, Talk:Thailand/Archive 3
• Talk:South Korea/Archive 10, Talk:South Korea
• Talk:Kingdom of Spain, Talk:Spain
  • list not yet complete

See also above section #3 IPs displaying signs of meatpuppetry/ sockpuppetry

But for this time, the ip tagging many talk page for no sense merge. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked Special:Contributions/123.150.182.0/24 for one month. The merge tags on the talk archive pages are nonsensical. There might conceivably be some valid edits among their contributions, but see also the earlier ANI about '3 IPs displaying signs of meatpuppetry'. 20:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)EdJohnston (talk)

Is this BKFIP?

Special:Contributions/82.15.21.214, notably this and this among recent edits. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Could be, but it doesn't geolocate to BKFIP's usual location. I don't see a lot wrong with those edits, either, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, that is standard for BKFIP -- many of their edits are defensible on the merits. In this case, the edit to Sylvester is not: some contributions really are fundamental and described as such in good sources, and some roles really are leadership roles and described as such in good sources. Also, saying that "the school of utilitarianism [was] later mentioned by Jeremy Bentham" is obviously less accurate and meaningful than "the school of utilitarianism [was] later made famous by Jeremy Bentham". Possibly third alternatives would be better in both cases. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Nliz and bot accounts

Nliz (talk · contribs)

Hello Nliz, I hope that you do not mind me posting here. You seem friendly enough and thanks for posting to my talk page. We sometimes get bots doing odd experiments on Wikipedia and I was wondering if you were human.

To everyone else - all of Nliz's edits look the same.

• special:diff/891706704
• special:diff/837008824
• special:diff/831382141

Thoughts? How do we engage with contributors like this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess we could see if Nliz responds here, but this doesn't look like someone who has ever made a constructive edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Changing ethnicities to "Jewish" by IP range

Related previous filing in in the archives.

An IP editor from the 185.113.0.0/16 range continues to change ethnicities from "FOOBAR" to "Jewish". Most recent example is [61]. Past IP edit examples: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68].

The motive behind these edits is unclear (anti-Semitic? Zionist?).

These edits from this range are sparse, so a range block would be inappropriate. I'm honestly not sure if there is anything that can be done (edit filter maybe?) but figured I should let admins know about it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing a person's ethnicity to "Jewish" has at times created a lot of negative feedback. There was an enormous to-do over indicating Bernie Sanders is Jewish back in 2016. But there are different reasons for this reluctance so I, for one, would have to know why the IP editor was insistent over changing this aspect of a bio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "ethnicity" but rather changing what was previously a person's nationality or citizenship to "Jewish" in the lead sentence of a BLP. This is inherently disruptive because it promotes the inference that Jews are not legitimate citizens of the countries where they live and hold legal citizenship. The comparison to the 2016 "Is Bernie Sanders Jewish?" controversy on Wikipedia is not valid. Not one single editor ever advocated that the lead sentence of his biography should be changed from describing him as an American politician to a Jewish politician. In brief, the issue was instead whether an ethnic Jew who is not religiously observant should be described as "Jewish" in the infobox, which implies religious affiliation. That was a far more nuanced and intelligent discussion and completely different from going to articles about Swedish citizens and American citizens, removing their citizenship, and calling them "Jewish" instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts mirror yours. It can easily be read as anti semitic. But even if it's not and we agf, it's at least disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It possibly didn't help that the first example was simply changing transatlantic to Jewish while preserving the British and American bit. The other examples more clearly illustrate the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir The relevant range is Special:Contributions/185.113.97.195/22, which still has a decent bit of other editing but is much more reasonable to be blocking. Judging by this unsurprising edit on the same IP as some of those edits, I think Liz's question should be answered. Anyhow, I'm testing on Special:AbuseFilter/953 a general filter to track labelling of people as "Jewish" in the lead (since this occurs more often than it reasonably should..). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I see you've blocked 97.195; did you mean to block the range? I've also blocked 98.123 which was making the same edits. Looking through the range's contributions, while there is some productive editing there, I'm not absolutely convinced there's more than one editor behind it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I meant to block the IP, not the range; the politics related edits are quite possibly the same person but there's enough various editing stretching back years that I think rest is other people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I lack the technical familiarity to evaluate whether the test filter is working, but provided it only provides a list of edits for humans to scrutinize (rather than warning editors not to say "Jewish", of course!) then this is a rare case where an edit filter actually seems warranted. This seems like a classic anti-Semitic focus (compare (((echo)))) and the distortion done to articles, including by the incidental removal of adjectives replaced, is significant. Of course, Wikipedia articles should always welcome sourced information about persons' religion and ethnicity, properly added by human editors. Wnt (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear the edits aren't intended in a positive way; this same editor is also interested in making it clear that Kurds are also not "real" Swedes (e.g. here). This edit clarifies why the editor makes these edits; it also shows that the editor edits from other IP ranges (in this case Special:Contributions/130.238.98.89), and that they've been at it for years, and seem unlikely to stop. If an edit filter can stop this, it seems like the best solution. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the edit filter as a means to flag possible problematic edits, but not as a means to disallow or warn for such edits. Users may legitimately be adding information on someone's Jewish religion or ethnicity to a lead sentence, for example a person who is a noted Jewish theologian or rabbi or something like that, and I'm not sure the edit filter could distinguish between such appropriate, good-faith edits and this sort of pointy flagging of Jewish people that our Swedish friend seems to be bent on doing. If we flag the edits, and have a place that collects the flagged edits for review, we have something that helps real humans solve the problem. --Jayron32 15:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm resurrecting this thread, because I noticed yet another edit by this relentless editor, made today. Since they have dynamic IP addresses, blocking each one clearly won't help much. @Galobtter:, can we get that filter? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There is already this public filter Special:AbuseFilter/953 for Jewish, but even as a means of tracking it has the unfortunate problem of a high false positive rate [69]. This also doesn't help with stuff like Kurdish etc of course, I assume likely targets could be added but of course the more you add the more false positives you'll receive.. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see that while it does catch the problem edits, the false-positive rate is too high. User:Galobtter, is there a way of having the filter only look for the word "Jew" or "Jewish" in the article's first sentence? That will basically catch all the real problems, without the false-positives. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jayjg and Nil Einne:, the filter is now improved at 982; the version at 953 was an initial version which was deliberately broad so that there aren't any false negatives. Checking only the first sentence is a more difficult than you'd think for a filter to do, but the version at 982 should do close enough to that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruption by Es204L

• Es204L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I hate to bring this up for a second time, but Es204L is continuing to cause problems. The first discussion may be found here.

Refusal to respond to the first ANI

The problem I have is the fact that the user "left", only to return about 10 days later. He continued to edit despite being told:

• Please edit no further till you discuss all this at WP:ANI and these issues are resolved. DlohCierekim (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  You have edited without responding at ANI. Communication is required. Please respond before making further edits or I will be forced to block you. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The user never did respond to the first ANI discussion and it auto-archived without any actions having been taken. The user has been editing on a regular basis ever since. This is clearly in violation of the admin's instructions. @Dlohcierekim:

New additions of unsourced content/vandalism

• changed the death count for a storm without sources
• changed total again
• changed total once more
• removed a note and changed total without a source
• changed total without a source

These edits may seem minor, but they are very disruptive to the project as people have to consistently revert them in order to maintain accurate and truthful material. There may be more than what I have linked above. Those are the ones I know of currently. Please let me know what your thoughts are. Noah^Talk 23:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The issues pointed out in the first ANI have clearly continued, and are definitely disruptive to the project. The user's continued inability to cite sources with their edits, as well as communicate and respond to messages and concerns regarding these issues, are not acceptable. Given the number of discussions that have been opened about this, and the number of messages and changes that have been given to the user to respond and work to improve their edits that have gone ignored - it's clear that this issue will only continue unless administrative action is taken in order to prevent additional problems. Given what I've seen and found in this (and the previous) ANI discussion, I've blocked Es204L for two weeks. This will hopefully put the appropriate brakes on this user, and be what's needed to nudge him/her to improve their edits and communicate. If not, a longer block can easily be applied in the future if necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo

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

E. W. Priestap was the assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division from 2015 to 2018. Testimony given by him to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russian officials had used "fake news and propaganda" during the campaign for the U.S. presidential election in 2016, seems entirely relevant to his article. Editor Ahrtoodeetoo has removed the statement, as he has done three times previously with similar information [70], [71] and [72] (4 reverts in total). These reversions are against policy. The matter has been discussed on the article talk page without success. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth has refused to explain how this material is encyclopedic / biographically significant (i.e. satisfies WP:NOT) and instead has repeatedly DEMANDED that I restore the content. I suspect they don’t understand how to build consensus and so have resorted to foot stomping. I am on vacation with limited bandwidth through April 17. R2 (bleep) 14:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this what you're calling "demanding"? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking more of this. R2 (bleep) 19:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Still seems like a polite request to me. He says "please" and even calls it a request. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've applied full protection to the article in order to direct all users involved in the dispute to discuss the issue and come to a consensus together. Please follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and work things out on the article's talk page. This is the administrative action necessary as far as action that will be taken here; everyone needs to discuss the matter here. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Before anyone here asks or bring this up: No, the current revision will remain as-is during the time that the article is protected. Unless there's a serious violation of policy present on the current revision (BLP violation, copyright violation, etc), changing the article to a "better revision" would be inappropriate for me to do (unless consensus by all editors involved agree and point to a revision on the article's talk page). Otherwise, I'd be choosing sides in the dispute and favoring one side over the other by changing it. That's the "luck of the draw" when it comes to full protection; whatever the current revision happens to be at the time is the revision that stays. Sorry... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I am disappointed in the outcome of this thread which was supposed to be about the aggressive behaviour of editor Ahrtoodeetoo. Instead of reprimanding him for his behaviour in repeatedly removing reliably-sourced material, you have rewarded him by protecting the article in its reduced form. Please could you instead consider whether there is any merit in his claim that the material he removed was unencyclopedic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth - This appeared to be a content dispute to me, but I'll be happy to take another look and review the edits that Ahrtoodeetoo made again. Stand by... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth - While I feel that Ahrtoodeetoo's removal of content is a bit aggressive, his arguments behind the reason for removing the content appear to be in good faith and with the belief that there are issues with the content and the references cited. Therefore, I stand behind my decision that this is a content-related matter that needs to be discussed and worked out on the article's talk page. Administrators who are acting in the capacity of their responsibilities on this noticeboard and in a discussion like this one (where the issue is content-related and not a matter of resolving policy or guideline violations) aren't going to respond by choosing a side and a favorable revision and work to bring the article to that revision. That would be a very inappropriate thing for them to do. Their responsibility in this situation is to stop the disruption and edit warring, determine what the root issue is regarding the edits and the dispute, take the appropriate actions (if applicable), and send the involved editors to the aritcle's talk page to work things out. Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol is the guideline to follow, and if Ahrtoodeetoo is failing to discuss the dispute with you on the article's talk page and work with you to come to an agreement or consensus, then this is another issue that can be looked into. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive timeline editing

User:XxCrunchY is making continued disruptive edits to the Slipknot timeline without any discussion in the talk page. He has not sought consensus for his changes and they are considered disruptive due to his repeated attempts to make changes. MetalDylan (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see now that this isn't the first instance of disruptive by this user according to their talk page. MetalDylan (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

XxCrunchY, why aren't you responding to the messages left on your user talk page? Why aren't you trying to work with the other editors to address the concerns regarding your edits to Slipknot (band)? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a mean comment made a decade ago?

On April 8, User:Enigmaman blocked User:Ribbon Salminen for "repeated personal attacks" first for three years and then for one year. That account has not made an edit for over a year. Looking through Enigmaman's edits, following the block he made this comment to a nearly ten-year old discussion, including a diff where the blocked user made an admittedly mean comment about him. The comment is also listed on one of Enigmaman's subpages. That comment was made literally a decade ago and led to a block back then. I don't see how Enigmaman's new block follows any blocking policy at all. For full disclosure, the blocked account is my old account, before I did a WP:CLEANSTART. I'm not particularly happy about outing myself, but this was such weird behavior from an admin that I felt I had to do something. I would like the block removed although I have no intention of returning to the old account. I tried to reach out to Enigmaman, but heard nothing but silence. [REDACTED - Oshwah] 17:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: I've redacted and suppressed the identity of the creator of this discussion. It's clear that he/she self-outed themselves very reluctantly, and in order to file this report here. In order to protect the identity of the user following their clean start and to keep the user's identity private until they willingly disclose this information publicly, this action was determined to be necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked. If you had just asked, I would've unblocked, although I'm confused about the motivation. Enigma^msg 17:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, Enigmaman, but that's all you've got to say for yourself? I'm confused about your motivation. EEng 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC) And you shouldn't be closing a thread that's about your own behavior. [73]

You were asked. And it's your motivation that seems much more confusing. You obviously made a bad mistake here, and pretending that you didn't only makes it much worse. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The user couldn't have asked without risking self-disclosure of their identity and connection to the account. They felt the need to discuss it here instead, and obviously for good reason; unfortunately, they had to self-disclose their identity following a clean start in order to do so (which I've resolved). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oh wow this is an incredibly bad block which requires a very good explanation. GiantSnowman 19:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• A 3 year block (that was lowered to a year) for an editor that hasn’t edited since January of 2018? Could you show the personal attack that led to this block? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: Please explain your actions here. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Enigmaman making a bad block needs an explanation as well as an apology to the community. Closing the thread about your behavior is every bit as egregious. Please respond to the concerns here and try to restore some sense of trust in your ability to act responsibly as an admin. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't even see where an explanation is needed. This is blatant retaliation and grudging. Look at the timeline:

• 20:14 8 April, Enigmaman updates his "disaster" page. On that same page, he has preserved a diff of this 2009 personal attack by Ribbon Salminen.
• Three minutes later, he blocks Ribbon Salminen, a highly established account in good standing, that has not edited in well over a year and was supposedly retired. The block was a draconian 1 year, for "repeated personal attacks", reduced from an initial decision to block for 3 years. Enigma did not provide the required block notification. Enigma also deleted Ribbon's talk page header, in violation of WP:TPO.[74]
• A few minutes later, he responds to a comment from 2009 and posts the diff of the personal attack.[75]

This would have gone undetected if not for the fact that the user has cleanstarted. The abusive block forced the user to out their connection. Enigma admits that they would have unblocked if simply asked, which means they're not even trying to pretend that there was any legitimate justification for the block. Yet, they suggest that the user has some sort of questionable motivation? This is a serious issue. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Enigmaman - I like you a lot as a person and respect you completely, but man... as an uninvolved editor and admin reading through this thread, you do need to answer the numerous calls for an explanation here, and you do need to fully outline and explain this block and what happened. My guess is that you didn't realize how old the comment was, thought it was recent by mistake, and applied a block accordingly. Even if this were the case, why such a long block duration? Three years? Even one year is quite a long time... what was the reason behind such a long block? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• When I first arrived at this thread, this seemed like very strange behaviour on the part of the blocking admin. Then I came across their first two unsuccessful RfAs — Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2. The phrase "intentionally deceptive" used by one of the !voters struck out. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington - Lets not dive into past RFA discussions and use decade-old comments to imply any accusations or a connection to this situation without a clear explanation of a connection and reason for doing so. I don't think that it's constructive or relevant here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have posted these under ordinary circumstances. However, the observations and evidences presented in the RfAs taken together with this latest example of what appears to be an egregious abuse of power (as highlighted by Swarm above), combined with their deceptive response when questioned about it, suggests a long-term pattern of abuse. This means that, at the very least, their recent administrative actions need to be reviewed by the community. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 00:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington - Thank you for responding and providing additional thought and clarity regarding your original comment. It's helpful in that others will understand your thoughts and the connection you're seeing, rather than possibly seeing it as an implied accusation based on completely random things. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing this to the community’s attention, R2, even at the risk of “outting” yourself (and a thank you to Oshwah for amending that). If this is indeed retaliatory, it’s an egregious breach of community trust, and an obvious misuse of tools. And given what Swarm came across when looking at the block, I’m not sure we should immediately assume good faith here. Per ADMINACCT, User:Enigmaman should explain both blocks, which are indeed rather Draconian. Even if others feel a block was appropriate in either case, rather than mediation or any number of other ways to reach a problematic editor, or correct disruptive behaviour... YEARS(s) should never be an administrator’s first resort. Given the user page, two severe blocks within a short duration, and one in which the user was obviously absent (who doesn’t check the contributions page?), I have to wonder if there are other blocks that should be reversed as well. Please explain yourself. (Non-admin here, obviously. I just find this concerning). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  You might be onto something. I decided to take a look at some of Enigmaman's recently issued blocks, and almost instantly stumbled upon this block, undone by User:Boing!_said_Zebedee as "bad block." Can't say I'm surprised. The question isn't "if" but "how many." Disgusting. 78.28.54.200 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oh dear, yes, that one. The context is at User talk:Bloger#Yet another warning, and my unblock rationale was that "This was clear abuse of admin rights in a content dispute". An utter disgrace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I remember that discussion; I notice that Enigmaman also abused the rollback tool in a content dispute, and I think the only reason I didn't undo the block myself is I wanted his explanation first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This is very disappointing to see - especially knowing that further investigation may find more issues and discover that this is an ongoing trend. Boing! said Zebedee, was there an ANI or noticeboard discussion regarding this block and unblock? Or just what I'm seeing in this section of Bloger's user talk page? Did Enigmaman offer an explanation or apology following this block that was satisfactory? Where was it made? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That's all there was that I know of - I just saw Bloger's unblock request when checking CAT:RFU, and there was no subsequent response from Enigmaman anywhere that I saw. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee - Aww, that's not good. There appears to be a possible trend with Enigmaman performing bad blocks, and Enigmaman's inability to take control, follow up, explain what happened, and own up and apologize (what I'd expect to see per WP:ADMINACCT). Not good... very concerning to see. I also don't like the way he followed up after applying the block either. All things aside regarding the situation and block, we shouldn't be feeding trolls or see my clarification below making comments that will exacerbate the situation and lead to more disruption in retaliation by the recipient. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What trolls, Oshwah? I know some random tend to circle the admins like sharks, but I don’t think that’s the case here. There’s a few terse comments, but I think this genuinely comes from a bit of a shock. As I said, I’d rather people review and reflect themselves, and let Enigmaman respond. As well as keep an open mind. But this is still really concerning, even if all good faith is assumed. There’s very likely either a misuse/abuse of admin privileges, or a CIR issue, which requires attention. Barring some response I can’t foresee of course. There’s no need to “pile on”, but I think people should be able to voice legitimate concerns. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus - To clarify that statement: "Even if you put this situation aside and assume that it's a normal block against a vandal editor, we're not supposed to feed trolls." I was simply saying that the comment was in poor taste regardless of the legitimacy of the block and the situation that warranted it. That's all; I wasn't trying to imply or call anyone a troll here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense now, thank you. I guess the wording just threw me, Oshwah. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right; it really wasn't worded that well. That was my fault, not yours... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(re-indenting): Apologies is this is just some reference to trolling or an essay (aside from the obvious) I’m unaware of. I watch these boards regularly, but I’ve rarely commented. I don’t really know what sorts of issues you guys run into here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I’d recommend admins and editors just read his current talk page as well. There seems to be some concern among others regarding the severity of even his most recent admin actions. Not trying to prejudice any opinions here, but it does seem there’s a pattern of people asking why certain actions were taken, and rolling it back. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

And your account is an HOUR old? Who were you before? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The answer to your question can be found on the user's userpage. Let's not change the subject. 78.28.54.200 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Liz, we've met before. I've been on Wikipedia for like... A decade, though editing infrequently. You'll understand if you check my first registered account, Quinto Simmaco. TLDR: I've edited so infrequently I've had to make an alternate account due to inaccessibility, essentially. It's all on the up-and-up. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm reviewing Enigma's block logs, and inappropriate blocking practices seem to be the rule, rather than the exception:

• No notification, block log entry of "made better" (a personal pot-shot)[76]
• No notification, personal attack in block log entry[77]
• No notification, bizarre block duration, personal attack in log entry[78]
• No notification, no block log entry[79]
• Personal attack in notification[80]
• No block log entry[81]

It seems Enigma's been getting away with petty misconduct for so long, that he's started venturing out into making blatantly illegitimate blocks for personal vengeance. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I should note that Enigma virtually never notifies users he blocks, which is something that is required by blocking policy. Looking into his other logs, I'm already seeing bizarre behavior in other areas too. For example, he indefinitely extended confirmed protected the redirect Audrey Geisel, which was being vandalized. ECP, much less indef ECP, did not appear to be necessary. When you examine the deleted contributions, you can see that there was no disruption from autoconfirmed accounts, and the period that the redirect was subject to vandalism was fairly brief. But, in conjunction with his indef ECP, he bizarrely deleted the page and then selectively restored only the non-disruptive edits. Therefore, no one other than admins can see the evidence as to why the page was locked. Cleaning up an edit history seems fine, but when that edit history pertains directly to an admin action, it's unacceptable. I don't have time to keep digging right now, but I doubt this is the last inappropriate behavior I'll be able to find. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, since this is the second time it's been mentioned. From WP:EXPLAINBLOCK: "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked...Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page..." The clear block reason is required, a talk page notification is only recommended. ST47 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    • If a policy says you "should" do something, that does not suggest that it is optional. Nothing about the word "should" implies "optional recommendation". It is, by definition, an obligation, or a duty, the opposite of an "optional recommendation". "Should generally" or "should usually" would imply that exceptions can be made, but even if you extremely stretch your interpretation to that extent, we're not dealing with exceptions. Even if it's merely "general guidance" in which exceptions can be made (a dubious suggestion to begin with, but I'm humoring you), that still does not give one license to engage in an extended pattern of ignoring policy guidance. Regardless, I don't think your semantics would hold up at Arbcom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarm (talk • contribs) 01:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
      • That is a very interesting linguistic opinion based on literally just half of the first definition given for that word. In any event, if an action is required without exception, you should change the wording in the policy to "must". Otherwise it's still just a suggestion. Though I would agree that habitually ignoring best practices for no good reason is a problem. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The very first definition is simply “to have an obligation”. That is literally the opposite of “to be advised”. There’s no convincing linguistic ambiguity here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the first half of the first definition. The back end of the first definition already casts doubt on that. As do definitions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the usage notes. "Should" != "must", and if you think that a should is a must, then you should (must?) change it. Plenty of Wikipedia policies use the word "must", while others use "should". This is not an accident, and they are not synonyms, and this shouldn't be the topic here anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Since there is confusion, let's clarify: if you've been adminning for any length of time, it is clear from context (i.e. how the policy is applied) is that should is used in the "it's highly recommended, though clearly there would be exceptions" realm, RATHER than the "you must do this under penalty of death" realm. To wit: for most "garden variety" blocks (i.e. standard vandalism, edit warring, gross misconduct and abuse, etc.) we always notify, or must try to. However, there are also clearly times when notification is not necessary, usually when blocking a long banned user who jumps IP addresses rapidly. In those cases, there comes a point when leaving notice is just silly, and we WP:RBI and move on. So yes, we leave notice (and I will note that every block by Enigmaman so presented above seems to be those types that mandate rather than suggest a block notice), HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that there aren't times when leaving a notice is not only unnecessary, but probably counterproductive. Carry on.--Jayron32 13:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This sort of pedantic dithering about the definition and philosophy regarding the word "should" is fucking stupid. If a policy says you "should" do something, then you "should" do something. The intent is not to ignore what it says, just because you can put up some flimsy, pseudointellectual semantical debate. If your only realistic defense for consistently ignoring a policy directive is to debate the semantics of the word "should", then you're almost certainly the problem. ~Swarm~ ^{[[User talk:|{sting}]]} 08:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In other words, when we’re looking at literal, blatant admin abuse, context like this becomes very relevant. To argue that an admin is repeatedly ignoring policy guidance, rather than a policy mandate, does not improve the big picture. To do so from a pedantic, semantical point of contention, that’s just ridiculously petty. I’d be happy to debate semantics of the world “should” all day, but not when we’re worried about an abusive admin. If you think now is the time to debate such a petty, inconsequential semantical point, then you’re clearly more focused on playing devil’s advocate, and engaging in dramamongering itself, than actually examining and resolving the big picture. Carry on. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• • While there's clearly an issue with the Ribbon Salminen salminen block, the routine vandal blocks without talkpage notice are not really an issue in my view. For obvious vandal-only accounts or whackamole socks I don't leave talkpage notices either. It's not a matter of whether some policy text says "should" or "must"; it's a matter of common sense. Real vandals know why they are getting blocked, there's no need to tell them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: This is my working practice as well - when somebody is defacing an article with "poohead", they do not need a template. WP:DENY. However, I also use the stock rationale of "Vandalism", "Disruptive editing" or "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" - snarky comments in block notices are completely unacceptable. Do not insult the vandals. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This. Let's not let the talkpage notification issue distract from the far more serious one. GAB^gab 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Enigmaman. I'm going to be brief and direct. This looks really bad. You need to do one of two things. Post a serious explanation for your recent and highly controversial use of the tools and be prepared to answer what I am guessing will be a lot of questions from the community and your fellow admins. Alternatively I suggest an abject apology coupled with your resignation as an admin. Anything else is not likely to end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ad Orientem is correct here. With what's been uncovered so far in this discussion and in the short amount of time it's been open, this will very likely become an ArbCom case to have the committee review your use of blocks and conduct surrounding them, as well as WP:ADMINACCT. The community's trust, as expressed here, has been strongly shaken regarding your ability to hold and appropriately use the admin tools. As summarized many times above and by most users who have responded here: This is really bad. :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Please excuse me from ANI, I have a cough."

The Centers for Disease Control are predicting a time-limited micro-localized outbreak of ANI flu starting immediately: computer models forecast that only a single admin will be affected, and that the sufferer will suddenly recover a day or two after this thread closes. The most prominent symptom, of course, is a sudden inability to communicate. EEng 02:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

In this case, the flu could be fatal. I don't want to come across as giving an ultimatum, but this is not going away w/o one of hell of an explanation. And I don't think there is going to be a lot patience waiting for it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the amount of issues that have been uncovered in this discussion, I think that an ArbCom case is warranted regardless of the explanation provided for the block that let to the creation of this discussion (and even others). There seems to be too many separate cases and issues regarding the use of admin tools to consider otherwise... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

What a miracle it would be if just once an admin in this situation were to save the community the trouble by resigning without fuss. EEng 03:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Why has no Admin not closed this thread as "nothing to do here" yet? Follow normal procedure people! Legacypac (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The thread remains open in case Enigmaman wishes to respond. It is also useful to keep others aware to be on the lookout in case a new bad block is made in which case a WP:PREVENTATIVE block should be placed on Enigmaman MarnetteD|Talk 04:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion is open to allow input from the community regarding this situation and Enigmaman's use of admin tools. We're also waiting for Enigmaman to respond to this discussion. Closing it would be inappropriate. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, jeesh. Lpac was being sarcastic. EEng 07:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh. :-) My bad then... I thought to myself that this was a weird response to add here... this explains why... XD ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• The pattern of conduct here and the deafening silence means an ArbCom case is likely necessary. GiantSnowman 07:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  At what point do we go "yep... they're not gonna respond and they've got the flu" like Eeng said above and just file that ArbCom case? I'll do so now... but I don't wanna look like I'm assuming bad faith. I kinda feel like regardless they need to provide these answers within an ArbCom case. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since his comments here 15 hours ago (ish, if my maths is correct) - his editing pattern shows him online and editing just about every day, so give it a few more hours. If still silent, then I think it's fair to assume he is putting his head in the sand... GiantSnowman 08:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've also emailed him - "It would be really helpful if you could please return and comment on the ANI thread. I understand this must be a concerning time, but ignoring it won't help." GiantSnowman 08:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a case of ANI runny nose. EEng 08:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eng AN/I is generally just fake news. XD Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's quite likely that Enigmaman is in the United States, which would mean that he's probably asleep at the moment. I think we should wait for 24 hours plus a few since his last edit before taking this to Arbcom. Maybe the miracle that EEng described above will happen. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

He did not edit since his edits in this thread, and the editing pattern shows he is typically making several edits per day. I would say waiting for a couple of days (assuming he has not edited in the meanwhile) seems quite reasonable to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that an ArbCom case would be a fair next course of action, regardless of Enigmaman's responses here. A case request at ArbCom doesn't have to be made and decided based off of the issues alone (although that's a very key part in the formulation of a good request); it should also examine and take into account the amount of trust and confidence that the community currently has regarding Enigmaman and his/her ability to hold the admin user rights. If that community trust and confidence is clearly shaken or comes into question (no doubt it certainly has), ArbCom has generally accepted these case requests regarding admins and their conduct and tool use in order to evaluate everything from all angles, and impose binding decisions and sanctions that the committee feels is necessary or needed in order to put a stop to the issues and prevent future problems (whether that be restrictions, bans, or the removal of the tools altogether). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Apart from the Audrey Geisel indef protection pointed out above, there's also

• 2017–18 Los Angeles Lakers season, which was indef-protected more than a fortnight after the last vandalism and remains so till date... I couldn't notice any long-time disruption on the article to warrant an indef-protection. I may be wrong.[82]
• Tim Hardaway Jr. – again, indefinite protection with the explanation "trade rumors" of an article that has been protected only once in its lifetime for a week. No vandalism reverted.[83]
• User:Anonymous editor – indef-protecting the user page of a user who last edited in 2006, with an explanation "no reason for this".[84]
• User talk:PMDrive1061 – indef-protecting the user talk page of a user who last edited in 2014, with no explanation,[85], and bringing back a talk page that the user had already taken out years ago (explanation provided: "talk").[86]

There are many other examples; I'm just tired of trawling to say what is obvious. Something's funny and we should probably get this done without delay. Lourdes 09:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Uhm, the userspace log entries you listed above aren't "protections", they are essentially "unprotections", i.e. changes of old indef-full-protected pages to semiprotection. Those seem not unreasonable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The protection of PMDrive1061's talk was placed by DeltaQuad in 2011 with the rationale "User has left, pages have been targets below, no opposition to unprotection if required/requested by user" (emphasis mine). No reason was given for the unprotection, and the only reason Enigmaman did it was because of this RFPP comment that mentioned "Admin PMDrive1061 who locked it [ Alex Olson ] is retired". Unprotection was neither required or requested by PMDrive1061. Certainly nobody asked for Enigmaman to remove the retired template. If somebody's retired, respect their wishes, don't just unilaterally use your tools on what you think should be done without any discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Arbcom case, please. I had a quick look at Enigmaman's contributions. Immediately I see him deleting Audrey Geisel with a rationale of "this does not need a page" (in whose opinion?), and when restoring it after being asked politely which CSD criteria he was using, extended confirmed protected with the rationale "disruptive edits" (where exactly and from whom?) and deleting a whole bunch of edits from it (although the edits were mostly vandalism and reverts thereof, policy is only to redact / oversight in extreme instances, never delete entirely). Then we have User:Martinb22/sandbox deleted with a summary of "mental handicap" (WP:NPA?) and Draft:List of rulers of the Gurma Mossi state of Pama with the rationale "bot pestering me" (what CSD criteria is that?) That's a total dog's breakfast and several policy violations in ten minutes of looking. I notice Swarm has already mentioned some of this above, and I apologise for only skim reading the thread before doing my own research; still it proves that at least two admins have concluded there is a problem. Enigmaman, you need to get back to this thread ASAP and, in the words of Blackadder, I would advise you to make the explanation you are about to give... phenomenally good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That "mental handicap" comment added to the deletion reason is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of the situation. Even if Enigmaman was G5'ing a page created by an LTA user causing severe abuse and disruption, comments like these - especially in admin actions - will only feed the troll and encourage them to continue what they're doing. Definitely not behavior that I expect to see from an admin... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not happy about Enigmaman's adjudication on Peter Lemongello, where he blocked the IP who credibly asserted to be Lemongello, while the other party in the edit war (restoring claims of kidnapping and arson cited to People magazine with equally incivil edit summaries), Vinylstud97 (talk · contribs) got off scot free. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• And, generally, I am not a fan of crowds with pitchforks. I did not look at all the details, though diffs which I checked indeed look problematic. However, as a complement to problematic diffs, I would like to see evidence that the problems have been pointed to / discussed with the administrator, and they did not (or, actually, did) correct their behavior. This might be or might not be the case here, but generally for most administrators one can find diffs of some actions they were not really proud of. If indeed an ArbCom case is filed, an important part of the case must be an investigation how they reacted when the problem has been pointed out to them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter - I agree. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes Ymblanter, I agree too, but given the number and seeming egregiousness of the problematic actions, the absence of such discussions certainly would not preclude some sanction by ArbCom. Paul August ☎ 15:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with Paul August here. There are many things to take into an account when looking into cases such as this. As stated by Ymblanter: Whether or not the user (in general, not referring specifically to Enigmaman) has been given the chance (or how many chances and opportunities were given) to improve their edits and behavior following feedback and notices left asking them to stop is something that certainly can be examined and taken into account by the community (if they choose to do so). Another aspect: Whether or not the user, given the feedback or notices left about issues or problems with their edits or actions in the past, have honored such feedback and actually ceased such issues or behaviors and stopped them from happening again. However, as Paul August and many others have pointed out here: judging the issues as a whole will be a balance between these different viewpoints. Whether or not the user was asked to stop the behavior before, and how the user has responded to feedback in the past and worked to put an end to issues - are aspects that can only be considered up to a point depending on the issues and problems. If the issues are eggregious, severe, neglegent, or abusive enough (again, I'm speaking in general and not specifically referring to Enigmaman) - these aspects begin to lose their importance, relevance, and their consideration by the community... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think we are in full agreement here (again, I did not really look into the case and did not try to find the diffs). For example, it is pretty clear that if an admin vandalized a page and reverted the vandalism revert (or made sure vandalism was not accidental) they must be desysopped, and no feedback is needed. And there is the whole range between this and blocking someone for 48 hours rather than following the usual practice of 24 hours. Without looking at the details, I do not know where we are here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

And administrators are expected to keep themselves up to date with policy and expectations? If Enigma's actions encroached into gray areas, areas of doubt, then it would be unfair to expect a behavioural change without previous advice. But, man. Most of this stuff is blatantly out of line; calling people "useless", e.g., should not need to be advised against. ——SerialNumber54129 15:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• There's a few really odd blocks in there as well. Not wrong as such, just weird. here's an account inserting really unpleasant anti-semitic material, an obvious indef - blocked for 9 1/2 months (?). Or obvious spammers - these should also be indeffed - this one got 1 year but this one only 48 hours. Strange. Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Er, what? Enigmaman blocked someone for one year for one edit that wasn't blatant vandalism? The user was trying to put a link to a match in the article, merely in the wrong place. Easy newbie mistake. Unless that was a checkuser block, or an obvious link to a LTA case, that's complete and utter overkill. Anyway, that's enough with the torches and pitchforks, we now need a response. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Fsdget345 (talk · contribs) was probably also editing as 180.245.126.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which would explain the block (assuming the link qualifies as spam). Abecedare (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a link to an illegal Internet stream of a boxing match. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ben reviewing this and it looks, like, really bad not sure anyone documented this one yet: "21:08, 20 January 2019 Enigmaman (talk | contribs | block) blocked The Guy From Your Local Walmart (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 1 decade, 2 years, 2 hours, 9 minutes and 36 seconds (account creation blocked) (Vandalism-only account: complete twit)" so add that to the pile of weird block with unecessary personal attacks. As someone who, sadly, has particpated in a number of arbcom cases involving admin abuse, both as a party and an arbitrator, I do think there is a case here that the committee would accept, given the amount of evidence already present in this thread and Eningmaman's aparent reluctance to address these issues. (but I'd really like it if someone else were the "designated asshole" who file it and presents the evidence this time around.) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Beeblebrox - With deep disappointment and regret, I can be that person and file a request at ArbCom. I think that a request and case is warranted given all of the issues uncovered here. They're too plentiful in number and too concerning and against policy to argue otherwise... :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support opening an Arbcom case with much regret. Enigmaman has had sufficient time to post something... even if just a "Hey everybody, I need a little time to lay out a response." Also I very strongly suggest that Enigmaman refrain from any use of the tools until this business is resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• I am going to go against the crowd here and say that unless there is reason for emergency action to stop ongoing abuse, any user should get at least three days (a week is better) to respond to an ANI filing that has no previous warnings. People take long weekends off. They have computer failures or ISP problems that take a few days to fix. They spend a couple of nights in jail. They have to drop everything to travel out of state because of an unexpected death. Or maybe they just need two or three days to think about it before resigning under a cloud and ending the ANI case that way. Enigmaman has 12 years and 40,000 edits with a clean block log. We can wait a week for him to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

All of the above  :) ^^^ but, except for the fact that the bloody thing has already been filed, I agree with Macon, a few days wait—for explanations, discussions, cooling offs?—can't do any harm. ——SerialNumber54129 18:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. We all know what's almost certainly going on here, but there's no emergency and no reason not to give benefit of the chronological doubt. EEng 18:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Minor correction: I was under the impression from the discussion above that this was without warning. I just looked at the arbcom case and saw a link to User talk:Bloger#Yet another warning. If anyone has other examples of such warnings, please post them here or at arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom case request

• Given the issues found in this ANI discussion, the concerns expressed by the community, and the comments made here supporting an ArbCom case request be filed - I have filed a request for arbitration regarding this situation here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there any logical explanation for his RevDel actions on Logan Lynn? He's redacted one of his own edit summaries (hiding the fact that he applied protection, perhaps to hide a link that was in his edit summary), four other edit summaries (for no discernible reason), and four usernames (again, no discernible reason). ST47 (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    • That was done after a personal appeal to me from a user who said he was being WP:OUTED as a result of his edits on that page. I have no reason to doubt what he said. He asked me to remove his username from the history, so I did so. Anything that was removed from the history was strictly for OUTing concerns. Enigma^msg 18:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
      • That explanation sounds reasonable, thank you. ST47 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
        • It looks a little weird to me actully. I'm assuming you know something that isn't obvious. FYI outing concerns should generally be referred to the oversight team. If there is a real possibility of outing the edits should be supressed entirely and only oversighters can do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Community sanction

@Oshwah and Boing! said Zebedee: Is there a particular reason for an ArbCom case instead of community sanctions, because in the end, we think we know what we are getting at. Cases would just take more time and waste everyone's time. Anyone can see that Enigmaman has failed WP:ADMINACCT at every step. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I didn't raise it, but there's no community method for desysop if that's one of the possible solutions - only ArbCom can do that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no community-established procedure for deadminship, but per WP:DESYSOP (and any DR convention), community sanctions can be imposed to revoke administrator permissions (like any other permissions), or is there something I'm missing out? --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The listed methods are Resignation, Inactivity, Administrators open to recall, Arbitration requests, Emergency and Death. It also says "There have been proposals to implement other means of doing this, such as a process mirroring the adminship request process. See Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship and Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights/Proposal." If you follow those links you'll see the perpetual failed attempts to implement a direct community desysop process. Crats won't remove admin rights as a result of a community discussion - Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights/Proposal is a failed "proposal for the granting to bureaucrats the ability to remove sysop flags, or "desysop"", which leaves ArbCom or Stewards - and unless they think there's a case for a global lock, Stewards aren't going to interfere in en.wiki admin appointments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The process for community sanctions is, as far as I am aware, entirely open. And it is entirely possible that the community could TBAN someone from making any administrative actions pending an appeal to the community. This has AFAIK never been tested, and ArbCom will likely bristle at the thought. But it is allowable under current policy as far as I'm aware, and as of about a year ago, I checked and asked fairly thoroughly. GMG^talk 23:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:TBAN is quite clear on what a topic ban is. A ban from making any administrative actions is not a TBAN, as it would not be a ban from editing a topic - so no, the community can not TBAN someone from something that is not a topic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

TBAN

Propose a TBAN for User:Enigmaman from taking any administrative actions indefinitely, pending an appeal to the community to lift the ban, which can be made one year from the time the ban is enacted, and 6 months thereafter, if the appeal is unsuccessful. ArbCom is intended to be the venue of last resort, and pending this decision we have not yet exhausted all possibility for community based resolution. It is therefor not yet within ArbCom's remit. GMG^talk 00:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. GMG^talk 00:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • GreenMeansGo: Could you clarify what "pending an appeal from the community to lift the ban" means? As worded, the intended duration, appeal process, and end-conditions of the proposed TBAN don't seem clear. Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜😹｜✝️｜John 15:12｜☮️｜🍂｜T/C 00:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Pretty sure GMG meant until ban is enacted till it is appealed, essentially indefinitely. I've made it so it can be appealed after a year at first, and 6 months therafter. @GreenMeansGo: Feel free to revert if you do not like my version. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Sounds almost like a community desysop action which I favor as a good option in general. Much faster and better than an ArbComm case. No opinion about this situation in particular. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The arbcom request is likely to be accepted and even if the committee bounces it back to the community, we should take our time in systematically gathering the evidence, and evaluating it and Enigmaman's response, before deciding on appropriate action. The diffs provided so far are certainly concerning IMO but there is no emergency here. Over the next few weeks, Enigmaman's edits and esp. any admin actions they (inadvisedly) choose to take are sure to be closely scrutinized and any indication of them going rogue will be met with a swift block. Barring that we all can step back and let the process play out. I recommend closing this ANI report for now; interested editors can instead help by gathering evidence (off-wiki or in their userspace) relevant to the case for presentation at the arbcom case or at WP:AN, depending upon where the case finally lands. Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• For context, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147 § Community de-adminship processes is the last discussion I'm aware of that discussed if the community is able to ban an editor from using administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Which seems to have been started by me, I was pretty surprised to see it after all this time. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Just to summarize for anyone not willing to delve into it: people were surely into the idea of having a process (except Tony and one another) but were reluctant that it would be feasible, given the general unwillingness of the community towards change, better or worse. I eventually let the thread be as I was confident people didn't feel strongly enough about it to care and change convention so me making any move on the issue would essentially fall flat on its face. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Similar to recall. Is that still around and is it ever used? Enigma^msg 16:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for both procedural and policy reasons. Probably we should archive all this and see the last show of the circus before it leaves town. Lourdes 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support in principle and the aim as well. This is not a witch hunt, this is a stop-gap to prevent further violation of core Wikipedia policies by a community-elected administrator. I do not find any logic in having 3 months wasted over this at dramacom with absolutely no guarantee that it will end in the way it is supposed to. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is not a reasonable proposal. ArbCom is intended to be the venue of last resort for disputes, not blatant admin abuse. Per WP:ADMIN#Arbitration Committee review, ArbCom may step in at any point if they feel an admin-related issue is serious enough. Based on the WP:RFAR, Arbcom is obviously going to accept the case, which means that this sort of "failsafe" is not necessary. In the event that Enigma is brazen enough to abuse the tools going forward, which I don't think is a realistic scenario, Arbcom can and would simply perform an emergency desysop pending formal desysopping. This AN/I thread is, at this point, an unnecessary and fairly-meaningless fork of a pending ArbCom case, and it should be closed so as to not distract from the actual case. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose both on procedural grounds and on the merits. This is an attempt at forcing a community-desysop process through the back door. We don't have a community desysop process, because all such processes that have been suggested over the years have been rejected, and if we ever were to install one, it very certainly wouldn't look anything like this here. On the merits of the case: I see one weird (and as yet unexplained) block from the other day that was clearly bizarre and suggests a profound momentary failure of judgment, but didn't do any factual harm. I see another arguably bad block that was a year ago and wasn't followed up on. Apart from that, I see trivialities like occasionally swearing at vandals, which definitely don't warrant a desysoping, plus several accusations being bandied about that are evidently factually false. Let Arbcom look at the situation if they think there's more than meets the eye, but handling it via mob-with-pitchforks is not the way to go. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is with ArbCom now. GiantSnowman 08:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like it or not, we have agreed at English Wikipedia that Arbcom makes such decisions. Its processes are bureaucratic and long-winded, but it has the power to perform an emergency desysop pending the final decision if necessary. Continuing a parallel process here only adds to the drama. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Topic bans are bans from editing specific topics, and the admin tool set is not a topic. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  To expand a little, "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area" - per WP:TBAN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee:-What about the scores of TBan(s) that restrict users from moving any article, without initiating a RM or something like that? ∯WBG^converse 13:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  I think those are fine, as I see moving articles (ie renaming) as being part of the editorial process and coming under its umbrella - and within the intended scope of TBAN policy. But bending TBANs as a way round the community's unwillingness to implement a desysop procedure is not, in my view, within their intended scope. I'm a long-term supporter of community desysop, but the consensus has always been against it, and I will oppose attempts to evade that consensus by stretching the use of policies not intended for the purpose. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  (I've just re-read that, and I want to stress that I don't mean anyone is deliberately trying to evade community consensus - I really just mean that I think proposals like this are contrary to that consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC))

Bankster - unilateral moves and RM reverts

Last month, I discovered and RMed a series of articles moved unilaterally by User:Bankster without discussion. (The RM is at Talk:Sistema Público de Radiodifusión del Estado Mexicano.) However, within 36 hours of the RM closing and articles being moved, Bankster reverted six page titles back to how he had them before, again without discussion. The pages are currently at Channel 9 (Argentina), Channel 1 (Colombia), Sandinist Television System, Channel 13 (Argentina), National Radio Television of Colombia, and Workers' General Confederation of Peru. What should be done in this situation? Raymie (t • c) 04:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Raymie, have you talked to this user directly regarding their reversion of the page moves and the moving of the articles back to the old titles? What did he/she say in response? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: I have. When the original move that got my attention occurred a month ago, I left a message on his talk page. He replied on mine. Bankster did not participate in the resulting RM, though he did leave a comment on another case where I had other substantive concerns with the article title at Talk:Digital terrestrial television in the United States. I think it's worth noting that this incident echoes the original issue that has pervaded his conduct, which is lack of discussion/consultation with other editors. This was an issue that recurred several times on his talk, and it is unfortunate to see that it is recurring again with reverting the results of a recently concluded RM. Raymie (t • c) 04:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Raymie - Thank you for responding with the additional information and details; that was very helpful. Given that each article you listed here was moved following a requested move, then moved back to the original title unilaterally by Bankster without a request or discussion first - I've reverted the page moves that he/she performed and moved each article back to the title that followed a requested move, and left Bankster a notice on his/her user talk page asking him/her to stop making unilateral page move reversions without a discussion or consensus first. If the page moves continue from Bankster without a discussion or request first, let us know here so that appropriate action can be taken (if applicable or necessary). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:EricSnow3

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

---

User is likely WP:SPA with less than 100 edits dating back to 2015. Between years/months of no activity, all user contributions are for Chad Zumock; Zumock's former employer WMMS; Zumock's former coworker Alan Cox (radio personality); and a fellow comedian Zumock frequently performs with – Jim Florentine. In recent weeks, user has repeatedly removed sourced content and added unsourced WP:BLP info to Chad Zumock article. Despite multiple warnings at user's own talk page, user refuses to engage whatsoever -- no edit summaries, no response at talk page, no discussion at article talk, etc. Diffs below:

• Removing subject's sourced birthdate & birth year: 1234

• Adding unsourced claim that subject is "recurring guest host" for The Bob & Tom Show (note: B&T website source does *not* verify claim): 123

• Adding unsourced quote attributed to NYC comedy club owner (note: Gotham Comedy Club website does *not* verify attributed quote): 123

Levdr1lp / talk 08:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this account based off the numerous and repeated issues listed here, as well as other concerns I found in the user's contributions. The user will need to appeal their block by requesting an unblock, where they'll need to explain and show understanding of policy and why their edits have been problematic to an admin before they'll be allowed to edit. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you, Oshwah. I'm also beginning to wonder if user EricSnow3 (created 3-Mar-2015) was an attempt by Redfernb to block-evade (indef blocked 22-Jan-2013). As is likely for EricSnow3, Redfernb was WP:SPA, having only edited at Chad Zumock, Zumock's former employer WMMS, and Zumock's former coworker Alan Cox (radio personality). Despite multiple warnings at user talk page, Redfernb also repeatedly changed sourced birth date/year at Chad Zumock article: 1234

Levdr1lp / talk 09:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Levdr1lp - It's possible, but the Redfernb account is so old and blocked so long ago that a further investigation isn't necessary. However, if you see accounts pop up and making similar edits to EricSnow3, please don't hesitate to let someone know or file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations so it can be fully evaluated and necessary actions taken. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah- Thanks. Will do. Levdr1lp / talk 09:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Levdr1lp - You bet; always happy to lend a hand ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User:PPP001 mass creating uncited stubs

First, my apologies if this is malformed, but I try to stay away from ANI, so can't remember if this is the first time I've ever begun a discussion. Regardless, this new user has been mass creating stub articles regarding political subdivisions in India Malaysia. From the beginning, they were creating these stubs without proper sourcing, as you can see here, but back then they responded by adding a valid source, as you can see here. Shortly after that, they were asked to format their references, rather than simply adding raw links, see this. And they responded to that request positively. However, the very next day, they began to create stubs without valid references, see here, and again when informed, they began to make corrections. Recently, beginning April 10, they started to mass create these stubs, and were using an invalid reference (see Bebar (state constituency) as an example). They were informed numerous times about this issue, see User talk:PPP001 and Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Large number of constituency stubs by PPP001. However this time they are not responding, and are simply recreating these unsourced stubs. This is taking up the time of a number of editors. I feel a short, temporary block might be needed to get this editor to slow down and simply provide valid sourcing for their articles. I would have waited longer after Elmidae posted a specific comment on their talk page, but they are still ignoring the messages and have begun a new recent spurt of these article creations, like Tioman (state constituency).Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a long way from India to Malaysia, tbh. This is their article creation; I did a spot check and they all seem to be sourced to a government publication, which is presumably a RS. now, maybe I missed one, but what we seem to have here is an editor who is a) creating content b) responding "positively" to requests and c) now adding references with their stubs (see latest creations, e.g [87]). We certainly have far worse.

If there's doubt about whether they pass our notability guidelines, then perhaps a bundled AfD. Or an SPI of course. But, ultimately, this seems to centre around content rather than user behaviour. Block, indeed. ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

A for communication, well. It certainly is an issue. They created their account on 3 March, and were welcomed by Hostbot.

They’ve got 107 messages on their talk; all except those of David Biddulph and those placed from yesterday are templates or semi-automated. '96of these messages are from Onel, the vast majority also templates—all left in the space of 25 minutes! They also include such welcomes as this gem from Vincent60030, You’re being imbecile.

I wonder; has any of this really created an environment which demonstrates the importance of communication?

Re: referencing, cf. WP:DEADREF and then onto WP:MINREF.

For clarity, I'm not particularly in favour of the mass creation of single-line stubs from a single source; to mind, that's what WP:STANDALONEs are for, frankly. But until that's codified, there's nothing to stop it.——SerialNumber54129 13:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You say that he has added references to his stubs, but either the references make no mention of the subject, as in the example which you quote, or the reference link gives a 404. He is stubbornly ignoring the advice given and questions which were asked at his talk page (but which he has merely deleted), and he has made no attempt to discuss the problem. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The source for Usukan does confirm that it is a state constituency - you just have to click on the "state" button to see it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - it looks like the ANI got their attention. After seeing the notification, the editor is now going back and fixing the refs at the stub articles, see Karanaan (state constituency). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, if that's what it took, then mission accomplished, I guess. But really this is like having to tie someone down with earphones taped to their head before they will listen. Still no communication of any kind, I note :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

...with or without templating? ——SerialNumber54129 15:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I really do not consider it commendable practice if the only reaction to having this [88] put onto your talk page (with some very collegial notes by Sam Sailor) is to delete it and churn right on. How much more invitation to communicate is needed? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sbsolutely. Neither do I think it's a particularly commendable practice to leave a new editor 96 templated messages in the space of <25 minutes. WP:RETENTION, anyone? ——SerialNumber54129 17:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It will reduce willingness to pay heed to talkpage alerts, no doubt. But would draftifying w/o notice, or letting it all sit in mainspace while the editor ignores all attempts at communication, have been better options? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

NINETY-SIX templated messages in less than an hour? WHat a futile gesture. Overkill. Seeking to up your edit count, One? 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you understand that these messages are a non-optional consequence of moving to draft using the draftification tool? The only way to avoid them is not to perform the action at all. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

They obviously don't understand that, Elmidae, and their lack of civility and AGF merely compounds it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's because you use a semi-automated tool. If you did it manually you could leave a note, or would that be too much work. You may not understand that, whatever the consequences of using a semi-automated tool, you are responsible for them, not the tool. Let's just hope you understand sourcing requirements (which is not immediately apparent) better than you understand the difference between—err—India and Malaysia :D ——SerialNumber54129 06:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

So the demand is honestly to manually draftify close to a hundred stubs not fit for mainspace - either foregoing the accountable logging and notification that are the main point of the tool, or demanding that the NPPer spend quadruple the time on the process - in order to spare an editor's talkpage sensibilities? Plus a few side stabs, while you are at it? This is getting surprisingly unreasonable and petty, from an unexpected source. I suggest we stop this here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Death threat

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

---

This death threat appears more serious than most vandalism I revert, and merits a warning and/or block at least, as I see it. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll deal with it. In the future, please follow WP:EMERGENCY. --Yamla (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Understood, absolutely. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yamla isn't a general admin revdel needed here ? --DBigXrayᗙ 05:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Good point, done. I should have done that initially, but I did report it to the emergency line, as I do with all death threats. --Yamla (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive IP

188.117.159.149 (talk · contribs)

Contributions consist almost exclusively of making unsourced changes to infobox parameters on articles for political parties. Has been extensively warned since July 2017 about this behaviour, and already blocked on one occasion. Blocking indefinitely would save everyone a lot of time. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I blocked them for 3 months. We do not block IPs indefinitely, and the previous block was short, so that I thought a year would not be appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realise there was a policy of not indefinitely blocking IPs, but I think the block could be longer given that in three months they will simply resume what they have been doing for nearly two years to date. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This is indeed likely. In this case, just let me know at my talk page, or, if I am not going to be around, open one more topic at ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

And remember that, although it seems that this IP address has been static for a couple of years, that could well change at any time if, for example, that editor moves house or changes ISP, and the address will then be reassigned to someone else who should not be blocked. Our policy tries to strike a happy medium between protecting Wikipedia and not blocking innocent editors. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Polarbear001 recurring unsourced edits to biographies

Polarbear001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Polarbear001 has been warned four times before (1, 2, 3, 4) and now a fifth time by myself about adding unsourced information to biographies of living persons. Some of their edits are properly sourced, some are improperly sourced to wiki pages on IMDb, some are just unsourced. Since this is a recurring, persistent, long-term problem, a block is in order. Bright☀ 18:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You warned the user three times, all four three times today, but the user did not edit since March 23 (and the previous edit was in February). They did not get a chance yet to even read your warnings.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Though the editing pattern is not good, a block might be needed. I will appreciate a second opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Three warningss over an hour today when the editor has not edited since March 23rd? This is bad behavior, Bright. Why was more than one needed? No block until the editor has returned. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of three warnings today, where are people getting this from [89] [90]? From the messages left, BrightR warned Polarbear01 once with a non templated message [91]. They then had a more careful look at the talk page history and I guess uncovered that Polarbear01 had been warned before but had seemingly not changed their behaviour and gave a stronger message and a templated warning together [92]. They then decided to bring Polarbear01 to ANI and gave the necessary notification [93].

An ANI notification is explicitly required when bringing someone to ANI and should never be conflated with a warning. I just a few days ago gave about 6 people AN notifications because I mentioned them, with there being clearly no warning. (I did not suggest they had done anything wrong, or there to be any real discussion of their actions but gave it just in case.)

It seems to be fairly reasonable to warn someone and then having a closer look decide to bring them to ANI. The older warning could be deleted, but frankly it's probably often better to leave it be since there's no guarantee anything will happen from the ANI, and it may be gone by the person sees it. Provided the ANI comment doesn't suggest the latest warning was ignored, I don't see why there is any problem with that.

Frankly it doesn't really seem that bad giving someone a second strong warning if after checking more carefully you realise that they have been warned before. After all, this probably arises in part because the editor regularly clears out their talk page without archiving. Which they are fully entitled to do, but still makes it easier to miss the history.

And while I guess the first warning could have been deleted when giving the 2nd one, frankly meh it doesn't seem to matter much. Especially since because the first warning was non templated and the second one only partially, it's only part redundant. See this example, where with some minor modifications I've turned that 2 warnings into basically one fairly coherent and fair even if perhaps not perfectly worded, warning [94].

The only real nitpick is it probably would have been better to decide whether to give the 2nd warning or bring to ANI.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You are right, there were two warnings and an ANI notification. In the meanwhile, Polarbear001 blanked their talk page; this was so far their only edit in April.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Sabeeh butt

Hi admins! This user is continuously adding WP:PROMOTIONal material on Jawani Phir Nahi Ani 2, along with copy paste from the content (and references) of the same page with no WP:ES. There are also many warnings on User talk:Sabeeh butt, still no response. Please deal with their disruptive edits, and check what to do with the pages they have created (with duplicative edits too). Thanks! M. Billoo 18:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sabeeh butt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I ran into this user a few times making problematic edits. Here and here they made edits that were either unsourced contradicting current sourcing or possible deliberate factual errors. Then they had these two edits [95] [96], they removed sourced negative content and replaced it with unsourced non-NPOV content. Going through their contributions it seems like they have created a few AfD worthy articles. StaticVapor message me! 21:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please also check Special:Contributions/39.41.161.24, seems to be same user without logging in. M. Billoo 04:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that looks like him editing logged out forsure. StaticVapor message me! 13:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User: MantaWon editing Brandon Wade page to remove factual information

MantaWon (talk · contribs)

I've noticed a persistent campaign on Brandon Wade's page to remove references to his birth name, Lead Wey.

They are almost always done by new accounts, the most recent being MantaWon.

In the latest round, a deceptive edit was made by Dutchboy2885 here[97] under the description "Added NYT reference", when in reality it was accompanied by an unexplained removal of references to Lead Wey.

When I reverted it, MantaWon reverted it back. Note that there is a pattern of new users that only edit Brandon Wade's page to remove his birth name, including Aussiebear99[98], Jazzman987[99], SpanishBird00[100], and Gemface212[101]. All have removed references to Lead Wey.

exeunt (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You should notify every one you mention in your report about this converstaion.209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Added notifications to mentioned users' talk pages. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible hoax article:

A guy on 4chan claims he made a hoax article on a genocide that he made up. Assuming he's telling the truth, that means there's probably a stub article somewhere on a fake genocide. He says it's 2 years old. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Assuming that anyone on 4chan tells the truth is a big assumption. Irony, trolling and shitposting are all part of the daily fun. It may be a poor joke about The Holocaust being a hoax, which is a recurring theme of 4chan. Even one of the posters in the /int/ thread suggests that OP is shitposting. Without further evidence, this should be taken with a large pinch of salt.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Harizotoh9 requesting you to get further details about the hoax article. (a link would be nice ). Without which as Ianmacm said (to which I totally agree), nothing much can be done here. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry at Spygate from r/The_Donald

There has been a spike in editing on Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump). It is complicated to summarize, but Starship.paint has found that it is a meatpuppetry campaign courtesy of r/The_Donald. Also pinging BullRangifer, Soibangla, Objective3000, Someguy1221. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Muboshgu - I'd like to correct that description. What I found is that r/the_donald recently has been featuring, and linking to the Spygate page on Wikipedia, and the posters and commenters have been very displeased that Spygate is being described as a false conspiracy theory. starship.paint ~ KO 05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Evidence of links from r/the_donald to Spygate page on Wikipedia starship.paint ~ KO 05:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC))

Title of thread (this one is new, 7 hours) There is a big argument between Wikipedia editors on "Spygate" here. Clearly some of them suffer from TDS. Quoted comment: "some" Lol Understatement of the century. holy fuck how did I not read further down. That person literally spat in the face of logic and sources. Insane. Fucking insane. Title of thread: [102] In case anyone doubts Don Jr’s tweet about Wikipedia, get a load of the official article on the Spygate scandal. Uncorrected, unrepentant. Quoted comment: Can Wikipedia be blitzed with people making changes? Article is very one sided and doesnt even touch into the intricate connections between Halper... Title of thread: [103] The reason Wikipedia cannot be cited as a credible source. #StopTheBias Quoted comments: I can change it, and I will. Unless it’s blocked. I have an account It’s right saying it has multiple issues It’s no longer a conspiracy theory. It’s conspiracy fact. Fuck Cuckipedia. False conspiracy theory as in proven correct Wikipedia must die. Title of thread: [104] 1984: Wikipedia Edition VERY FAKE NEWS Quoted comments: Time to archive all the edits coming in the next few months. something tells me there will be a lot. Untrustworthy citations were always the biggest issue but now we see that bad actors/editors are a significant issue also. Title of thread: [105] Donald Trump Jr. on Twitter: "Wow this is a big deal, Wikipedia is everywhere and a primary search tool for many. Who wants to bet which side was protected???" Quoted comment: Case in point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spygate_(Donald_Trump_conspiracy_theory) Title of thread: [106] Wikipedia Editors Paid to Protect Political, Tech, and Media Figures DRAIN THE SWAMP Quoted comment: The only evidence you need to know that Wikipedia is complete 1984 Orwellian wetdream: Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory) Someone please archive it so we have complete proof that Wikipedia is fake news bullshit. starship.paint ~ KO 05:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Plus even newer links [107] [108] starship.paint ~ KO 14:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I opened an SPI at [109] two weeks ago after I received a warning at AN/3 for reverting a bunch of new editors in this article. I suspected they were all coming from somewhere off-Wiki. O3000 (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Who cares? The article is bad and more eyes on it are desperately needed. Please don't canvass only the sympathetic editors Muboshgu. Also, you are involved at the article and should not be using your tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Mr Ernie: - how is Muboshgu misusing his tools? I wasn’t even aware he was an admin. More eyes aren’t necessarily good when the people coming don’t know how Wikipedia works. Its not good if instead of using reliable sources people use their own definition. It’s good if people follow the rules. It’s bad if people do not follow WP:RS. starship.paint ~ KO 11:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Muboshgu is WP:INVOLVED at the article and used their tools to apply protection here. I never stated this was tool misuse (see the 3rd paragraph of INVOLVED), but in general Muboshgu should not be using admin tools in AmPol topics. That article is in desperate need of more eyes. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• No comment, I’m going to ping Muboshgu to explain his actions. starship.paint ~ KO 12:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Mr Ernie is right. I should have taken the request to WP:RFPP for an uninvolved admin to protect the page. The page became unprotected and a swarm of disruptive editing began and I reacted too quickly. The page needs to be protected, nobody was following WP:BRD, but it should've been someone else to do it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Muboshgu: It was the right thing to do. Controlling influx of disruptive edits to an article is part of an admin's job and easily passes WP:INVOLVED exceptions. Any admin would have done the same. If being politically right is the issue, maybe Muboshgu could have asked another admin for a second opinion but there is no way anyone can call this a bad decision. Admins are expected to do what's needed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

We have methods of asking for more eyes. Canvassing in an off-wiki conspiracy thread isn't one. O3000 (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If there was ever a time when WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS apply, it is now. Comments by Barr are being taken as the final arbiter of truth, even though they were uncertain, off-hand, without evidence, spoken to please his boss, and he's pulled back on what he said. Sheesh! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

BLP applies to Barr too, and you've no idea if he said what he said "to please his boss." Barr is the Attorney General of the USA, and made a claim to Congress that he thinks spying occured (he also called it unauthorized surveillance). He said he's investigating whether it was adequately predicated or not. Our articles do not reflect this information. Now I know you hold strong opinions of editors who support Trump, but it just might be possible that everyone has a bias that impacts their editing (or reporting), and even our precious "RS" may have gotten some aspects of this story wrong. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Barr presented no evidence. He gave an opinion and acknowledged he couldn't back it up. We have nothing to go on but the reliable sources that reaffirm that nothing untoward has come to light. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, did you really just say "even our precious "RS" may have gotten some aspects of this story wrong."? And what if they did? What are YOU going to do about it? How would you propose to rectify that situation? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I'm still waiting for an answer. I really get tired of experienced editors who show a disregard for our RS policy. We follow that policy, and we only change our content when the RS change. We don't make changes, especially a total reversal of a whole article (in this case) based on weak information, poor sources, or the hem hawing utterances of believers in conspiracy theories, even when they are Barr and Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

439 posts by 53 users in the last three days

Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) has had 439 posts by 53 users in the last three days. That's more that the talk page saw between the creation of the article and four days ago. At what point do we do something about this?

Now I know that the usual easy answer is some sort of temporary protection, but if an admin wants to be a white knight and do a bit of extra work, it might be worthwhile to look at the contributors and apply some WP:NOTHERE blocks. A lot of them have been disruptive on other politics pages, and it looks like it would be pretty easy to identify the few veteran users trying to deal with the flood and the meatpuppets from r/The Donald who are disrupting multiple articles. Or should I compile that list myself and post it at WP:SPI? --Guy Macon (talk)

Good point. Not only are a number of newcomers NOTHERE, but several of the regulars who attack RS and push conspiracy theories need topic bans. Their lack of competence is quite evident because they show they are more interested in pushing fringe theories found in unreliable sources than in following policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing on SNC-Lavalin Affair by User:Curly Turkey and others

Hi, I'd like to get an outside look at the talk page discussions and article edits on this page. Certain edits by Curly Turkey have I think been uncivil. ("this kind of bullshit", "Jesus Christ, this is exasperating. (...) Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through our sourcing guidlines?", "Aside from your contempt for our sourcing guidelines, you seem to have a vested interest in including "LavScam" in the lead paragraph", "don't make a fool of yourself, Legacypac", "The belligerence some of these editors continue to show—and the facile dismissal of all evidence provided—demonstrates this is a behavioural issue that won't be solved through discussion. The bad faith is so thick you can cut it with a knife—just take a look at Legacypac's FUD that I'm pushing some unnamed "agenda" below." (Referencing this by Legacypac), "I've brought you to task over the intransigent, bad-faith, POV-pushing, policy-violating manner in which it is presented. ANI will decide whether you'll get away with it.")

Other edits have had less than civil remarks in the edit summaries, like "a single-mindedness that should be treated with great suspicion", "WP:WEIGHT is WP:POLICY; if you continue to violate policy, we can sort this out at WP:ANI, if you'd like", "learn how to use a source"

I am also concerned about certain of their arguments regarding sources, but I don't know if this is the right place to talk about that. All other editors currently in the discussion also have disagreements with many of their policy arguments, and accusations of misbehaviour of different types have been raised by others. I have tried to be calm and reasonable, as well as to ask for more specificity in P&G citations, but I don't feel it's helped much.

I have said something to Curly which I'm not sure about civility status on: "You don't need to ping me twice in the same reply to me on a page I'm watching. It comes off as aggressive and condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention." I would like some outside advice or input, or something, on the whole state of the discussion and what the bar for civility is, because I thought it was higher than this. The relevant talk page sections begin at Curly Turkey Edits. Curly has also opened a section on my talk page, Sourcing, about a couple reverts I made which make me think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Now User:Bradv has started edit warring [110] (second removal) and misrepresenting the talkpags discussion. When I reverted them once, adding yet another ref, they claimed it was all right wing media. Curly turkey needs a topic ban and Bradv needs a talking to. Google LavScam and look at how pretty much every media outlet in Canada and places like CNN (hardly right wing) are using this term. This is a politically charged topic and our job is to follow the socerces not whitewash the page and downplay everything. If many many media outlets call something X we also note that in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This isn't appropriate or helpful. I asked for outside input, and mentioned others, for a reason. Bradv's got good judgment. Safrolic (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac, I took a look at the article in response to the conversation started here, and saw a pretty glaring NPOV issue right off the bat. I've now started an RfC. – bradv🍁 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If there is a glaring NPOV it is because Curly turkey has been butchering the page. You never participated in the talkpage discussion. Explain your edit warring and removal of three sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ... Littleolive oil, myself, Bradv ... who next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected astroturfing at SNC-Lavalin affair

The following is an incomplete draft of an ANI report I've been working on. Long as it is, many issues and diffs are yet to come. Sorry I did not have the time to make it more concise and readable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

While attempting to copyedit SNC-Lavalin affair, I kept running into sourcing issues: description of something as "illegal" where none of the three cited sources did; description of a hashtag as a "colloquialsim", later reverted three times[111][112][113] with the same source about the term as a hashtag; Padding of a quotation with multiple sources, when only one gave the full quote; and so on ...

I've tried to fix the article in various ways: adding sources, rewording, and removing inappropriate sources. I've run into considerable pushback from other editors there, including one who asserts sources are "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous" while removing a tag.

One example alternate term: "Wilson-Raybould scandal", 75,800 hits

"LavScam", 71,500 hits

The most concerning behaviour has been the insistence on including the term "LavScam" in the lead sentence. The term is one of a large number of terms that have been used to describe the issue, including "Wilson-Raybould scandal", ["https://www.google.com/search?ei=tiCwXOTWKcXa8QWCiKiIBw&q=%22PMO+scandal%22&oq=%22PMO+scandal%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...20106.22150..22650...0.0..0.189.1218.0j8......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i13j0i67j0i7i30.vAs2tgUVQMs "PMO scandal",] "Trudeau scandal", and a list of variations of the article title that I removed as redundant and predictable. The only term the editors have fought to restore is "LavScam", despite the fact that several terms (that are not variations of the current title) return a greater number of Google hits (see screenshots).

Early on, I characterized the article's issues as "sloppy", but the single-minded pushback over "LavScam" has made me suspicious. I searched for how the media used this term and found it rare or nonexistent in outlets such as CBC News, the National Post, and the Toronto Star, but the favoured term in the right-wing tabloid the Toronto Sun. I then went back through the article talk page and found a previous dispute these editors had had with User:Littleolive oil over who to highlight in the lead. The affair is a divisive one in Canada, and there is no consensus over who is to blame. Legacypac repsonded with this POV:

"I prefer the PM's picture. This scandal is about him, not the former AG who was allegedly pressured"

The AG being Wilson-Raybould; newssources differ on who is to blame, and many of them have named the scandal after Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister, or SNC-Lavalin.

Legacypac's first edit to the talk page was commentary "The most interesting part is how SNC paid for the son of a dictator to tour Canada hiring expensive call girls for him." Legacypac and Littleolive then engaged in some editwarring until this comment was finally removed: [114] [115][116][117][118]. Legacypac clearly has a POV and has a history of fighting for it on this article. Other editors who have participated include Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic.

... Work in progress: Persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and dismissal of empirical evidence and policies, including WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH ...

The consistent pushback against my attempts to clean up the article's sourcing, dismissal of numerous policies, single-minded focus on the term "LavScam", explicit expressions of POVs ... these have me suspicious of an astroturfing campaign there. At the very least, these editors have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect Wikipedia's sitewide sourcing policies and, consciously or not, have repeatedly introduced and reinforced (sometimes through editwarring) POV into a politically-sensitive article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous", that was my error- I thought we were talking about a paragraph with multiple citations for specific sentences, and that you were saying the source for only the last sentence, was also required to support all the material in the paragraph I thought was cited already. It was that leap/reaction which I was referring to above when I said I think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

There was and is material in that paragraph that does not appear in any of the citations in the paragraph. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: there's now an editwar ongoing between Legacypac and Bradv over "LavScam" in the lead,[119][120][121] in the middle of which Legacypac removed a {{Cite check}} template, despite the number of problematic citations that continue to turn up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion

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

---

[122] suggests block evasion by indeffed WisdomTooth3. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

IP has acted at [123] despite level 4 warning for using talk pages as forum. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for a month, no brainer--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

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

ClassicOnAStick - Persistent addition of unsourced content, refusal to engage

Hi all. I try not to be here if I can help it, but decided I'd rather not issue a unilateral indef in this case. ClassicOnAStick is a long-time gnome who focuses primarily on infobox maintenance, in the areas of video games, companies/organizations, and WWE. Their editing behaviors and refusal to respond to inquiries and warnings has already resulted in 4 blocks, including 3 escalating blocks by myself. Each of those blocks forced the user to acknowledge the issue on their talk page, with a promise not to continue. They seemed to essentially accept the block, did not try to appeal, waited it out then returned to editing. As a result, what I've basically seen is they stopped editing video games and companies (thus dodging the editors who were warning them from those areas), and are now focusing on WWE alone. Since the last block, their talk page has at least 10 individual warnings or notes from other editors about edits that were reverted, why (I.e. MOS, unsourced, etc), all without any response from the user.

STATicVapor gave them some warnings in March about unsourced edits, which I noticed via watchlist. I left a personal message to Classic asking them to engage, hoping to avoid being in this position, but they did not respond. Static contacted me again that Classic is continuing this, including some apparent unsourced BLP edits.

Since the last block was for a month, I feel the next step is probably an indef, as there is little indication the editor will change their behaviors. But I want to make sure that's where we need to go. -- ferret (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• This editor has been around a while, since I used to edit WWE - certainly long enough to learn. However, is the next step after a month an indef? Could we do a year first? starship.paint ~ KO 12:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • To me the main difference between an indef and year in this situation is that the editor can come back in a year, with no appeal, and restart as they did before, eventually landing here again. With the indef, after six months they can attempt an appeal with standard offer. The indef requires them to appeal and engage the community. The lack of engagement is nearly (or more so) an issue than the problematic edits themselves. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Well okay, since you put it that way - I won’t object to an indef as long as the six month option is clearly spelt out. starship.paint ~ KO 13:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• I’ve crossed paths with this editors many times over the years, and can verify everything Ferret is saying here. I think the editor has been give more than enough chances. I think a indef block is warranted, though I’d settle for one year if that’s all that a consensus would support. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• This edit adding unsourced content after final warning, resulted in me bringing this to ferret's attention. I have left multipe talk page notices for the same behavior, templated and my own words. They will not WP:ENGAGE and I feel like they will just keep on doing their thing. I have actually reported to AIV twice with the AIV reports going stale, so there are at least two more disruptive edits after final warnings that they did to merit the AIV reportings. I skimmed through to find some recent questionable edits such as adding unsourced controversial BLP content. A lot of their edits would appear random and unsourced since they never use edit summaries. StaticVapor message me! 13:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Nationality on Natalie Wood

I assume this change to her opening sentence is wrong. BTW, is there better place to have a bio reviewed for such changes? The last time I asked an editor to check on an edit to a bio I got slammed for proxy editing and had my sentence extended. Thanks.--Light show (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)