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:Uditanalin

User:Uditanalin is bludgeoning respondents to the MFD for a Wiki-space article he has created, resorting to personal attacks[1] and generally taking a recalcitrant and combative attitude towards established Wikipedia policy[2]. Suspect that this is a WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT issue, as it has been explained to him repeatedly what WP:OR is and yet he believes that Wikipedia should change its policy and structure to accommodate what he believes to be ground-breaking research.--WaltCip (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

He's claiming that he has no more to say there, and if that's true I don't think it requires any sanctions against him. Would be fine if someone wants to hat the tl;dr bludgeoning comments there, though, right now that MfD looks like a complete disaster. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The MfD will quite obviously end in deletion, or I'm a banana, and I don't think that this editor is interested in anything else other than this research, so why not just let that person bludgeon away without any reply? I don't see any need for administrative action here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with doing that, I'm just concerned and wondering if preventative steps need to be taken to ensure he doesn't attempt to recreate his work in other spaces. I may be reading too much into it, though.--WaltCip (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, they are very insistently putting the deletion notice at the bottom of the article, but other than that they appear to have stopped commenting at the MfD. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, but not adding it to the article in mainspace I see. I have issued a rather blunt warning. Please report iof this continues. Guy (help!) 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I think we're done here.--WaltCip (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WaltCip, Well, someone is done. I don't think it's one of us though...

Banninated. Guy (help!) 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

See also Katugampola fractional operators,

Propose a Formal Site-Ban

Actually, Guy only indefinitely blocked Uditanalin. In view of their threat to create multiple sock accounts, I propose that we formalize a community site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I will note that at MFD I originally proposed to move their paper on eigenvectors and eigenvalues to draft space to give them time to publish it. There may be various reasons for the fact that they didn't take up that offer, but those include that perhaps it wouldn't pass academic peer review. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Assuming their threats are legitimate (they claim to be an admin in disguise!) then it seems like a community site ban would be the best way to go. But I have my doubts that they would be able to act upon those threats. Seems like an awful lot of hassle to go through just to get eyes on your thesis.--WaltCip (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm tempted to ask Bbb23 if this Uditanalin has any other socks they operate under.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Today I've seen somebody get autoblocked because the IP was used by Uditanalin... Edible Melon (talk · contribs · block user) 13:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... If that's true, we need a site-ban pronto.--WaltCip (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

For reference, it's Autoblock #9573566. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support - between their threats of socking, unwillingness to play by the rules, and general IDHT attitude, they're NOTHERE. I look forward to seeing their secret admin account block me. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The obvious sockpuppet use that took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udita fractional operator is instructive. Note that it looks like Udita fractional operator has been recreated by a sock at Katugampola fractional operators, which seems to have flown under the radar. - MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing

User:Cambial Yellowing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been some ongoing issues with this user and ongoing WP:TE at Douma chemical attack. Any warning or feedback regarding their behavior has been ignored or dismissed as "sanction gaming".

They have escalated the behavior a bit recently, with the accusations of bad faith bleeding into article talk space, [3]. They also recently advised a newer editor to ignore warnings, telling them that they "have done nothing wrong" after despite their recent WP:ASPERSIONS violation, [4], and sarcastically awarding @Berean Hunter: with a goat in article talk space after Berean bluelocked the article, [5].

I don't know if this level of disruption warrants sanctions, though from what I have seen the bar on sanctions for Syrian Civil war topic areas can be pretty low (they were notified of the subject-area sanctions, [6]). I am hopeful that a clear admonishment from the community and a warning will be adequate to get the disruption and habitual, casual accusations of malfeasance to stop.

Examples of TE:

• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

Additional examples of accusations of sanction gaming by Cambial:

• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]

Notifications: [21], [22]. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I'd issue a partial block if I was able. Especially with this edit where he dismisses claims of tendentious editing as absurd and not worthy of serious discussion in his edit summary. Invalid^OS (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from that article. I note that El C blocked for edit warring a while back and might remember the user? Guy (help!) 14:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This editor is attributing the actions of other editors to me, presumably in an effort to somehow bolster the lack of substance to their case. I have not "sarcastically awarded [anyone] a goat", nor do I know what that means. VQuakr also mischaracterises a talk page message as "advising a newer editor", though the editor in question has roughly 7 years editing experience to my ~9 months. This is not the first time editor VQuakr has attempted to use false reporting of actions as requiring sanction, as a tactic to try to keep editors they disagree with away from certain articles.

The diffs provided as evidence of TE (and the edit summaries) speak for themselves; they were fully explained, linked to policy, and the majority were reversions to status quo. This editor has already brought some of these same diffs to the ANI as supposed "evidence" but again there was no violation of policy. In my view bringing these same diffs again months later suggests "admin shopping". My warning to the editor, the content of which was entirely fair, against abuse of talk page templates was prompted by an accusation and warning template about pretended 'edit warring', after I made a single edit; this was my first article edit in more than a week, and the first ever regarding the particular material involved. (An edit immediately following was to restore inadvertent wiping of an admin template).

This ANI post is the latest in a string of ongoing behavioural problems with editor VQuakr. They refer above to "accusations of bad faith bleeding into article talk space", citing a diff of an edit which came after, and was a direct response to, their spurious accusation of canvassing , and similarly groundless accusation of tagbombing — in the article talk space. To enumerate fully the occasions on which this editor has mischaracterized actions to make them appear improper:

[23] ("ownership" following the reversion of the addition of a source which, at the time, was considered unreliable by RSN, a fact which was linked to in the edit summary)

[24] ("edit warring" following VQuakr continuing to add material from this same source without discussion)

[25] ("edit warring" following a single edit, material on the U.N. website)

[26] ("personal attack" following a comment on a source being considered unreliable in 'Perennial Sources')

[27] ("canvassing" following a 'reply to' sent to the last editors to comment roughly one hour prior)

[28] ("personal attack" following my pointing out that the previous accusation was not acceptable)

Mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable or improper is the definition of WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Attributing one editor's actions to another is WP:GASLIGHTING. I have asked VQuakr to please stop this on more than one occasion:

[29]

[30]

To their credit, VQuakr suggested I take this to ANI previously, but as I stated then, my understanding is that ANI is for "chronic, intractable behavioural problems". Perhaps I should have done so: but at that point, VQuakr had not actually tried to obtain a sanction against me a second time using these mischaracterizations and spurious accusations. They are now doing exactly that, and I ask that admin pageblock VQuakr from my talk page (presumably they can still ping me on their own talk page (?) if they feel the need to contact me) and temporarily from the article under dispute.

Regarding this block; the admin has not actually given their justification for it. My recent editing on the specific article has been sporadic, and always with direct reference to policy in edit summaries and/or notification in talk:

[31] — [32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

I assert that there is no justification for a block in the edits above.

Cambial Yellowing❧ 14:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The goat was misattributed. El_C 15:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Actually the goat was added by another user: FrankBierFarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Yes, JzG, I remember Cambial Yellowing's block, vaguely. I remember they were quite aggressive at the time, but I got the sense that they have since moderated their behaviour somewhat. But I still get the impression that they lack patience, especially in regards to edits that they consider to be fringe. That said, I am concerned with an opponent of theirs in a content dispute using ANI to remove them from the article (via an indefinite partial block). El_C 15:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I missed the last sentence before. I requested they receive an admonishment for their behavior (for which Cambial remains unapologetic), not a block from the article to "win" a dispute. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Cambial's relevance to the goat was that Cambial encouraged FrankBierFarmer that they had done nothing wrong, after FrankBierFarmer posted the goat. I should have phrased that better in my OP; I was not attempting to mislead. VQuakr (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• El C, I was looking at the edit summaries and aggressive tone, which are pure WP:RGW. Guy (help!) 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: that is not what you said, though — phrasing aside. As for encouragement and so on — that is not good enough. You need to attach diffs when you make claims like that, especially for a correction. I also would have expected a semblance of an apology to Cambial Yellowing for the misattribution, but oh well. El_C 16:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: an indefinite block from the article is possibly too harsh. I would be inclined to give them another chance to self-correct their behaviour. I'm just concerned that concluding the report in this way effectively is deciding a content dispute by administrative fiat. El_C 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: since it appears everyone parsed my OP statement in a way differently than I intended, yes I apologize for being unclear in such a critical situation. It was a good faith mistake, but in such a stressful situation I don't think Cambial's accusations of gaslighting should be held against them. Diffs were indeed included in my OP (and my notifications included FrankBierFarmer), including the diff of the posting of the goat, but I see that that specific diff included the admin's response. VQuakr (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

El C, my problem is with behaviour not content. I am happy to adjust the thing if people reckon that should be done. Guy (help!) 16:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Cambial's relevance to the goat was that Cambial encouraged FrankBierFarmer that they had done nothing wrong, after FrankBierFarmer posted the goat — again, diff? Please don't make me look for it. El_C 16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: gotcha. Goat. "Done nothing wrong". VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the diffs you provided were more than a week apart discredits the — false — assertion that this was in response to the addition of a goat image to the page. I don't actually know why adding a goat image to a talk page would be wrong - other than that it makes no sense - but that is beside the point. Perhaps my Englishness is showing. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Please indicate which edit summaries you felt justified a block. I myself linked to the last 6 of mine above and genuinely don't follow. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: yes, the warning on FrankBierFarmer's for his casting aspersions was more recent, and it was much more concerning to me that you appeared to be egging him on regarding that (regardless of any plausible deniability you tried to establish for yourself). I mentioned the goat mostly because it was the only other source of feedback to which you possibly could have been referring. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• I unblocked - the entire history of the article is a clusterfuck so unilateral sanction seems unjust. I will fully protect it instead, as those involved all meet the ECP limit. Guy (help!) 17:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr:It was — I thought quite plainly — a response to this extremely tenuous assertion that the editor had broken WP:NPA, when he did not name or refer to any specific editor in his comment. A personal attack has to — by definition — be personal, and thus directed at a specific editor(/s). You appear to be pursuing an attempt to intimidate through the use of the threat of sanction based on mischaracterisation — similar to precisely this ANI notice. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: I actually mentioned WP:ASPERSIONS not NPA, though that info page does in turn reference NPA. If you see nothing wrong with Frank musing on an article talk page about whether those that disagree with him are paid propagandists, then you have no business editing at all. Your advice to Frank was terrible. VQuakr (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Aspersions is not a policy, but "an information page. It describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks" policy. Thus your accusation was one of a breach of NPA.

As you have just admitted, FrankBierFarmer was "musing" about the existence of paid advocates, given the "fustercluck" of POV that the article has become. "Musing" about something is not a personal attack, and your false "warning" is not justified or excused. Cambial Yellowing❧ 18:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of the diffs relate to the Douma Chemical attack article, where I am one of the contributing editors (and have myself been the object of VQuakr's ire ... see, for instance, a message left on my user talkpage: [37]). I would recommend looking carefully at the talkpage and its archives to judge whose editing is the most problematic. Currently, right from the start, the article states as facts matters which are, increasingly, in dispute, such as that there was a chemical attack at Douma and that it was carried out by the Syrian government. In my opinion, double-standard tactics such as exagerrating the reliablility of some sources while deprecating others are being employed. Given VQuakr's own contributions, the accusations of tendentious editing are pretty risible, as are complaints about Cambial Yellowing's talkpage comments, given VQuakr's own rather aggressive and personal ones.     ←   ZScarpia   15:41, 9 February 2020‎.

Thanks for your input, ZScarpia. I get the sense that both sides could benefit from taking a step back and relying more on dispute resolution requests to resolve their disputes. El_C 15:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. With a bit of luck, the publicity here and at the NPOV Noticeboard may inspire some fresh, bold-spirited, editors to join the fray.     ←   ZScarpia   00:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat

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

Disrupting an RfC at Talk:Grace_VanderWaal#BLP RFC: include or exclude social media numbers.

• Restoring disputed info to a BLP [38] apparently unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information. [39] [40] [41]

• Dismissal of the policy, dismissal of all the discussion for exclusion, and obviously upset at me over my attempts to bring attention to policy on his talk page [42]

• Dislike of policies being brought up, assumption that the policies may not apply, ignoring discussion to date, and assuming burden is on those seeking removal [43]

• Moved a discussion [44], then assumes I'm making a bad faith accusation about him [45] after I restored my comment to the RfC. It took me a while to figure out what had happened, while he continued to assume I had commented about him. [46] [47]

• When faced with my clarifying that my comment wasn't about him: I will leave it here; you are being deliberately obtuse, as you have been continually on the talk page. Your approach is uncollegiate and obstructive [48]

• Dislike of sections of policies being linked in response to his requests for more detail about the policies, accusations of communication problems directed at me [49]

• More complaining about communication, while not understanding why multiple editors identified YouTube as a primary source [50]

• Accuses me of not liking the information in the primary sources [51]

• Moves the goalposts by coming up with potential sources [52]

• Escalation [53] [54]

• And back to wanting policies quoted [55]

• Accusing me of lying, misconstruing policies, and identifying policies in bad faith [56]

• Accusing me of offered nothing but tendentious obstruction and identifying policies in bad faith. [57]

I've done some quick refactoring of my comments [58], and am happy to do more.

I'd like dig through the potential refs offered by Isaidnoway and SchroCat without the constant harassment. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• "I've done some quick refactoring of my comments...". How about refactoring these comments to read: "I'm being a jerk, ignore me. I apologise for wasting everyone's time." Cassianto^Talk 19:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Ronz has been disruptive and tendentious in the pre-RfC stage and since it has begun. He has thrown around plates of alphabetti spaghetti of policy/guideline names without actually seeming to understand what he is relying on. (The most obvious one is his first diff here "unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information": this is untrue, I am both aware of what the guidelines say, and they do not say to keep the information out of the article - all that I reverted is cited to reliable sources and acceptable within our policies). He has accused me of removing comments from an RfC (untrue, and I see he claims above he "restored" it to the RfC: also untrue - it was never in the RfC to begin with, which is why I moved it), edit warred on my talk page, accused me of "Projection and disruption" when I have asked him to quote the relevant part of the guidelines he is relying on, misconstrued my comments (more than once) and been dismissive and disingenuous when dealing with anyone who disagrees with him. His second point here ("Dismissal of the policy, dismissal of all the discussion for exclusion") is another untruth: I have not dismissed the policy at all - I have not dismissed any policy. The whole basis of these points are incredibly dubious. I have provided a stack of sources to counter his claims on the various talk page threads (dismissed by him as "is there even one good ref in that unlinked list? Guessing the answer is "no" otherwise it would be identified"). Stonewalling on talk pages is rarely helpful, and the !votes in the RfC do not support his position. If you want me to go through each of his points in order to refute the silliness, I'll happily do it, but it all seems such a waste of time. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. If anyone wants me for further comment/explanation, you'll have to ping me. - SchroCat (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Reading the RfC it seems Ronz is primarily the one being stubborn and inflexible. SchroCat is giving as good as he gets, but that's the worst you can say of him. Reyk _YO! 19:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - As an onlooker, I've got a feeling that there's going to be a WP:BOOMERANG effect going on. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Continuing:

• [59][60] - Apparently SchroCat doesn't realize that I'm arguing against undue weight, not against complete removal based upon the two of the seven sources that aren't irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

  If you participate in a discussion it isn't harassment if somebody responds to your comments. What admin action do you want? Somebody to argue on your side? I don't recall "please help me win my argument" being one of the administrator functions. Yomangani^talk 16:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I want the harassment and disruption to stop. The battleground behavior, the incessant assumptions of bad faith, the flooding the discussion with misrepresentations and dismissals. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Anyone wondering whether Ronz's obsession with Grace VanderWaal is recent may like to examine a November 2016 discussion on my talk. A topic ban might be required to allow Ronz to focus elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  Who's obsession?! --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have notified both editors of discretionary sanctions for edits related to biographies of living people. If disruption occurs on the talk page in question, any administrator may unilaterally impose restrictions that they believe will prevent further disruption. Beyond that, I don't see much else to be done here and now except remind the two not to bludgeon the process or personalize disputes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • What a lazy resolution, akin to keeping the entire class behind when someone doesn't own up to setting fire to the classroom paper bin during a chemistry lesson. The admin corps would be proud of that one. Cassianto^Talk 08:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
• Ronz's constant wikilawyering is disruptive to Wikipedia. I've been editing here for almost 14 years, and of all the editors I have ever met here, I feel that Ronz is the one whose contributions have most harmed Wikipedia and wasted other editors' time the most, usually by citing sections of policies and guidelines without understanding the spirit or meaning of those policies and guidelines, and then insisting on his/her interpretation of those policies and guidelines despite numerous other editors trying to explain them to him/her. This has been going on for years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Re editor Ronz's statement "Restoring disputed info to a BLP [73] apparently unaware of the BLP requirement placing the burden on editors wanting to include the information." True, but a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the policy previously cited as the rationale - WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE in my opinion. The very name of the policy link should make it clear. Section 8.3.3 is part of "Role of Administrators". If material has been deleted by an admin, and an editor requests an admin restore it, then 8.3.3 is triggered. There's no policy stating that non-admins have the power to delete the material then cite 8.3.3 in preventing its restoration. That said, I could be just as wrong as I think editor Ronz is on that matter. In my time here on WP, I've engaged in the formal lawyerly side of the process about as rarely as I find gold nuggets in my Cracker Jacks. Anastrophe (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

SchroCat hasn't made any subsequent comments directed at me, so I consider this closed. The potential refs offered by SchroCat and Isaidnoway didn't pan out. I've made some alternative proposals. I'll give it a rest at this point. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you consider it closed, but it should be noted that the refs offered by SchroCat certainly do pan out. You owe SchroCat and everyone who reads this notice board an apology for bringing this baseless ANI and continuing to waste everyone's time, when they could actually be working on the encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

We disagree on basic facts and policy. Your assertions are backed with nothing. Your harassment towards me is inappropriate. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad Ronz has backed down, but their passive-aggressive poor-ickle-bullied-me approach here sits ill with Ronz's battlefield approach on the page in question. Tim riley talk 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please drop it. We're here to work together to improve this encyclopedia. Harassment and disruption are enforceable by ArbCom. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request from G.-M._Cupertino for unblock/unbanning

I am reposting the request made at User talk:G.-M._Cupertino here for a community discussion, as the editor is in effect sitebanned through WP:3X due to numerous block evasions through sock puppets (See the full list here).

"Since the decision belongs now to the Community and not to individual Administrators, I present the previous argumentation to the Community and add that, regardless of having assumed any edit attributed to me until November 2019, even the ones who had little importance in content and no personal attacks whatsoever, and, to make my word my credible, I promise, with the risk of being blamed for making one or another edit, there will not any more edits that can be attributed to me for a given period of time to be defined, even if I do not see any reason for the most recent edits to be attributed to me. Therefore, I ask for this request to be reposted to the appropriate discussion board. There will not be any more personal attacks issues and I will not create any other account. In fact, I also ask to be able to be able to use my user page, the one where I should be making any appeals rather than this one, the User talk page, and, at the same time, to merge all the accounts attributed to me with my main account. I wish to solve this problem for good. I submit an appeal to UTRS and ask an Administrator to post it to the appropriate discussion board. This is a voluntary act and, in order not to use it in excess, I ask for the guidance of the Administrator in order to present it the most proper and least excessive way possible if it is not accepted the first time. About my banning, I believe I should explain to the Arbitration Committee that blocked me that, despite being right in the initial blocking, I was unable to defend myself that time because I've made an edit and only after that I've read that I would be blocked if I did another edit and, since I was blocked, I wasn't able to reply to the Arbitration Commitee. It was not in bad faith that I didn't reply or defend myself, but because of that. I have no grounds to appeal for past mistakes, the only thing I can do is change in Present and Future. Afterwards, though, I have been blocked by an Administrator until today, despite already being unblocked by the sentence applied by the Arbitration Commitee, which makes it strange: how can I have been fred from an Arbitration Commitee blocking and then need the intervention of the Community because of a blocking made by one single Administrator. In any case, whatever I have to do to be accepted back by the Community, I have accepted: I will be peaceful and, again, will not create any new accounts. People who might have been blocked because an Administrator believed it was me without being me is something I can't avoid 100%, it's a risk of using Wikipedia, but that will not happen again from my part.

G.-M. Cupertino (talk|TB|) 12:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC) (reply)"

RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, and I suggest the user should be prohibited from making another unblock/unban request until at least one year has passed since their last edit. Favonian pointed out on the user's talk page that they've been evading their block as recently as November 14, 2019 and in my opinion, this alone is sufficient to reject the request. I personally suspect this comment from an anonymous user was an attempt to mislead us and was actually made by G.-M. Cupertino. This user has a history of abuse stretching back more than a decade and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive is a testament to their unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - this user has been socking for eleven years. Their unblock request is a jumbled mess of blaming others and avoiding responsibility for their own abuse; I suspect they have not even looked at WP:GAB. I also endorse Yamla's suggestion of a moratorium on unblock requests until one year has passed from their most recent sockpuppet edit. If they can respect that then maybe I'll trust that they can be a constructive editor, but nothing less is going to cut it for me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – the editor needs to face up to their past disruptive behavior and convince us that it will not reoccur. The present request fails completely in that respect. Concur with the one-year moratorium. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of G.-M. Cupertino - 27 pages.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive - 18 entries from March 2009 to June 2019.

Hmmmm.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. Jer.13:23. Narky Blert (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I did say I would post this discussion to the community and I did. That being said, there is no indication that unblocking the user would be a good thing for the encyclopedia. The one year AT MINIMUM moratorium or requesting unblocks is a good thing in my eyes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye Jack

See: User:Horse Eye Jack reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: no violation) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

User:Horse Eye Jack's focus is to purge several media sources from all articles, for not a WP:RS or even remotely close. (see here). According to Horse Eye Jack, an editor should not revert this purge, since [u]nless you can make an argument for them passing WP:VERIFY than stop using them. When you make a revert you are responsible for the content of that revery, please review WP:CHALLENGE. (see here). According to me, this is ridiculous. WP:CHALLENGE tells us, that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The content deleted by Jack was sourced. However, since this user doesn't believe in the reliability of the given sources, he deletes the sourced material again and again. Thus, in such a way, I cannot make edits, unless I make a case that AND the content is sourced, AND give conclusive evidence that the given source is flawless beyond any doubt in the eyes of EVERY individual editor of Wikipedia. This severely violates the "anyone can edit"-ideology of Wikipedia, and it drains the fun of editing it.

At the edit-warring-noticeboard, someone advised: "if there's a need for admin intervention, WP:ANI is the place to detail the issues." This I am doing now. And I want to ask the administrators: is User:Horse Eye Jack's way of editing an acceptable method? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Its worth noting that when i interacted with Horse Eye Jack he repeatedly re-added content, claiming the burden was on me to justify removal. He then reverted the last hand full of things in my history example. Its worth noting that he did respect the eventual consensus from an RFC i submitted about the disputed template page, so there is that. Bonewah (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah I remember that one, still can't believe that Who's Nailin' Paylin? gets almost 7,000 page views a month. Who the heck watches that sort of thing? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a note that the source Jeff5102 is going out on a limb for is Middle East Media Research Institute, and they wanted to use it on a WP:BLP page. The relevant talk page discussion (which Jeff5102 abandoned back in January) can be found at Talk:Gerald Fredrick Töben. I note that despite the talk page discussion being abandoned over a week ago I have not imposed my preferred edit on the page. Anyone can look at my editing history, the idea that my "focus is to purge several media sources from all articles” is simply untrue. My focus is on building an encyclopedia using high quality sources, my work speaks for itself [61][62]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

A link to all your contributions is hardly convincing, you will have to do far better than that. You obfuscate when given the chance, not going unnoticed, opening the question to whether you ever discuss any political matter in good faith. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for the notification, Jeff. Before the AN/EW thread is archived, here is the perma-link to the thread that was opened. For now, the only thing I have to add beyond the thread contents is: when he had sided with a user whom I had reported on at AN/EW, and said user turned around to launch what is indisputably a sordid personal attack, HEJ had not only failed to condemn said user, but turned around to use WP:NPA as a battering ram against Zanhe's mildly worded criticism of HEJ's knowledge. Insidious double standards and WP:GAME to escape sanctions at AN/EW. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yny501’s comment and Zanhe’s comment (see User talk:Zanhe#Reliable sources for Chinese articles) were months apart, kind of far apart to say I turned around from one to the other. My leaving their comment on my talk page isn’t an endorsement of their language just as I’m sure you taking me to task on Zanhe’s talk page while ignoring their language wasn’t an endorsement of it. I don’t delete any comments on my talk page, can you say the same? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Failing to condemn" ≠ "Endorsement", as you know well, but choose to obfuscate yet again. Also, review WP:NOTTHEM. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That was my point, you were the one who argued that my failure to condemn the language and my request that Zanhe not continue to refer to me as "one of those naive youngsters who never read more balanced academic publications and are easily caught in sinophobic hysteria.” was grounds for administrative action against me. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the only conclusion I drew there was to correctly describe you as a top-notch WikiLawyer, which is not itself sanction-able. But thanks no thanks for the usual blatant distortion. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m talking about your argument here on ANI not on Zanhe’s talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about your horrid record, not what any sanctions should be; neither has anyone else, so far. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

So I'm not an admin, and I believe that I am uninvolved, but can't stand the sight of back and forth argumentation. Isn't the onus on Jeff5102 to achieve consensus for the inclusion of disputed content? I very well may have misread the situation, but it seems to me that HEJ challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed. (Although, perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the policy definition of "disputed," in which case, I'm wrong). Surely reinstating the content from the source being challenged is not enough refute the initial challenge? The idea that the only alternative is to give conclusive evidence that the given source is flawless beyond any doubt in the eyes of EVERY individual editor of Wikipedia strikes me as both a strawman and against the very principles of determining things through consensus building. Additionally, to quote WP:BLPRS, any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source - it sounds like there is no consensus about MEMRI as an RS, meaning that it's inclusion is indeed unacceptable. Lastly, a minor point, but I was under the impression that WP:NOTTHEM was solely for use in unblock requests? I sincerely apologize if writing this comment was inappropriate of me, but I felt compelled to do so by what I read as a misuse of policy. If it was indeed inappropriate, I gladly retract it. Darthkayak (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This is my problem indeed. Any right-wing editor can make a case that CNN fails WP:RS while presenting some Fox News-, Project Veritas- or Russia Today-references to prove that. Then, CNN is disputed, and since "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed," that is a free pass to remove all CNN-references from Wikipedia. I am all for building consensus. However, if an editor plays the role of prosecutor, judge and jury simultaneously, and is not prepared to change his opinion towards the majority view, then things get very tiresome. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The user is indeed focused on removing the sources, even if it's accompanied with other RS. Such as at [63] and the numerous other edits (as brought up at the Administrators' noticeboard discussion). The users focus is purging sources and has less focus on material, as is seen in his/her rapid speed in which the user removes sources without regard to the article's content. --Cold Season (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, CGTN... Who recently published a report entitled By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang[64]. As for the text vs material question if the material is sourced to multiple sources and only some of them are unreliable or of disputed reliability why in the world would I ever remove the material? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff5102: Just to make my previous comment more clear, I'm agreeing with HEJ that removing solely MEMRI-sourced content is the appropriate course of action - as noted, there is no consensus as to its reliability, and I think it's on you, Jeff4102, to try and build such consensus before the content can be added. As for your CNN example, it is not comparable to MEMRI. Perennial sources indicates that there is consensus regarding the general reliability of CNN - it would take your hypothetical right-wing editor a lot more than some Fox News, Project Veritas, or Russia Today references to remove all CNN-references from Wikipedia. There is no such consensus on the reliability of MEMRI, and as such (if I'm understanding BLP correctly, which I might not be), editors have the duty to remove solely MEMRI-sourced content from BLPs, and likely from other contentious applications if they doubt its veracity. Darthkayak (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This contradicts your earlier point, that "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed." Anyway, my idea is that we shouldn't disqualify any "questionable" source at face value, or delete all text that is referenced by it. After all, even the works of a noted fraud as David Irving is used as a source when it comes to the Nazi viewpoint of WWII.

Ah I see where the confusion lies; I worded it poorly. By, "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed" I only meant in the absence of consensus on a source's reliability, and for BLPs specifically, in which case, I think it's on you to establish that first, or it should be removed (though I may be wrong). Of course we shouldn't blindly remove questionable sources, but if their appropriateness in a BLP is disputed, we should. Darthkayak (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I've already expressed my opinion about Horse Eye Jack's behaviour at WP:AN3, and EvergreenFir suggested that it's more suitable for ANI than AN3. Since someone else has now started a complaint against him on a different issue, I'm just going to repeat here what I said before: I agree this is strictly speaking not a violation of 3RR as there were only three reverts on Fan Bingbing. However, this article is just part of Horse Eye Jack's larger campaign to mass remove Chinese sources from dozens of articles and edit war when reverted by others. This is despite the fact that he was just recently involved in a discussion on the reliability of Chinese media sources at WP:RSN (see archived thread), and did not get any support for his view that they should be considered unreliable in all contexts. And this is not an isolated incident: during his relatively short editing career, numerous experienced editors have issued warnings on his talk page for editing warring and personal attacks, but he has almost always responded by arguing incessantly until others give up (the Wikilawyering CaradhrasAiguo was talking about). -Zanhe (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

If anyone takes the time to read the RSN discussion Zanhe linked its a good one, my favorite part is this argument from Zanhe for why we should consider Chinese state media to have editorial independence and a reputation for fact checking "Governments are presumed to exercise editorial control and fact checking (censorship is an extreme form of editorial control).” Zanhe you’re mischaracterizing my argument (which was the uncontroversial "Chinese state media is general unreliable, especially when it comes to domestic reporting."), I note that we were the only two editors who participated in the end of that discussion so yes technically neither of us got any support for our positions. Per our conversation on my talk page User talk:Horse Eye Jack#Please stop removing sources you already know I object to your characterization of my argument on the RSN, why would you repeat it? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:ROPE That is quite the deflection. This administrative thread is quite clearly not about the merits of sources involved (purported editorial independence and fact-checking), but rather your wantonness. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Darthkayak already pointed out to you that WP:NOTTHEM only applies to blocked users, the same goes for WP:ROPE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yet another gross example of wiki-lawyering. As guides are not policy, I only care for their spirit, not their parameters. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks,Caradhas. That is weird...when I discussed with Horse Eye Jack on Talk:Gerald_Fredrick_Töben#MEMRI, he literally told me, after my appeal to WP:PUS: Thats an essay not policy... WP:RS is a guideline and WP: Verifiability is policy. But now he is appealing to an explanatory supplement (WP:NOTTHEM) and an essay (WP:ROPE) himself. I do not understand why his postion on this has changed so quickly.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe HEJ is appealing to either NOTTHEM or ROPE; he's admonishing (perhaps wrongly), CaradhrasAiguo for invoking them in the comments above. Darthkayak (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

But he is counting them as rules that apply to the situation, and appealing to their content; something he did not do previously in my discussion with him. I do believe now that CaradhrasAiguo is right when he is talking about wiki-lawyering. Jeff5102 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I was specifically saying they don’t apply in any way to this situation and I made no appeal to their content. I wasn't ambiguous either. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You wrote: "Darthkayak already pointed out to you that WP:NOTTHEM only applies to blocked users, the same goes for WP:ROPE." That is an appeal to their content.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Darthkayak has pointed it out to you multiple times, including on your talk page User talk:Jeff5102#Regarding Horse-Eye Jack and MEMRI. Per their comment on your talk page (which you dismissed) "Lastly, and mostly unimportantly, regarding [65] I'm very sure that HEJ is not "counting them as rules that apply to the situation" - the opposite in fact - he is saying they are rules that do not apply to this situation at all. HEJ is responding to these two edits [66], [67] in which CaradhrasAiguo attempted to apply (incorrectly in my opinion), the two guidelines against him.” Please WP:AGF, if I’m telling you clearly that I did no such thing and other editors tell you the same then continuing to make the exact same assertions without acknowledging the sincerely held beliefs of the other editors is wrong.Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak:@Horse Eye Jack: DarthKayak, I agree that Perennial sources indicates that there is consensus regarding the reliability of CNN. However, my comment on CNN was more a criticism on your "challenging the reliability of the source necessarily means it's disputed,"-argument, which, when used by the wrong people, can have nasty consequences.

As for the other discussed sources: I did see MEMRI, as well as some Chinese media popping up at WP:CITEWATCH. However, it was on the same list as, among others, Holocaust studies (the complete scientific field, apparently), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America, although sources with a clear habit for distorting the truth are mentioned too.. And, as the page clearly states: this list is a starting point to detect unreliable sources which are cited by Wikipedia, but it does not answer whether it is appropriate to cite them. It also rightly mentions the somewhat arbitrary nature of what exactly constitutes an unreliable source, and that the CiteWatch cannot determine the full context in which a source is used, therefore use common sense and judgement before removing a citation from an article. When in doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard (especially before a mass purge of a certain source).

Therefore, I do believe that blindly deleting sourced material, just for having an "unreliable source," is a road too simplistic to travel. As WP:CITEWATCH states, please discuss the discussed sources thoroughly before deciding to purge them. That would have saved everyone time and frustrations. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff5102: WP:CITEWATCH (formally Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1) is for academic journals only and was not the appropriate tool to use here (nor do its instructions apply more generally), go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and use the provided search box to "Search the noticeboard archives.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

If you had read the article, you should have seen it discusses "publications", not just academic journals. But for the record: the only time there was a vote on the reliability of Memri, it was here, and a majority opposed the idea that Memri was unreliable. For the Chinese sources, please look for yourself if there was anything that resembles a vote. Jeff5102 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Its not an article its a bot generated list. What you presented from RSN is in no way a consensus that MEMRI is a reliable source, which we do need to have to use them as a BLP source. Not being deprecated is not the same as being ruled reliable. You have also mischaracterized the majority opinion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that WP:CITEWATCH is not for academic journals only. Anyway, that an article-page works with bots is not relevant at all for the rulings in the disclaimer, which I thoroughly and approvingly quoted. Here is it again: the CiteWatch cannot determine the full context in which a source is used, therefore use common sense and judgement before removing a citation from an article. When in doubt, discuss things on the article's talk page or at the reliable sources noticeboard (especially before a mass purge of a certain source).

There is a big difference between those words and starting a mass purge, based on the logic of “on wikipedia sources are considered to be unreliable until proven to be reliable,” as you wrote here], erroneously suggesting that this is part of the WP:Verifiability-policy.

I prefer the first position for 3 reasons.

1. As we can see at RSN, a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard seldom ends with a peaceful consensus, the consequence would be that we should disqualify almost all sources.;

2. WP:RSP says: Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation. That is common sense.

3. If sources need to be proven to be reliable to be used on WP, there should be a list of acceptable sources. There is a lis on WP:RSP, but it is very incomplete: only one Chinese outlet can be found on it.

Thus, mass purges of certain sources, because there is no consensus that such sources are reliable sources, is in general a very bad idea.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It is in fact consensus that for WP:BLP articles almost all sources are disqualified. Only WP:RS are allowed with minor exceptions. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It is in fact consensus that for discussions almost all of HEJ's replies are self-disqualifying as responding with over-the-top irrelevancies to frustrate "discussion". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Possible rangeblock?

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

---

There's ongoing trolling re the alleged whistleblower from BNSL addresses (an Indian mobile operator), often triggering Special:AbuseFilter/1008.

• 117.209.176.0/20
  • 117.209.184.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.209.224.0/20
  • 117.209.227.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.219.208.0/20
  • 117.219.220.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.249.128.0/20
  • 117.249.134.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 117.249.215.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 117.251.224.0/20
  • 117.251.232.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

There may well be more, log entries for the abuse filter are suppressed. Is this worth rangeblocking, or should I just carry on playing whack-a-mole? Guy (help!) 16:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Based on checkuser results, the vandal has access to the following ranges:
  • 117.209.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 117.219.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 117.245.96.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 117.249.128.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
  • 117.251.224.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

There is fairly high collateral damage. If we consider their activity significantly harmful, I suggest hardblocking all of the ranges for not more than a day or two. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

In the interest of all BSNL users (BSNL is the largest Internet provider in the country), I plead with you to remove these rangeblocks. Participation in Wikipedia is already low from developing countries. You should not block an entire country like this. I can assure you that the people will exercise self control and not trigger the AbuseFilter in the future. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.243.20.58 (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

SPA repeating actions of a recently created/blocked SPA on the article "Grsecurity", COI?

• Grsecurity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings, for "disclosure" I am a reader and rarely an IP editor of Wikipedia who knows my way around.

I noticed a section missing in the article Grsecurity and investigated the edit history to find it was originally removed on January 24 by a brand new user "Trollcleaner" who edit warred and was subsequently blocked. Another account "Vox araneae" then repeated this removal with a long edit summary, and this account has also only edited the article Grsecurity and its talk page. This account made similar edits to the page as long ago as June 2018 and was created on "17 June 2018 at 20:16" according to Special:ListUsers.

If the content removed is actually inappropriate to the article or not is up for debate, but the fact that more than one single purpose account is POV-pushing may warrant at least a block if not a sock investigation to see if there are any more accounts. Someone should take a look at this and possibly reinstate the removed content for now (including that removed in 2018, if appropriate in light of these odd editors). May even be worthwhile to do a minor rewrite, but that's neither here nor there right now.

Looking further into the page's edit history right now, there are actually more accounts that have done similar and only edited Grsecurity, including "Juniperridge", "Altheacynara", "Spender2001" (has also edited Address space layout randomization), and IP 188.235.237.93 (but just one edit).

Someone should also notify the user(s), according to AN policy at the top of this page, but as an IP who can't be bothered with wiki politics I'll leave that to someone else.

Please forgive any faux-pas in my posting, and thanks.

50.32.224.60 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Users notified:

• Trollcleaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vox araneae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juniperridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Altheacynara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spender2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.235.237.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Article details: Grsecurity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. The removed section and the associated edits contained false facts for several months, such as "Spengler lost the appeal" (that didn't happen until just recently) and "GPL2 with restrictions", that none of the so called contributors to that section bothered to fix or substantiate. There clearly is POV-pushing, but from those accounts that edited just that section or have suggested and/or attempted similar edits only, actually contributing nothing or misconceptions at best (which I had to fix) on the actual subject. I also resisted the attempts to remove the relevant technical content and tried to discuss changes. But time have shown that the removed section attracts too much people that just push their agenda, and that it doesn't belong to the article dedicated to software. I suggest all the genuinely interested contributors to start an article on OSS, Inc. and/or the "controversial" court case, and contribute there in accordance to the established Wikipedia standards.

As for calling my account single purpose, I do confirm that it actually is. The purpose is to prevent slander and vandalism that keeps being done to the article about the software I actually use professionally and know well (unlike the many other so called contributors with multi-purpose accounts) for more than a decade.

Vox Araneae (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but nothing in the article (regardless of which recent version) appears to me to do anything to establish that this 'set of patches for the Linux kernel' meets Wikipedia notability criteria. Most of it reads like an advertisement, listing endless unexplained features. Rather than waste time trying to figure out who is right regarding this content dispute, it might be simpler to delete it entirely. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the basic fact that many other articles on specific information security subjects lack third-party sources just as much, due to the very limited number of competent writers and therefore publications on these subjects out there. Besides, most of those "endless unexplained features" are, in fact, minor, have very limited scope and pretty much self-explanatory descriptions. All or most of that is rather obvious for a reader interested in systems security. And just like the great many articles e.g. about mathematics don't have a 101 math course as a part of every one of them, grsecurity article doesn't explain e.g. how chroot works, what scope/limitations/flaws it has as a security measure and how grsecurity chroot restrictions address/affect some of those. Not that it shouldn't reference any other articles or external sources, and not that those sources are non-existent (e.g. see this list: https://grsecurity.net/research - care to investigate and contribute links?). But of course none of the "concerned" anti-grsecurity people are interested in actually making the article better. They would rather have it trimmed down to a few description sentences and a "GRSECURITY BAD" section that retells Bruce Perens' opinion and alikes, preferentially (for them) taken out of context (as was attempted before, with Linus Torvalds' opinion (see this talk thread) and present them as facts for readers with less technical background and factual knowledge.

Anyway, if you have any particular suggestions about which features need to be explained or folded into more concise descriptions and how, don't hesitate to make them. For example, with my recent edits I tried to make the PaX section more comprehensive and comprehensible for the reader, and the same could be done to the rest of the article, even though more information also needs to be added in the process.

Vox Araneae (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

vox_araneae You make a great case for removing badly sourced junk from those other articles. I made a start on this one, removing material that was sourced to WikiBooks (which is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia) and the company's own website. There are now two sources other than grsecurity.net, one is PRWeb (so not independent), the other is a ten year old piece in LWN.net. Please add reliable independent secondary sources or this article is likely to be deleted. If you add further unreliable or affiliated sources, you are likely to be banned form that article for promotional editing. I note also that you have no edits to any other subject: that often indicates a connection to the subject, which you must declare. Guy (help!) 10:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

To expand on JzG's suggestions, any expansion of the article needs to start by telling the reader why this particular bit of software is of any significance. Has it been the subject of third-party reviews? Is it actually in widespread use? As it stood, the article told us a great deal about 'features', while doing nothing to establish that anyone really cared. Evidence for that comes from third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. Not passing mentions in technical papers, but in-depth coverage. The sort of coverage that justifies inclusion in an encyclopaedia. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of connection to the subject. As I said, I'm a grsecurity user, for more than a decade. Everything I ever got from the project (i.e. the patches themselves) I got for free, without undertaking obligations of any kind. I also contacted them on IRC and via email and always received free support, again, without undertaking obligations of any kind. However, I have a deep respect for the authors of grsecurity for their self-integrity and the work they have done and continue doing, as well as for that they did it for free for about 15 years. I believe such experience is common among the other long-term grsecurity users that didn't happen to rely on intermediary party (e.g. Hardened Gentoo) support only, and that it doesn't create a conflict of interest for me. I also don't think that grsecurity needs any advertising, especially in a form of promotional edit on Wikipedia. However, I also think that it doesn't deserve to have its page being vandalized by the people promoting a hateful agenda. Yet since that's exactly what happened to the page in the past couple of years (and the past few months, btw), as I see it, and since no one else tried to prevent that at the time, I decided to do it myself and registered the account shortly afterwards.

If the above circumstances are enough to create a conflict of interest according to both the letter and the spirit of the Wikipedia standards, then I really wonder what kind of motivation a volunteering editor should have, not to be accused of COI.

Vox Araneae (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"I ... don't think that grsecurity needs any advertising, especially in a form of promotional edit on Wikipedia". Good to hear, since as of now the article doesn't contain any. What it lacks however, is third-party sourcing that establishes its notability per Wikipedia guidelines. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

So you accuse me of promotional editing? What parts of my edits are promotional and why? What are the criteria? Among the other things, I've removed the section with false facts. Is that too a promotional edit? Besides, most part of the content that JzG have removed and the agenda-pushing trolls was calling advertisement is from 2008, when (and as for many years after that) grsecurity was publicly available and free of charge. Was that content promotional too? Has it become promotional at some point? When? Is "reads like an advertisement" an actual criterion? Vox Araneae (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It is entirely possible to promote things that are free of charge. People try to do that on Wikipedia all the time. Religion, politics, which end of a boiled egg to remove, etc, etc and so on ad nauseam. The best defence against this is to insist that the notability of article topics is demonstrated through independent sourcing, and that the article content complies with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. A policy which I'd have thought makes clear enough that articles shouldn't read "like an advertisement". Even more so when what the article is promoting is actually a product now being offered for purchase, as grsecurity now is. So even if you have no COI, and are writing about this product out of the purest of intentions, the article still needs proper third-party sourcing, and still needs to read like something other than a sales brochure. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This answers none of my legitimate questions. Those are just words of an IP commenter who implicitly tries to claim some authority. You imply that the article indeed contained promotional/advertising material, yet when I asked you about the criteria, you provided none. And your opaque reference to NPoV doesn't clarify anything. Anyway, I think I should comment on that point of view, regardless of who expressed it (so the rest of the you's in this reply are generic).

Being a person who actually interested in practical information security, I can relate to potential readers of this article. So, what an interested reader would rightfully expect? Have you asked this question to yourself? He/she would expect a concise, yet comprehensive description of what the software actually does, how it does that and with what relevant properties: scope, drawbacks, limitations, side effects. And most parts of that "endless features list" served that purpose just fine, for most of the minor features it contained. Even though it did need some editing, claiming that it did read like an advertisement speaks more in favor of your disinterest in what the article is about and/or what it said, rather than about if it contained anything undue. In other words, as long as the subject of the article and the field of practical systems security in general aren't among your interests, your feelings shouldn't matter in the context of any decision making - unless you're going to elaborate your concerns (i.e. actually start caring about the content, not an agenda or any side issues like "the GPL case", which, by the way, isn't about GPL at all).

What really would be reading like an advertisement, are empty words and promises without the essential technical details, i.e. a common marketing bs, like a feature list that would list opaque promises instead of technical descriptions. That's why I asked about particular criteria. Obviously, none of the Wikipedia concerned readers or admins have to be interested in the field of systems security, but if you don't, then your uninterested person's opinion is naturally irrelevant.

I understand the requirement for 3rd party sources, yet it's obviously wrong (or just dishonest) to imply that grsecurity only has passing mentions in technical papers, which the above IP commenter did. There, for example, a research paper on formalization of grsecurity RBAC policies: http://secgroup.ext.dsi.unive.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/PID2308633-camera.pdf - is it in-depth enough for you? ;) I'm aware of many other similar sources that scrutinize different parts and aspects of grsecurity, as well as of the sources that indicate its relevance. But at this point of my Wikipedia editor experience I'd rather have the article deleted, than do the work to assure its existence, being restricted in it to the set of outdated external sources only; and for what, to maintain a playground for trolls? Seems like grsecurity founder Brad Spengler happens to have a similar view: https://twitter.com/grsecurity/status/1226485832686632960. So go ahead, Guy, delete it. I would only participate if any one else does the work to keep the article alive.

Vox Araneae (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Kingboyk's indefinite NOTHERE block of User:Trollcleaner. The others listed above may or may not have a COI. It would be beneficial to have an article on Grsecurity, though it would take some patience to produce a well-sourced core of material that would actually be informative. If the article were fully reviewed at AfD my guess is that it would be kept. The Register is interested in the GPL licensing court case and keeps reporting on it. The Register gets a pass from WP:RSPS ("The Register is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles..") I believe that LWN.net should be usable as a source for technical material. Pulling in long lists of features from the Grsecurity web site is not going to be useful. If the article is going to mention any court cases it should probably insist on using genuine third party reporting, not any court pleadings or any statements from the parties to the case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Ed; this should easily pass AfD given the depth of coverage from The Register. The other side of that coin is that the GPL licensing case merits coverage in the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Except it's not a GPL case at all, but a defamation case "about" expressing "a mere opinion" (according to Perens and his lawyers).Vox Araneae (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's role is to simply note what third party reliable sources say, not interpret them based on the wishes on someone's lawyer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure. And what the "reliable source" says in this case? There are no mentions that GPL, any part or aspect of it was tested in court, because it wasn't. Vox Araneae (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Spam by Mdendr

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

---

About one and one half years ago User:Mdendr was warned about indiscriminately adding links to the site http://www.epistemeacademy.org with no attempt to integrate the addition to the structure of the article. Similar edits were made around 15 March 2019, although no warning was issued at that time. The behavior resumed today, for example, [68] and [69]. Editing links to this site seems the editor's primary activity in recent years. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Alex-h

Edits by Alex-h show a repetitive pattern such as adding falsities to articles, use of trash sources and the unbiased source, Radio Farda (most of the time).This shows that he has consistently violated neutrality and his edits are destructive. I want administrators to check this user more closely because edits are standing in the articles.

• First: adding falsities to articles

1. The source says that A group of prominent Iranian writers, poets, playwrights, and actors have asked two Italian stage directors to stay away from the Islamic Republic's official Fajr drama festival, but He wrote that They have taken this decision on the request of some Iranian artists who have already boycotted the festival. The source does not say the festival is boycotted. There is nothing about the effect of this request by Iranian actors on making a decision by Italian directors!
2. The Source says that Ali Khamenei has said Iranians should fast Ramadan style to show “the enemy” they can resist its sanctions. but he just wrote that Ali Khamenei, said that under the school of thought of Khomeini people should fast like in Ramadhan.
3. The source says that "Several members of the victims' families have been forced to participate in interviews with the regime-linked media and stress on their allegiance to the Islamic Republic Supreme Leader," a foreign-based Persian website, Zeytoun, reported on January 23, but he wrote that Iranian regime’s agents force families of victims of the downed Ukrainian airliner to have interviews on state TVs declaring their total support for the Iranian government and the Supreme Leader, Khamenei. Otherwise, the government won’t deliver them the bodies of their loved ones.. It is the claim of Persian website, Zeytoun reported by Radio Farda, but he mentioned it as a fact instead of the claim of Zeytoun.
4. The source says that Some injured protesters, including those with painful wounds, did not seek hospital treatment for fear of arrest, Amnesty International (AI) reported, but he wrote that Human Rights organizations, including Amnesty International, report that ‘’’many’’’ Iranian protesters wounded in November demonstrations, still cannot use hospital attention as they may get arrested. the source doesn’t support “many”.
5. The source says that Mohammad Maleki, died of a bullet wound he had received on January 25., he wrote that Two injured protesters, Mohammad Maleki, 23 and Amir Ojani, 43 years old, died in last days of January, of acute infection and respiratory problem. There in nothing in the source about Mohammad Maleki died because of acute infection.

• Second:using of trash sources

While he was warned for using trash sources, he repeated the behavior again and again, see these edits cotton, themediaexpress, ncr-iran, ca-news-forum. He uses unreliable sources for stating extraordinary claims which need extraordinary sources. Saff V. (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: this noticeboard is for intractable behavioral problems rather than content disputes. Neutrality and original research issues are the domain of dispute resolution and accompanying requests. El_C 13:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C:thanks for attention, but it seems that you didn't read my complaint carefully. I am not here for posting content disputes, I talk about intractable behavioral, writing lies and attributing them to sources repeatedly. I am here to report that Alex-h persistent vandalism such as adding falsities to articles. Some evidence was provided above.Saff V. (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: you should condense your complaint if you realistically wish for it to be reviewed by participants here. Also, please avoid accusations that involve terms like "lies" and "vandalism" (see what vandalism is not), as these constitute personal attacks. El_C 14:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: how should I condense my complaint while all the above material is needed for making a decision on him?Saff V. (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: my advise to you would be to limit yourself to maybe two examples of what you consider to be the most egregious violations. Perhaps retain the rest of the documentation in a hatted, collapsed field...? El_C 14:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C:I give it try, does it look better?Saff V. (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Saff V.: better, yes — but I'm still skeptical it's condensed enough to solicit further participation. El_C 14:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C: You can check the contributions of user. I only brought his a few destructive contributions.Saff V. (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., yes, it does seem from those examples that Alex-h tends to play fast and loose with the facts and with proper attribution, and with proper sources. That is a problem that they need to acknowledge and address, otherwise some IRANPOL sanctions may need to be applied, up to and including a broadly construed topic ban from the Iran topic area. Please respond at your earliest convenience, Alex-h. Thanks. El_C 16:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@El_C, sorry about this. As you can see, I have made many good contributions to Wikipedia in the past. In this particular case, I admit I have failed to look at the sources carefully. I will do so from now on, attributing and fact-checking with great care, especially in these controversial articles. Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding challenged material that sources doesn't say anything about them (such as boycotting of the festival or Mohammad Maleki died because of acute infection), doesn't mean "you have failed to look at the sources carefully".In addition, It is not clear why unreliable sources were used repeatedly while you was warned before because of that. Also I think, to response to the discussion which was reported 5 days ago, saying sorry is not enough.Saff V. (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: I'm actually fine with giving Alex-h another chance, providing they are well aware that further misattribution and reliance on unreliable sources will almost certainly to lead to sanctions. El_C 19:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

IP 110.33.138.212

Hello, I have an issue with 110.33.138.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) arising from edits on 7 February to Alec Douglas-Home, which is a featured article. The IP began with an edit to main narrative which duplicates information that is already held in a footnote. I contend that the information is trivial and should not be in the narrative of a featured article, though it is perhaps worth mentioning in the footnote. I reverted the edit and emphasised the trivia aspect in my edit summary. The IP restored the statement and I reverted again with a request that they follow the terms of WP:BRD and raise the issue on the article talk page. I also pointed out the duplication aspect. The IP restored the statement again with what amounts to a personal attack.

I have no intention of going anywhere near WP:Edit warring. The IP has ignored my request for BRD and, given their attitude in the edit summaries, I doubt very much if discussion will achieve anything. I see in the person's contribution history that a similar attitude was displayed at 2012 Australian Labor Party leadership spill when Nick-D twice had to revert and later inform the IP that personal opinions cannot be included in articles. The IP appears to favour indiscriminate information along the lines of "this was the only time that...." Examples of this approach can be seen at Geoffrey Palmer (politician), Walter Nash, 1960 Australian Labor Party leadership election, 1974 Australian federal election and, most recently, Bob Ellicott. This stuff tends to be added as single sentence paragraphs which are of course deprecated and, much more importantly, it is never sourced.

I have left the Douglas-Home article alone since the last restoration as I would prefer a consensus on the matter. If that should go against me, fine, but I would argue that the statement is duplication of WP:IINFO which reduces the quality of a featured article. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Having just seen this edit by the IP which reverts a request by Materialscientist for a source, I will step aside for the time being because I am being accused of malpractice. In fact, I am merely trying to preserve article quality in the face of some questionable edits by this IP who has been criticised and reverted by three or four other editors besides myself. I don't think the IP's edit summaries are particularly edifying. They include: "This is not a good faith edit as No Good Shaker has no understanding at hand and had been going through my edit history as retaliation for a disagreement that develop at the Alec Douglas Home article", "Bbb23 is being troublesome", "Unlike No Great Shaker, I am an Australian and I know what I am talking about" (justifying original research?) and "No need to prove what 2 and 2 equals to" (repudiating WP:V). I think a sysop needs to look at the contributions and decide if this IP is here to help build the encyclopaedia according to site conventions or if they are here to do whatever they feel like doing. On the face of it, the edits appear to be AGF but the IP's attitude indicates otherwise. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia User "钉钉" Block request

Hello? My Name is "브릴란떼(Brillante)" I'm From Seoul, Rep. of Korea

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

This user attempted to edit the "Yeouido" document several times, making photo disturbances close to vandalism, which prevented other users' free editing.
On the bus ride on 21st December, 2019, I took Yeouido directly with my smartphone and recently uploaded photos to Wikimedia Commons and started using them in Yeouido documents. No, it was a biased way of returning to the past. I clearly told myself that it was a photo I took myself, but I continued to abuse it as if it was a clean picture.
We ask for the proper handling of this user and leave a link. This is My Picture Thank you. --브릴란떼 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(Reply from a non-admin) Since there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says that photos taken on a bus are automatically accepted, this seems to be a content dispute, about the relative merits of two photos. Which should be discussed on the article talk page. I suggest you start such a discussion, before an actual admin notices this thread and decides to block both of you for edit-warring. 165.120.19.88 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion on Talk:Yeouido#Which should be the lead image? shows that the original photo is more accepted by the community. It is a consensus from the community. 钉钉 (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@브릴란떼:, comrade, your Wikipedia editing stint is off to a bad start if you are using claimed ownership to justify bringing a content dispute to AN/I when not even your first dozen edits have passed. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 08:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• The same battle also rages on other wiki's, under the same user names, as evidenced by the edit histories of the same article. Korean history Japanese history, Chinese history. User:钉钉 primarily edits at the Chinese wiki, and has been there for nearly eight years. The transgressor appears to be User:브릴란떼, who wants to place their own photo over the one used for a long time - though this should be over now, given the consensus at Talk:Yeouido#Which should be the lead image? that the original image that User:브릴란떼 keeps removing is superior. Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Incivility help

There is a lengthy discussion that has persisted on talk:DC Extended Universe. Editor @Darkknight2149: has recently decided to start accusing users that disagree with them of WP:SOCKpuppetry as well as WP:BLUDGEONing. They may or may not bring such accusations in another thread, but the user continues to contradict themselves simply to further along their proposed argument. Trying to be collaborative and civil with them is not working. Can we get some assistance, please? Thank you.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You were warned about bludgeoning because, even as the discussion was winding down and we were waiting for others to comment, you kept replying over and over to every single comment (often with two comments at a time) restating your position. As the discussion died down, you were told by both me and TheJoebro64 that there's no reason to keep going in circles and we need to allow others to comment, and you still kept trying to burying the thread with your replies because the discussion wasn't going your way. As soon as Joebro mentioned something about an RfC and I stated that I was about to open a fourth Arbitrary Break to wrap up the discussion and gather final comments/votes, you immediately rushed to open an Abitrary Break yourself [70], [71], [72] [73] just to restate your position (for the umpteenth time) and rant about how "But consensus is not based off of votes!!!"

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

Then, almost immediately after you opened the Arbritary Break, Popfox3 shows up to the discussion and becomes the only user to strongly support you in that entire thread. This user only has six edits to their account. [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79] and they're all recent. Every single one of the accounts edits are at Talk:DC Extended Universe, taking the same position as DisneyMetalhead in discussions. The only two exceptions were from yesterday, when the account came to defend DMH and then added a space [80], [81] to their username and talk page, to create those pages and get rid of the redlink (in order to look less suspicious).

@DisneyMetalhead: Not only were you guilty of WP:BLUDGEON and opened an ANI report as soon as you were warned to stop, but give us one good reason why we shouldn't open a WP:SPI. Your only defense so far for bludgeoning has been "just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm bludgeoning", which immediately falls apart under scrutiny. DarkKnight2149 18:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As if that wasn't evidence enough of WP:SOCKing, DisneyMetalhead's account was registered in September 2016 [82]. Popfox3 was registered only a month later in October 2016 [83]. So far, Popfox's only defense has been "actually I'm not a sock because my account was registered in 2016 and I simply didn't use it until recently." [84] In other words, "I didn't use my account until I needed to support DisneyMetalhead at Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions." DarkKnight2149 19:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

While that does appear suspicious, you need to be clear, DK - are you stating, without equivocation, that DMh and Popfox3 are the same user? If so, you need to come out and call for a SPI investigation and file the report. I get how, if it is true, it is infuriating (I've had the same accusation made about me as well, and it is a stain that - if not specifically debunked - remains forever), but you cannot even make the accusation as part of an argument without having created an SPI report. As upset as you might be at DMh, tainting their reputation is completely unwarranted without a truckload of proof. Submit the report, await the results and frame your argument accordingly. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: It is not just DisneyMetalhead's reputation that is being tainted. I finally have time to attempt to contribute, and I immediately have accusations hurled at me and a potential investigation into my account, all because I agreed with a user in a discussion. I am NOT a sock puppet, and it is infuriating and humiliating that I have to go through this and have my reputation tainted before I even really do anything. I actually welcome an investigation if that's what it'll take to get Darknight2149 to stop. This is ridiculous. Popfox3 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I understand that, throughout the discussion, you have tried to be the middle man of the discussion who has tried to find a middle ground between everyone involved. However, there is no middle ground here. DisneyMetalhead's behaviour fits the exact parameters of WP:BLUDGEON. My point is that there is overwhelming evidence that Popfox3 is a sock puppet of DisneyMetalhead. I'm waiting for administrator feedback first, but I probably am going to have to open a WP:SPI at some point today. I'm not clairvoyant, but from what I can see, this more than warrants a checkuser. DarkKnight2149 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that DisneyMetalhead stop reply-spamming at Talk:DC Extended Universe, and give others a chance to comment. For the moment, unless someone addresses me or something I said, I will be doing the same. DarkKnight2149 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Popfox3 - I am not going to reply directly to your comments as, at best, you are an SPA, and not really worthy of comment. At worst you are a sock, and I literally will not waste any further time (apart from this single comment) to interact with you until you either build a more diverse set of edits and an SPI comes back as unrelated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 I myself have been accused of BLUDGEON (even before the term came into fashion); it comes from being young and unwilling to consider other viewpoints; a person doing so is absolutely convinced that the other editors suffer from anterograde amnesia and won't remember the previous comments make. Its rather disrespectful and I cringe at the fact that I used to be that way.

Understand that DMh is likely young and needs a bit more marinating in the Stew of Life before being taken seriously. If they are socking, they deserve every single awful thing that Wikipedia can do to them (please forgive my draconian view on this, but it will not be softening or changing - socks deserve the Swift Sword of Icky Death, imo). I would have suggested on their talk page that they give other the chance to respond before addressing the comments en toto and not piecemeal. If that failed to work, get an RfC; don't wait for it, just start one. Lots of eyes will come to the page and if DMh keeps doing that, their comments will likely boomerang back onto themselves.

I think an ANI is bit much (as you skipped a step), unless you are seeking help on how to correct the problem. If you came here seeking punishment for DMh and Popfox3, you've done this incorrectly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I didn't skip a step. I actually did leave DisneyMetalHead a message asking for them to cool it down, and they retaliated by filing this report. I didn't file it. This is a WP:BOOMERANG scenario.

To be honest, I don't buy Popfox3's story at all. When I was a newbie, I didn't even understand what a talk page was or the discussion process until a few weeks or so in. Yet his/her supposed first (and only) order of business is to only reply to Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions? And they happen to take all of the same positions as DisneyMetalHead? And they happened to show up to the thread just as DMH was growing more and more desperate and overzealous, and the thread was seemingly leading to a close or a RFC? And as soon as they supported DMH, they created a blank userpage and talk page to get rid of the redlink and make their lack of activity less obvious? And their account was created just a month after DisneyMetalHead's? Yeah, everything about this smells fishy. I already have a WP:SPI tab open. I will alert this thread when the report is filed. DarkKnight2149 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you you following the necessary steps, Darkknight2149 dotting your 'i's' and crossing your 't's'. Maybe hold off on talking any more about your suspicions regarding the connections between DMh ad Popfox3 until after the SPI. The ANI is to deal with tendentious editing behavior or personal attacks, which DMh correctly did; accusing them of being part of a socking is a PA unless proven, as the lack of AGF is apparent. Others will offer far more wise advice than I. I am suggesting you don't make any further comments regarding the SPI until it is complete. Focus on what you feel is DMh's disruptive editing behaviors as you see them, because I can guarantee that the user is doing the same here.

The hardest lesson I had to learn in Wikipedia is that trying to verbally annihilate another user in an edit summary or in talk is counterproductive; how can you even wrap your head around working with someone like that ever again, hating them that much? The short answer is that you cannot. You have to just walk away for a while and let them dig a big enough hole for themselves, jump in and start throwing dirt on themselves. You can sit by the side an eat popcorn or whatever. Just stay above their personal implosion. The point is that you point out a problem, and allow the larger contingent of very smart people here figure out how to resolve that problem. Anyone is prone to mistakes, but not a larger group of thinkers, like you see in Wikipedia. Give the system a chance to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I have used and browsed Wikipedia for a very long time. Long before I made my account and after I forgot about it for several years. I always viewed the talk pages for articles that I was interested in to see the kinds of discussions that were taking place and how decisions were made for edits. When I noticed that New Gods had been removed from the In-Development section on the DCEU page and that there was an active discussion on the talk page that I desired to contribute to, I attempted to create a new account and in so doing discovered my old one. It wasn't too hard to Google how to edit on the Talk pages. I have been very busy recently and only had time to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the page status yesterday. Everything that you are pointing out is purely coincidental, and I'm glad that you are filing an SPI report because I look forward to being vindicated! Popfox3 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Darkknight2149 your vehement beliefs that User:Popfox3 is me through WP:SockPuppetry is humorous. File your WP:SPI and you'll just come to find that you were wrong. I'll wait patiently for your apology. User:Jack Sebastian, I awarded you on your page for being a mediator throughout the discussion and for trying to stay neutral. I've appreciated those things. I would point out that your response to Popfox3 is not the most welcoming comment to a recently registered editor, but your opinions are your own. It's unfortunate that Darkknight2149's behavior requires admin input. I will continue to provide input (with their reliable sources) in any discussion that I'm a part of. Regardless of whether DK2149 likes it or not.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "It's unfortunate that Darkknight2149's behavior requires admin input." You mean asking you to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, or alerting the discussion to the indisputable suspiciousness of the Popfox3 situation? (I have around 10 notifications from you just from the last few days alone...) I'd say at least of those certainly requires administrator input. It just might not be the administrator input you want. The SPI will sort that out regardless, so there's no reason for me to keep harping on it here.

I hope you and Popfox3 aren't bluffing, because if this turns out to be a coincidence and Popfox3 really is just a single-purpose account, that's one heck of a coincidence (or rather, multiple coincidences at once). So far, two other users have backed up the suspiciousness of the situation, so I'm not sure what result you're expecting by filing this report. DarkKnight2149 23:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, by their own admission, Popfox has been here for several years; they aren't a "recently registered user". I have little respect for SPAs and far less respect if they are indeed a sock account. As per BEANS, I'm not going to point out why Popfox3 is a red flag. I am giving them the consideration of not bothering to talk to them until the conclusion of the SPI.

As well, you should hold off on commenting after every. single. comment. in a discussion. People are not stupid. Given folk a chance to compare your clearly stated view with others. No one is going to assume that you have magically dropped your objections if you don't say anything for a day or two. Let others weigh in. That is the advice I would give you on preventing friction in the discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: As stated before, I will continue to wait for the apology. Funny thing is, there's one editor here who is jumping to conclusions and "pointing fingers" - and it's not me. Meanwhile I remain calm, and simply would like some assistance from an admin with the entire discussion. I have continued to respond to comments/placed input/and added new sources to the discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe. Though accused of WP:BLUDGEONing, that has not been my intention. I have simply attempted to respond to statements, and contribute to the article with reliable sources. As a sidenote: any and all users - whether non-ANNON/new/old/etc, can constructively contribute to articles. No one should discourage them anyhow. @Jack Sebastian: I'll be hot-tubbing in your Stew of Life with the Swift Sword of Icky Death, waiting for the WP:ANI to prove that User:Popfox3 is not associate with me at all **emphasis on humor intended**. I wonder however, what you think of the recent sources in the discussion - since you contributed to the discussion earlier. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn elsewhere, DisneyMetalhead. I think that others can get involved in the discussion. I made my opinion known and that should be enough. I am sorry of you took offense at the 'Stew of Life' comment; I see a lot of how I used to act in your behavior, and I am not trying to shame you into being better, but I think its fair to say that the vibe you are putting out there is not having a positive effect on other editors. You don't need to respond to every comment. You just don't. Sit back and let the collaborative discussion happen without you having to reiterate your points (unless directly challenged or asked). There is no hurry. And I've said about Popfox3 all I am going to until the result of the SPI.

Darkknight2149, please include a link to the SPI request, for the purposes of discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Jack Sebastian The Stew of Life comment I just made, was meant to be funny. To clarify I did not take offense, and I believe that some of my comments are being read/taken in a sinister/argumentative nature when they are not intended to be. I appreciate your candor and your peace-keeping angle throughout the discussion. I have no ill-will towards anyone on WP, and simply am trying to preserve the integrity of an article. I know that I don't have to response to every comment, but when I am the sole input out of 3 editors, stating why I disagree with the notion (up until @Popfox3: that is) - I was merely attempting to provide all the resources that support my argument. I will wait for that SPI 'investigation' to be over with, and I hope at that point there are some apologies that go around. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Continued bludgeoning from DisneyMetalhead

The SPI hasn't even filed yet and DisneyMetalhead is continuing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion [85]. Both myself and Jack Sebastian have warned them about it at this point, and advised them to drop the stick and wait for others to comment. Even when the consensus is stacked against them and when everyone has explained why repeatedly, DMH insists on replying to every single comment to aggressively hammer the point in some more. I guess DMH thought that by filing a retaliatory report and spinning it as an incivility report (all because of this message and this notice, by the way), they would get some kind of "get out of jail free" card to continue exactly what they have been doing. I have well over 20 notifications from DisneyMetalhead from the last few days alone, and they're all from the same discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe. DarkKnight2149 07:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User:DK2149; your anger is evident on each thread. However, an ongoing discussion that has not reached remotely any consensus, can/should/will be continued with new and updated sources. There was no WP:BLUDGEONing in a message that was my attempts to ping various/additional users who have contributed to the article. I have not replied to "every single comment" nor has there been any "agress[ion]". If you choose to read my comments as such, that's entirely in your error. My attempts here are to preserve and article. I've already stated why I submitted this request to admins. It has nothing to do with the reasoning you just said. In the meantime, @Popfox3: and I are still waiting for you to file your SPI...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No one here is "angry" and WP:BLUDGEON is defined as "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for Deletion, Request for Comment, WP:ANI, an article talk page or even another user's talk page. Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view." You have absolutely been doing this in spades. There also has been a consensus so far, which you are trying to change by replying constantly with the same arguments over and over, while also trying to argue why the standing consensus isn't valid because you don't like it. Every time you have provided "sources", they have either failed to justify your point or failed to contradict the majority viewpoint in the discussion (for the same reasons explained repeatedly). Your more recent sources are no exception.

The discussion is going in a literal merry-go-round. And as the thread died down and as soon as opening a RFC or wrapping the thread up by taking final comments/votes was mentioned, you immediately jumped in with a new section just to espouse all of the same points all over again and create excuses for why the consensus isn't a consensus. Everyone there understands your position perfectly well. Trying to burying the thread in comments (often at least two comments at once) to try and get your point across is highly disruptive. We get it. Until other users have had a chance to comment, you need to drop the stick and lay off the discussion. As previously mentioned, I have well over 20 notifications from you just from the last few days alone, all from the same discussion. Do I need to post a screenshot? DarkKnight2149 19:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

Main page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisneyMetalhead

The sock puppet investigation has been filed.

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

DarkKnight2149 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

To note, the users have been found unrelated by a check user. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted (and I myself pointed it out at the SPI even before the CU was requested) that this could be a likely outcome of any CU as it seems that different IP addresses would be in use for each account in purpose to avoid detection, as per DisneyMetalhead's own acknowledgement that they knew Popfox3's IP address was "nowhere near mine" (sic) despite WP:WIA barring any user sort of a Checkuser from knowing such details, and their repeated taunts for a SPI to be filled – they simply knew any CU wouldn't work. Impru20^talk 00:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have also left an inquiry for Bbb23 on this topic. The evidence tells me that there is too much here for this to be a coincidence. The fact that others were able to dig up even more damning evidence of a connection (such as DisneyMetalhead being telepathically aware of Popfox's IP address) means that this has to be a WP:MEAT situation at the very least. DarkKnight2149 00:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Prefall just noted they've gotten away with socking while logged out in the past, so I have a hard time believing that there's genuinely no connection between DMH and Popfox. JOEBRO64 00:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

All that I can say is that I do not know DisneyMetalhead and was actually taken aback by their IP Address comment because I wouldn't even know how to go about checking that (and from what I am gathering, is in fact impossible without Check User privileges). I took the same position as them in a discussion, it is as simple as that. All the "evidence" used to attempt to prove otherwise is completely coincidental, and nothing more. Popfox3 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like even more evidence is unravelling about DisneyMetalhead having possibly behaved similarly in the past, this time while logged out ([86]). This would correlate to them having acknowledged themselves in a past discussion on 24 January that "I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames" (sic). Aside of the presented evidence, any claim of editing with alternative accounts would forcefully require them identifying as such on their user page—or not trying to actively deceive other editors in the case of editing while logged out—which does not seem to be the case here. Impru20^talk 01:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Popfox3: You were "taken aback" by DisneyMetalhead's IP address comment at 17:33, 8 February 2020, yet still said nothing about it until now, came to this ANI thread in their defense at 19:52, 8 February 2020 without making any mention at such circumstance and even replied by thanking them for their "kindness", "courtesy" and "warm welcome" at 05:22, 9 February 2020? I would surely not be "looking forward to work" nor would be so excited with someone with whom I am "taken aback" because they somehow know about my IP address. Seems odd to say the least. Impru20^talk 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course I would defend and be excited to work with Disneymetalhead, because they are the one user who have attempted to make me feel welcome at Wikipedia. Try looking at it from my point of view. I contribute to a discussion and am immediately attacked and accused of being a sock puppet account. Multiple times in this ANI thread I have endured personal attacks against the credibility of my account and explanation for the coincidences and was told by one user that I was not even worth talking to, and this was well before an SPI was even officially filed. So forgive me for being willing to defend the ONE user who has been willing to defend me and attempt to make me feel welcome as an editor at Wikipedia. Popfox3 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to clarify, that in my comment regarding IP addresses - I have no idea how these SockPuppetry investigations go. I would have imagined that there was a way to look at IP addresses. I, in no way, actually know @Popfox3:'s IP. Nor do I understand how the whole processes go. Needless to say, I am in no way tech-savvy. Furthermore my statement "I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames" (sic) is in regards to years ago when I had a different profile. The username was deleted, and I left Wikipedia for some time. A similar occasion happened shortly thereafter, before I registered my current username and have since stuck to it. I do not concurrently use multiple log-ins, as has been insinuated (and as my previous statement can be interpreted to mean). --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Then how do you explain this? Moreover, why did you claim that Popfox's IP address is "nowhere near" yours? I'm not alone when I say this - None of this adds up. DarkKnight2149 01:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

If they're not you, then how would you know where their IP address is? That's a very specific way of putting it. But back to my first question, how do you explain the strong evidence of socking between you and 206.81.136.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) presented by Prefall at the SPI? This wasn't a simple case of logged out editing, because you directly interacted with the IP as if it were a separate user. Also worth mentioning, Popfox3 made their first non-DC Extended Universe edits today by making some edits at Harry Potter articles and joining the Harry Potter Task Force, and even that is a topic area that you have been known to edit in the past [87], [88], [89]. As others have pointed out, checkusers can detect proxies and VPNs, but they can't necessarily detect if you are using a long distance IP from another computer or instances of WP:MEAT. DarkKnight2149 04:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment from TheJoebro64

I was pinged here, and while I've had nightmares about getting tied up at ANI before, it was rightly so that this discussion was started. So, here's the gist...

DisneyMetalhead has a long history of disruptive editing and WP:OWNy behavior at the DC Extended Universe article. I'm not sure if this is a general problem with the user (although his talk page isn't too reassuring) or just happens at this specific article, but even so, it's been going on for a long time. To call DMH's behavior when it comes to the DCEU a pain in the ass is, to put it mildly, an understatement. Here's just one example:

In April 2018 DMH had a minor dispute with Prefall over whether the films Joker and Blackhawk should be in the article (the former had already been confirmed to be part of a separate franchise, while it wasn't clear when it came to Blackhawk). Prefall correctly noted that since it wasn't confirmed, it shouldn't be included. Then in June/July (you can see it all here) DMH waged a days-long edit war to include both, claiming that Updated studio information overrides all consensuses on here (which, to be accurate, was complete BS. Nothing had changed in the intervening months). Another discussion was opened showing extraordinarily strong consensus against DMH (and, if you look at the links I provided, you'll see that DMH continued to edit war even after the discussion was opened).

... then, in November, DMH adds Blackhawk again, using the same exact rationale, completely ignoring the consensus from three months prior. I reverted and a new discussion was opened to which there was no consensus since only DMH and I participated. DMH takes "no consensus" as "it's OK to add disputed material back in" and does so around Christmas, resulting in another discussion (in which they tried to play the victim because I accused him of ownership). Then it ended again...

Until January 2020, that is, when DMH adds it again using the exact same rationale as he did in 2018, even though there quite literally has been no news about the film since its announcement. Another discussion with a consensus against DMH is opened. Of course, they still didn't learn anything and, as Darkknight noted above, engaged in WP:BLUDGEONing.

And let me tell you, that's just one case of this. Just look at the talk page and its history. It's mind boggling. I knew it would eventually make it to some sort of noticeboard one of these days, I just didn't know when. There. I said it all. I'm at peace now. JOEBRO64 23:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for administrative enforcement of 5patrickgilles5

FYI

 – Copied much of the text and diffs from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#America is still the place

I had been fixing some broken redirects on Special:BrokenRedirects and, in so doing, noticed that the above-captioned user had incorrectly replaced the redirect with a simple bibliographic entry at the America is still the place redirect. I kindly reverted the edits (had to do it in two steps as I don't have rollback privileges) to establish consensus at Talk:America is still the place. What follows is the copied text and relevant diffs from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#America is still the place.

Per the discussion at autoconfirmed editor 5patrickgilles5's talk page, as well as my own talk page, I'm requested temporary extended confirmed protection of this redirect to allow the consensus process at RfD to play out. The editor insisted on creating an uncited bibliographic entry for this article name, which I've kindly explained Wikipedia is WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY and that the correct place to incubate their article is at Draft:America is still the place. Since the editor is still not assuming good faith and adhering to WP:BRD, WP:ECP for a week or so, or some other enforcement, is necessary.

• Initial diffs here and here (done separately because I don't have rollback privileges). After advising the editor to follow WP:BRD, the editor still insisted on adding back the bibliographic entry here.
• Comment I noted that the editor is also trying to do the [90] same at the I'm Charlie Walker redirect and that John from Idegon warned the editor via edit summary. Noting the COI warning the editor received from Marchjuly, I'm now thinking at least a temporary block may be in order for this editor and/or a removal of their "autoconfirmed" status.
• Comment Now the editor, while presumably in good faith, is casting aspersions and, incorrectly, attributing Marchjuly's earlier notification re: potential COI to being from me in this edit.

Given the above, I think, at minimum, the editor's "autoconfirmed" user right should be manually revoked, and the editor should be temporarily blocked or blocked from editing the related redirects and target page. Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment As the editor has now, after needless intransigence, finally begun the Draft:America is still the place in Draft: namespace as I suggested. So, a block or partial block is not likely necessary, but I would ask the editor revert this edit and for an administrator to delete the revision. Similarly, temporary WP:ECP may still be necessary for the redirects to Mike Colter. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 23:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I had edited two pages with factual first-hand knowledge exempt from any conflict of interest. Dmehus has, without concensus, and his/her own words, "I had been fixing some broken redirects" which were not "broken". A draft page had just been create less than 10 minutes ago to resolve the issue with civility and Dmehus is now requesting "revoking my user's privileges". This request falls far outside the codes of civility and should be a warning to all contributors that Dmehus can no longer be considered a "neutral" party in this discussion. His/her own words, "I think" and "user right manually REVOKED" and "Blocked" should not be taken lightly. I call on neutral parties to temper Dmehus' quest for punishment of others on the platform and restore civility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5patrickgilles5 (talk • contribs)

• Comment Noting the unsigned comment...where are you, SineBot? For clarity, the immediately above unindented paragraph is not from me. Doug Mehus T·C 23:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The editor is now parroting me by repeating my notices to the editor back to me in this edit diff. Doug Mehus T·C 23:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

So that edit need not be revision deleted, but the editor should revert it. Doug Mehus T·C 23:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

---

@Dmehus: just use the {{unsigned}} template. @5patrickgilles5: maybe it's time you take a step back, discuss the changes you are proposing and... learn the basics before effectively defacing pages. Just take a breather, acquaint yourself with Wikipedia and go from there, please. El_C 23:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

El C, thanks for the template; wasn't aware of that.

I think it needs a little than the editor taking a step back, not a block necessarily, but, perhaps, page blocks temporarily of the redirects to Mike Colter and/or revocation of their autoconfirmed user right given the consistent failure to adhere to WP:BRD. Doug Mehus T·C 23:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) BRD isn't really policy, but just sort of recommended practice; so, even though not adhering to it in and of itself isn't a really good idea, not following it isn't a blockable offense per se. Edit warring, violating WP:3RR or violating WP:PAID, however, are all blockable offenses. If all that stops, and attempts by are made to 5patrickgilles5 understand how Wikipedia works (particularly with respect to COI and PAID eidting) and then seek resolution through discussion, then there should be no need for any blocks to be issued; if things don't settle down, on the other hand, then that's when an administrator should step in and take action. Whether an article about the film itself is currently warranted or the page should be re-directed might be worthy of further discussion at WP:AFD or WP:RFD since there does appear to be some disagreement about it, but again it will be the community which decides such a thing based upon Wikipedia policy and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• Comment: I posted this message on the user talk page of Bovineboy2008, which I'm guessing that "5patrickgilles5" saw because he subsequently posted this asking for help on my user talk page. I responded here. I then added a {{Welcome-coi}} template to the 5patrickgilles5's user talk page with this edit and a {{Connected contributor (paid)}} template to Talk:I'm Charlie Walker with this edit. An account named Strong Island 4 posted this on my user talk page, but I'm not sure why. It could be WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT or just a coincidence. Anyway, I responded to that post here. 5patrickgilles5 posted again on my user talk here and here, and I responded here. That's the extent of my involvement in the matter as to whether "I'm Charlie Walker" should be a redirect or an article.
  My personal opinion is that 5patrickgilles5 probably meant well when he created the article about the film back in April 2015, but wasn't aware of WP:COI or WP:PAID he did. When he tried to have the name of the page changed, it got noticed by others and converted to a revert, most likely per WP:NFILM or WP:TOOSOON#Films. 5patrickgilles5 saw this and disagreed with this, which is where the WP:EW started. While I think 5patrickgilles5 should possibly be cut a little slack per WP:BITE, the edit warring should stop and he needs to understand that at least on Wikipedia he's probably going to be considered to have a COI with respect to the film, and also most likely would need to meet WP:PAID. Once the film has been released, it might generate enough significant coverage (not sure if that's the case now) for an article to be re-added about it; even in that case, however, 5patrickgilles5 would should to follow WP:COIADVICE/WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and would need to understand WP:OWN means neither he nor anyone else associated with the film has any final editorial control of a Wikipedia article written about it. So, perhaps an administrator warning is all that's needed here as long as the situation doesn't worsen. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Concur with that, and I'd just add to adhere to WP:BRD, WP:AGF, and not cast aspersions. Doug Mehus T·C 00:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

See also my and the editor's talk pages. I do want the editor to self-revert the good-faith confusion of you and I, and for that revision to be deleted. Doug Mehus T·C 00:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You can restore the original signature yourself per WP:TPG#Fixing layout errors if you like; just give that as your reason in your edit summary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, it wasn't a signature issue, though. In the text of the content, the editor addressed me by full name. Given that it was unwarranted allegation, I thought it useful to delete the revision. Doug Mehus T·C 00:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Understand now. I get why that bothers you and it's right to ask for a retraction/clarification, but I'm assuming it's just due to confusion and your response will make it clear to anyone reading the thread that it's most likely just a mix up. This might also just be a mix up as well because silly errors are sometimes made in the rush to post a response, especially regarding contentious matters. At this point, it might be better to wait and see if things settle down and let the admins handle it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Marchjuly. Yeah, El C said it basically just makes the editor look silly, and from the sounds of it, I guess any administrator looking at that reference to me and seeing your notice would look at the diffs, eh? I'll leave for it now, but I am hoping a non-involved administrator or editor will close this ANI thread as the editor has been sufficiently warned and told to adhere to BRD, to assume good faith, and to consider the guidance Marchjuly gave them re: potential COI considerations. Doug Mehus T·C 01:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked Strong Island 4 as a sock. I've taken no action against 5patrickgilles5 as the master for the moment. I've reverted the article back into an article. It makes no sense to redirect the article to one of the stars of the film, especially with that name, which was inappropriate from the get-go as it's not the name of the film. Clearly, some community discussion is needed, so after I restored the article, I nomininated it for AfD to let the community decide its fate. As for 5patricgilles5, I am a hair's breadth from blocking him for disruption and NOTHERE. If he doesn't calm down, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Fun and games at Race and intelligence

There's been some discussion about how this article should be. These major changes have been rejected with consensus in discussions on the talk page. I reverted once, but I'm not going to revert again. Seems like editors are taking this as a green light to gut the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&action=history Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Current discussion this sitch. Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Do_we_like_these_new_changes? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Most recent consensus on whether or not a chainsaw should be taken to the article (answer no). Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Let's_go_back_to_a_previous_version Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Several editors, including myself, have removed a number of primary-sourced statements from the article. This has been met with a series of strange comments which seem to be based on a nonexistent "Consensus Required" restriction:
  • Peregrine Fisher: "revert, please seek consensus for major changes"[91] (discussed at user talk)
  • AndewNguyen: "get consensus before changes please, see talk page"[92] (discussed at user talk)
  • 2600:1004:b11a:7b56:3cc6:3b68:b761:eab6: "You evidently won't allow your changes to be undone unless other editors can point out what's wrong with each one of them, but I think you know very well that this is an impossible demand.[93]

These objections seem to boil down to "you didn't seek consensus before editing" and "we can't keep up with the pace of your edits", which are not valid reasons to revert. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

How do you justify the blanking of the entire section about mental chronometry? Nearly every secondary source that discusses race and intelligence, including the Hunt and Mackintosh textbooks, includes a discussion about comparisons of MC test results.

If you were just removing individual primary sources, the rest of us wouldn't be objecting, but that isn't what's happening here. What we're dealing with is the blanking of entire paragraphs or sections, that have been in the article for most of the time that the article has existed, and demanding a consensus before they can be added back. 2600:1004:B11A:7B56:3CC6:3B68:B761:EAB6 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The small subsection was based around claims made by Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, and rebuttal from Richard Nisbett. There might be content worthy of the article about mental chronometry, but it wasn't that particular content. Feel free to propose new content regarding that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• I believe that some sanctions against the dynamic IP editor are warranted at this point. They write in the related AfD: I’m writing this from anonymous IP precisely to avoid the kind of “white supremacy” smears exhibited above [94]. Using a dynamic IP to edit in a contentious topic area seems inappropriate since the constantly changing address helps them evade scrutiny by making an entire editing history extremely difficult to trace. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

That other IP isn't me. Please compare the geolocations; we're hundreds of miles apart. 2600:1004:B11A:7B56:3CC6:3B68:B761:EAB6 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The point about avoiding scrutiny with an untraceable edit history remains. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope everyone looking at this knows that the article has a bad history with socks. Some are well-known and caught pretty quickly, but not all. We have at least one open SPI, but the range is big and they've belatedly figured out how to stick to WP:CIVILPOV, so... As for the rest, it's clear to me that some editors are knowingly treating IP editing as a loophole, and are treating the technical details of their ISPs as a form of elevated privilege. Oh, and there are also the Arbcom blocked (or previously blocked) accounts involved... Until the community is willing to start making tough calls and supporting serious change, the topic will remain an embarrassment to the project. (Non-administrator comment) Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the talk page could be an option, Category:Wikipedia_semi-protected_talk_pages shows that this has been done occasionally in the past. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• While we're at it, could somebody uninvolved please close/collapse this section? It's one long accusation of bad faith and is off-topic for article talk. –dlthewave ☎ 13:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Dlthewave: that section does not appear to exist. El_C 03:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Grayfell Guy Macon collapsed the section and changed the title. Here's the permalink for posterity. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It was actually Guy Macon, but I ain't offended. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't R&I as a topic area still under DS? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 20:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

187Ernest

187Ernest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in disruptive behavior, and appears to be WP:NOTHERE.

I am going to go back farther in history than usual, because he has made few edits per year, but the edits he has made have been largely disruptive. Sometimes we have trouble recognizing editors who disrupt or vandalize in slow motion.

• One previous block for deliberately introducing false information:[95]

• Deliberately introducing factual errors:[96] (He called the book title "Cracker: Cracker Culture in Texas History" when the actual title is "Cracker: The Cracker Culture in Florida History"[97]. This appears to be an attempt to fool new page patrollers regarding sourcing for the Texas cracker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page, which 187Ernest created with a snarky edit comment less than 24 hours previously. (Please note that he had previously been warned about deliberately introducing incorrect information.[98][99])

• Deliberately introducing factual errors, citing a source that does not support the claim:[100][101][102]

• Another example of a claim not supported by the source:[103][104][105]

• Edit warring and personal attacks: [106][107][108][109]

• Copyvio:[110] (the actual edit was revdeleted)

• Joke vandalism:[111][112]

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - 187Ernest has made 916 edits over seven years, and their talk page is filled with warnings, yet this editor has responded on their talk page just four times:

1. [113] - "🖕🏼Don’t you Wikipedia editors have anything better to do than always correct my editing and blocking me for 24 hours. All you guys do is correct my edits your being very abusive towards me. All you Wikipedia editors probably don’t have lives, wives or girlfriends or you all probably don’t have jobs please do yourselves a favor and get a life and get a job".
2. [114] - "You need to get a fucking life User:Robvanvee and you and other Wikipedia editors need to stop notifying me every time I edit something on Wikipedia".
3. [115] -"Leave 187Ernest alone... Please leave me alone".
4. [116] - Removed comment #2 above.

Low-quality edits and a combative attitude do not improve the project. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The worst offense is deliberately introducing false information. Look at This edit and try to verify the claim in the source cited. Most vandalism is obvious and quickly removed. This type of vandalism sticks around. It could be years before someone checks that particular false claim and notices that the source doesn't support the claim. An editor who does that is a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia and should be indefinitely blocked, Clearly the multiple warnings and previous temporary block had no effect. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing - David James Connolly Australia

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

---

David James Connolly Australia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) inserted spam links to a website called truckerjacket dot com into jean jacket, which I removed. The user subsequently created a WP:POVFORK at Trucker Jacket which I redirected, but it has since been completely deleted so I imagine my edit got reverted in-between.

creffett, who nominated the article for speedy deletion, left a conflict of interest message notifying David James Connolly Australia about paid editing, but the COI was denied.

The COI is obvious from the editing but were there any doubt, the Australian Business Register shows that a David James Connolly owns the business being promoted.

Either our editor is indeed the same David James Connolly and owner of the website they are promoting (whilst denying paid editing) or they are masquerading under a misleading username. Either way, could an admin ensure it does not continue?

Many thanks, Dorsetonian (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked as an advertising only account. MER-C 13:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Dorsetonian (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Tregias003

After receiving a plethora of warnings on their Talk page and being blocked just a month ago, Tregias003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still displaying problematic behavior:

• making unsourced additions: 1, 2, 3
• removing content without explanation: 1, 2

Robby.is.on (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Change of Date format in multiple articles

I've never had to make a report before so please excuse any mistakes or ommissions.

An IP editor 212.116.64.26 is changing dates DMY format to MDY in multiple articles.[[117]] [[118]] [[119]] [[120]] [[121]] [[122]] [[123]] [[124]] [[125]] [[126]] [[127]]

And probably a few more besides.

When reverted, they simply revert despite explanations on their talk page.[[128]] I don't have any special tools and it is becoming increasingly difficult to revert without removing intermediate edits. I have probably also broken the 3RR. Sorry.--Ykraps (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Previously blocked for this kind of behavior by El_C. Favonian (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

They obviously don't want to discuss this, so I have renewed the block. Favonian (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• OT - but are they methods, or thoughts of implementing something, so that dates (and spelling variations) can be shown in the language/region variation of the reader (rather than the language/region variation of the subject)? On one hand, I can see why some would start fixing what is "clearly wrong" in their eyes. On the other, we are forever inconsistent, particularly for articles where the selection of local formatting/spelling isn't going to be clear. Nfitz (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, yes although that can be a bit tricky, albeit much easier if all dates were converted to a template format. There would also be a side issue of people asking why all the dates had changed whenever they switched between browsers with different language/regional preferences. Getting back to the main point, even if all dates were in template format, you'd still need someone to do the back-end work, and historically speaking that kind of stuff has tended to proceed at a glacial pace. volunteers? 74.73.230.72 (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Constant introduction of false information

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

See the previous ANI discussion, after which Special:Contributions/2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64 was blocked for three months. After the IP block ended, the user Juansantos123 has continued more or less the same activity on the same or related pages. In addition to some useful edits, the user continually introduces speculative or outright false information related to translation services and the Hong Kong MTR; all eight of their edits since 5 February have introduced false information. The user has not responded to any of the messages on their talk page, and nor did any of the IPs. Jc86035 (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Jc86035 Thank you for the notification. This looks like a duck to me, and if so, has not learned anything from their past blocks and still refuses to communicate. Regardless, I'd go straight for an indefinite block for a history of disruptive editing and CIR. ComplexRational (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

NOTHERE, CIR or both

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

---

Jaguar E-Type AstonMartin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been dumping incoherent stuff mainly into James Bond-related article talkpages since August 2019. He's also dumped some incoherent BLP violations on the talkpage of Donald Trump. The account edits are low volume, but still the question arises if they should be allowed to edit on this wiki. Dr. K. 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

72.226.21.114 reported by FlightTime

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

72.226.21.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Multiple BLP voi's, changing leinage to what they believe. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hi FlightTime, I find the lack of policy/guideline links in the discussion at Talk:Bill_Maher, and an apparent disregard of WP:BLPCAT concerning, so I'm moving this here – it may need more time and explanation than a usual AIV report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't have any excuses, guess I should try and do better in the future. Thanx. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries from my side then; I guess I should just have asked you directly instead. That was quick, thank you too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I would of replied quicker, but I was at PokerStars :P - FlightTime (open channel) 20:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Persistent anon-IP misuse at Lincoln, England

During the last two days various anon-IPs are adding information about drug-use prominently at the start of the lead of Lincoln, England. This certainly isn't the right position in the article, but they insist. Additionally, the ref. they (eventually) used was an article from five years ago, which was very cautious about how the figures were estimated, but the attempted anon-IP/WP updates are misrepresenting these cautious estimates as hard facts.

1. Does this five-year old estimate belong in the article at all?
2. Should it misrepresent cautious estimate as hard statistics?
3. Should it be prominent at the start of the lead?

Advice and assistance would be appreciated. (I'm at risk of going 3RR.) Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Currently protected by Bbb23. Probably your best bet is to seek discussion, then request protection at WP:RfPP, and report at WP:EWN.-- Deepfriedokra 05:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The Grand Delusion

Hello again, I'm having another problem with editing on the List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons page. About almost two months ago, I agreed that I would start putting sources for the last air dates of certain shows on the channel, which is what I've been doing. However, The Grand Delusion keeps reverting my last air date source for the last air date of Back at the Barnyard and Breadwinners on December 25, 2019 because he's saying that it doesn't count because it's a "one-off airing" even though the source I provided was reliable and that is clearly the last time it was shown on the channel. (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

The filer has been trying to push the inclusion of the airdates for these one-off airings as the "last aired" date for weeks:
February 8, 2020
January 19, 2020
January 15, 2020
January 4, 2020
December 13, 2019
December 11, 2019
Additionally, there is no consensus to support the inclusion of these air dates on the article's talk page - Talk:List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nicktoons#Christmas_episodes_on_Nicktoons. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: I posted a notice at The Grand Delusion - FlightTime (open channel)

I have protected the page pending the resolution of the discussion on the talk page. It appears this is a content dispute; the two parties should try to work out the issue by discussing the matter on the talk page. If, after several rounds of back-and-forth discussion an impasse still exists, a seek help by following any of the procedures listed at WP:DR, including possibly WP:3O and WP:RFC. You could also ask from outside help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Television or one of its daughter projects. Once both parties have reached an agreed-upon solution to their dispute, OR once it is clear that there is consensus among uninvolved editors, ping me and I will remove the protection. --Jayron32 18:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

NEGUS1010: personal attacks

NEGUS1010 (talk · contribs) became very incensed when asked by Whpq (using the regular politely worded template) if they are a paid editor. N1010 replied with personal attacks, to which Whpq, still very calmly, replied with an explanation of why the template was placed. This resulted in another attack, for which N1010 was given a AGF notification. The attacks have since escalated; I gave N1010 a final warning for personal attacks and for requesting that other editors disclose their real identity, and since then they have among other things (for someone who claims to be here only to edit articles, they spend a lot of time and energy on tweaking and perfecting insults on their user talk page) posted this, which is really beyond the pale. (I removed that and they restored it.) They seem to be quite angry, and I am not going to involve myself further, except for posting the ANI notice to their talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 22:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for personal attacks after warning. El_C 22:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Could the "beyond the pale" edit I linked above, and subsequent ones including the same external link, be revdeled (or am I being unnecessarily sensitive?) --bonadea contributions talk 23:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we're alright, actually. Unless I'm missing something. El_C 00:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

An external link to a review of a handgun added as a "reference" to the sentence "This your final warning [sic]", directed against a fellow editor, after having repeatedly asked for that editor's real name? I would not consider that all right, but I am not an admin. --bonadea contributions talk 07:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I blocked a few NEGUS1010 socks, including NEGUS1010X, Sarrounia, and SEKHEMX. It might be worth considering an indef block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support indef block- The incessant insults and now the socking suggests this user is clearly not here to edit the encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 06:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Already done. User indeffed. El_C 06:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please help with WP:AIV backlog

Not attended to in the last five hours. Multiple reports. Hydromania (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems resolved... for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

'Seeking Legal Action'

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

---

I have just blocked Jarmusic2‎ (talk · contribs) per 'If this information Is not change I will be seeking Legal Action as the DEAL IS DONE AND HE IS FINALLY A DODGER.' I here seek review of the block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. Seems like a standard lblock. El_C 08:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorse, @Beetstra:, this seems a fairly standard legal threat (with no DOLT concerns, at that). They have now (just about) withdrawn their legal threat in their appeal, which can be reviewed in the normal way, but the underlying block was fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully it will be reviewed in the same spirit as any other unblock request that said so you people can stop crying... ——SN54129 10:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Or I did not know you guys are crybabies :D ——SN54129 10:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave any unblock request to an uninvolved admin. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that the user has been unblocked, having withdrawn their threat of taking legal action. El_C 10:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Repeated unsourced genres

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

---

This user ignores final warnings, previous blocks and personal pleas on their talk page by continuing to add unsourced genre's as can be seen here, here, here and here for example. They have also taken to adding sources that do not make any mention of the genre's they add as can be seen here. On top of all that they have yet to make any effort to communicate with any of the editors (myself ,FlightTime & ValarianB) that have brought these issues to their talk page since their previous block for the same reason. Please could an admin cast an eye over these disruptive edits. Robvanvee 08:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

More since this report was filed

• 1
• Source calls it "deep sea rock". User adds "Space rock" to article.
• Source calls the album a rock opera. User adds "rock opera" to song genre. Robvanvee 11:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe they can do one of those "block them to get their attention" types of blocks? It's the non-communication that irritates the most here, the other problem (mass genre changes sourced to ephemeral "100 of the best songs ever!" lists) can be discussed pending a response. ValarianB (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. User:Tamer Gunner's editing history shows a single purpose focus on adding and changing song genres without sourcing and/or adding false sourcing. They have persisted despite reverts and warnings by multiple editors. After a previous block for this, they jumped right back into the same behavior. Attempts to communicate have gone unanswered. I've blocked them indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

KHMELNYTSKYIA and topic ban violation

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

---

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

The user has been topic-banned from Ukraine topics broadly construed, as arbitration enforcement. They have been twice blocked in October for the topic ban violation, on 24 October for a months. All their edits after the block expired are about Ukraine.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Blocked indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Not Rosguill

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

---

Similar to previous recent incident involving Not Hog Farm apparently attempting to impersonate Hog Farm, who was subsequently blocked by kingboyk, I noticed this user's name show up at AfD and RfD. The user was just created today and its only contributions have been in threads in which administrator Rosguill participated.

I've reported the user at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but am wondering, given the close timeframe between the impersonations and the modus operandi between the two imposters, is it worth requesting a quick CheckUser if not an SPI?

Thanks,
--Doug Mehus T·C 16:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't bother filing anything. I've blocked the user as an impersonator and, with some difficulty because of all your SPA tags to their edits, removed all their edits from the redirect discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23, Thank you. I wasn't sure if it was necessary to tag with SPA. I will leave off that step if I see something similar happen again. Doug Mehus T·C 17:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus, you have 8,000 edits, 40% of which are to Wikipedia space, and you keep breaking stuff and venturing uninformed opinions. I suggest you just edit articles for a while. Guy (help!) 17:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I've suggested that before; doesn't work.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus, Bbb23, and JzG: I've tagged the accounts in case they come back with new sockpuppets. ミラP 21:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: I've removed the tags. You should not be tagging users as socks. Please don't do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23, Dmehus, and JzG: Thanks. Just to be safe, anyone wanna be on the lookout for WP:DUCKlings at RFD? ミラP 02:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• I'm a WP:RFD regular and will be keeping my eyes open. Narky Blert (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Feinoa again

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

1. Persistent removal of templates without attempting to discuss
   1. [129] removing tag without any explanation or discussion. After the tags were restored, Feinoa removed them again [130] claiming These tags are not necessary. Discussing on the talk page is sufficient enough. (even though their participation in the talk page discussion was minimal)
   2. Despite being requested to restore the tags, and later warned about disruptive editing, they go ahead and remove templates [131] in another article I was editing with an active discussion (note that once again they did not participate in the discussion). There is no edit summary or explanation for removal.
2. Slow moving edit wars (without no attempt at initiating discussions)
   1. (See the diffs at point 4 in the previous report. This is the same issue ("Malay as a national language")and it has continued in Jan and Feb 2020)
   2. [132] claiming "I think we can make do without this as 4 languages have equal status." Reverted by another editor [133]
   3. [134] Another edit towards similar aims, no edit summary. Reverted by another editor.
3. Ownership issues and edit warring
   1. There are multiple times where they edit/revert without adequate explanation or even attempting to discuss, particularly on Singapore. This is highly disruptive and irritating, given that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Other editors have also explained it to them and requested them to self revert but to no avail.
   2. Bad faith accusations questioning my intent to edit the article and a refusal to collaborate [135]. It is interesting that they say "No one seemed to have had an issue with the original lead except for you. I don't understand why you hadn't brought up your concerns during the GA review." I didn't even know a GA Review was going on (and the honestly I still disagree with the reviewer's decision). Interestingly, the last time a GA Review was happening they said [136] " I just don't understand why unfamiliar editors to this article have suddenly piped in to put the lead under scrutiny only just when it's trying to become a GA". It's becoming clear to me that they would prefer to edit without the contribution and reviews of other editors, which is pretty much opposite to the collaborative idea of Wikipedia

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

Are you going to brush over the fact that you've been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for months? You've on numerous occasions reverted my edits with some really weird reasonings on articles with no direction connection with each other such as - [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142] and [143]. You're clearly doing this intentionally, waiting for me to get annoyed enough to seem like I'm in the wrong before you could make another post on the Administrators' noticeboard to try and get me blocked. I even made a post on your talk page all those months ago to leave me alone, but clearly you didn't. You were still tracking my edits, and would then try to revert those with a good enough excuse for doing so in an attempt to spark up another edit war and then claim innocence and get all patronizing when it gets out of hand, multiple times. Feinoa (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

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

1. Hong Kong protest related articles - These articles were on my watchlist and I took part in multiple discussions and an RfC regarding these. I remember pointing out this edit of yours where you arbitrarily removed some content without any explanation for which I warned you and explained the issue. I would note that many other editors since then have also pointed out problems with your edits/behaviour on Hong Kong related articles on your talk. As for this edit, it follows the citation and I would note that you were involved in an edit war with other editors regarding this same point.
2. Grab - As explained in the previous ANI you have been involved in removing information and a long running edit war. I note that another editor had reverted you for arbitrarily removing content and warned you on your talk (which you deleted citing "ill founded claims"). I left a note on your talk about Grab as well. I opened a discussion on the talk in on 23 November 2019 as well. Despite all of this, you never responded to any dispute resolution and simply redid the edit again on 31 January 2020.
3. Mukim - You removed content saying the references is dead. I found an archived version and restored the information. I also explained our guidelines regarding WP:PRESERVE to you.
4. Minami-Tori-shima - Same issue. You removed content without any explanation including categories, I reverted. I started a discussion explaining my edits in which you did not take part.
5. Singapore Island I have a bunch of Singapore related article on my watchlist. I admit I reverted your changes based on a mistaken assumption. However I self reverted and restored your changes about 20 minutes later
6. Colony of Singapore Same here. I disagreed with your edit since it was adding unnecessary information and was not an improvement. If you really preferred your version, per WP:BRD you could have opened a discussion and I could have participated.
7. Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak Umm, I edited some content on this article [144]. Then you came and edited after that [145]. So who's Wikihounding now ;) By the way, your first edit on this article was removing a maintenance template without any explanation.

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

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

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

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

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

As I explained, the changes to those "unrelated" pages were only done in September and are limited to those 3 pages, for which I also offered an explanation on their talk. I have never even look at their vast majority of edits. The bigger issue here is that Feinoa's edits are clearly not following Wikipedia's guidelines like removing templates, removing citations and refusing to offer any explanation or discussion.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Denisarona's repeated rollback misuse and failure to communicate

I've recently had a perfectly reasonable edit of mine rolled back by User:Denisarona. Unexplained removal of sourced content happens to the best of us, not a big deal. As per usual, I went to the rollbacker's talk page and gave them a chance to explain themselves. Imagine my surprise when instead of taking me up on my offer, they deleted my message off their talk page like it's cool.

"Surely, they must've just had a bad day," I thought and went on to search through their contributions to confirm my suspicions.

Almost immediately, I found five additional examples of rollback misuse, all from February 2020, where Denisarona rolled back

• a good-faith edit, possibly just a good edit;
• a misguided but nevertheless a seemingly good-faith edit;
• a good-faith edit;
• yet another good-faith edit,
• and a seemingly reasonable red link addition, there's apparently even a very early stage draft for a potential article.

I wouldn't necessarily object too vigorously to the idea of any of these good-faith edits being undone, other than my own edit of course, but it's not what the WP:ROLLBACK tool is for, is it?

With so many examples from just the last seven days, looking for additional ones seemed pointless so I decided to instead find out if anyone had attempted to discuss Denisarona's rollback misuse with him/her before I did. Sure enough, at minimum two such attempts had been made. I say "at minimum" because to find what I did find, I had to plow through Denisarona's talk page's history as none of these made it to the archive. Let's take a look.

• In April 2019, we had this message from User:Sunmist, a fairly experienced editor and clearly not a troll/vandal, which Denisarona summarily deleted from his/her talk page with no response and a blank edit summary. The issue was quite tricky and I can't really fault Denisarona for using rollback in that instance; it's the complete lack of acknowledgement of stated concerns that rubs me the wrong way. At minimum, an embarrassed "whoops" in the edit summary would've been in order.
• In June 2014, we had this message by an IP user clearly editing in good faith, which reads as follows: "Abuse of the rollback tool can lead to its removal. Do not use rollback to revert good-faith edits." Needless to say, it was deleted with no response. I had a very cursory look at the situation there and it seems the concerns were legitimate; it would seem that Denisarona was restoring copyright violations. The IP tried to discuss the issue earlier in a separate section but to no avail; his/her concerns were wiped off the talk page just one minute after they were posted.
• And here's a special bonus to lighten up the mood. Found it in one of the previous ANI threads discussing Denisarona's editing habits. Here's hoping this one will be the last.

To summarize, just in February 2020, we've had six examples of rollback misuse, and, since the time Denisarona acquired his/her rollback rights, at least three separate instances of good-faith editors attempting to communicate legitimate rollback-misuse-related issues to him/her only to have their concerns deleted off his/her talk page without even a pretense of a response. Something needs to be done. Either we revoke Denisarona's rollback access (courtesy-pinging @Acalamari: the admin who enabled the rollback flag on the account) or we have them recognize their mistakes at long last and come up with a way to move forward. As a bare minimum, we have to communicate to him/her and have him/her acknowledge that: 1) although editors have every right to remove messages from their talk pages, one must not use that right to discard legitimate concerns regarding his/her use of advanced permissions, and 2) rollback must not be used to revert good-faith edits. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a clear misuse of rollback. The edits in question may or may not have needed to be reverted (I haven't checked that) but they were clearly not vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the reversion of your good faith edit without comment was bad, and have restored it.

The message you left on the user's talk page ought, in my opinion, to have been a little more friendly and a little less confrontational. In my experience, if you're friendly and assume good faith you're more likely to get an explanation and/or an apology. By saying this I am not excusing the rollback. --kingboyk (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's true enough as a general rule, but I will note that the friendly approach was tried in 2019 and generated the same response from the user as my direct approach, i.e. a summary deletion of the message. Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone with advanced permissions, such as rollback, should be able to cope with robust questioning of their actions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Just curious, Iaritmioawp, but why are you editing logged out, from an IP account? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is an appreciable concern, though while the deletion of concerns from 2014, that is a major gap, so I've somewhat discounted that. However, the burst in February alone plus the lack of response (well, one very specific response) in your case is sufficient to require an explanation. The community has been pretty clear that tools require a willingness to answer to queries about their usage. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• As a vandal-reverting rollbacker, I'm moved to agree with the concerns expressed here regarding the February rollbacks being pointed to, along with the Talk page deletions. I'd suggest pulling the permissions asap unless there is a prompt explanation/contrition/understanding and agreement to improve expressed. Jusdafax (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  The urgency may be exaggerated. Let's just wait for an answer, unless the user resumes editing without providing an answer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think the urgency is exaggerated. And I find reverting talk page comments about one's edits as "cretinous" unbecoming. @Denisarona:, I think it best if you not edit further without responding here.-- Deepfriedokra 05:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  The 'cretinous' edit summary is certainly unbecoming, but it was from 2014 so is probably a bit stale. However, this is a clear misuse of rollback, and Denisarona ought not to be removing legitimate queries about reverts from their talk page without a response. My advice to CVUA trainees is that mistakes with reverting vandalism do inevitably happen; when they do, and a good faith user comes to your talk page to complain, you should engage with them politely even if they are rude. Check the edit and, if your revert was a mistake, apologise quickly and profusely. Denisarona - I'm sure it would set people's minds at ease if you were to state here that you understand what people are saying, that you have refreshed yourself with WP:ROLLBACK, and that this won't be something we ned to revisit. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Damn. 2014. Didn't see the timestamp. (need new glasses). But as Girth Summit says, back when I did a lot of RCP, I'd make the occasional mistake with rollback and apologize, 'cause to be blunt, it really pisses people off and rightly so. I'm inclined to just pull the tool and ask them to reapply after 6 months, 'cause their error rate is too high. I don't know if anyone still likens overzealous rollback to playing an active shooter video game, but one must take care to not give that impression. (When I was a lad, we had to carry our templates on our backs through the snow, going uphill both ways.)-- Deepfriedokra 13:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  On the other hand, 2014 suggests chronicity if the problems persist today. If we are going to hand out tools that once were available only to admins, we need to hold accountable those using them.-- Deepfriedokra 13:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Last edit 2020-02-10T17:57:34-- Deepfriedokra 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  +1 to removing rollback - give them a day or so to communicate (as far as I can tell they last edited before this thread was opened), and if no explanation is forthcoming, pull it. Speaking as a fellow rollback-equipped editor, this doesn't look like appropriate use of the tool (fails WP:ROLLBACK's appropriateness criteria), and I'd encourage Denisarona to consider using Twinkle's rollback and providing an edit summary instead of using the built-in rollback tool. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra that would be WP:MMORPG. Creffett I'm with you on recommending Twinkle rather than standard rollback in most circumstances - the ability to choose one of the options that allows you to tap out a quick edit summary, which is much better practice when dealing with anything but obvious sheer vandalism, is very convenient. That wouldn't help with the refusal to communicate when questioned about a revert though. Looking back through the history Denisarona's user talk page, I'm seeing a great deal of trolling and abuse going back a long way - that comes with the territory if you do RCP, but it isn't pleasant, and it might have affected their ability/willingness to discern between good faith editors questioning a revert, and trolls coming to harass them. Removing the perm won't help with that - it might even make things worse (I take all this abuse for years and this is the thanks I get?). What I'd like to see is for them to log in, see this discussion, re-read the relevant guidance, and make a statement to the effect that they understand the concerns and will strive to improve their practice moving forward - a driver awareness course, rather than revoking their licence. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I mostly use twinkle so as to explain my revert. I have little use for the revert button that comes with the tools. As to the trolling, it goes with the territory-- one must take it as an indication of a job well done. The vandals aren't happy with being reverted. We still need to look at what we've done and fix our mistakes. And that's what I hope to see- a willingness to take responsibility for the inevitable errors and not a shrug and dismissal of concerns. -- Deepfriedokra 16:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Kbb2

• Kbb2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Fdom5997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've contributed to an article regarding the Gronings language using my own reputable source, and then it kept being undone by this user User:Kbb2. I have since then reverted the edit, but this user has been constantly reverting my edits of cited information, and it has been rather disturbing. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Fdom5997, Have you tried discussing the issue with said user? I see no evidence of any discussion. It may be a simple misunderstanding, or basic point that could be easily cleared up with a bit of talking. Also, anytime you mention someone at ANI, you must notify them, which you have not done. I have done it for you. In general: ANI is the last place to run in a dispute. It is where vandals and trolls, and bad behavior is dealt with. Before coming here, you should generally have thoroughly exhausted dispute resolution, or have evidence of misdoing. So unless you believe there is misdoing, this appears to be a content dispute that should be discussed by you and Kbb2. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 and Kbb2: This is a content dispute with edit warring. Please both of you stop reverting and start discussing. Please see WP:BRD. I echo what CaptainEek says.-- Deepfriedokra 05:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm done with reverting them, yes. I'll take the issue to Talk:Gronings dialect. I'm noticing some issues with WP:OWNERSHIP, when they say things like "do not debate" [146] and "leave my tables alone" [147] and bear in mind that Fdom hasn't addressed a single thing I said in the edit summaries and that the vowel table (the one with monophthongs, meaning the middle one) is unsourced. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I thought I saw some OWN as well. @Fdom5997: over to you.-- Deepfriedokra 13:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Devi2003

Devi2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Devi2003 is a relatively new user whose edits seem to largely consist of linking major country names such as United States or Germany. These edits are contrary to the Manual of Style, and he has been subsequently warned and reverted several times. As he continues to make similar edits, even after receiving their latest (final) warning, I suggest that a short suspension of editing privileges may be required in order to stem additional clean-up requirements. Loopy30 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Welp, I've left them another message. Just between you and me, I hate MOS related disputes. I certainly don't want to bite the new user. I'll rely on our collective wisdom to see us through.-- Deepfriedokra 05:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been involved in Devi2003's edits, and while some of them are WP:MOS issues, not all of them are. For example, this edit (which I warned them about) introduced a significant factual error into the article and this edit is highly problematic. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

wow. cyrillic?-- Deepfriedokra 05:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Lovely. Final warned them on what looks like vandalism.-- Deepfriedokra 06:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Last edit 2020-02-10T15:22:17.-- Deepfriedokra 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not "just" an MOS dispute either, it's a total absence of communication from the user that is off-putting. In their five-month history, they have edited across 20 projects with an immediate understanding of Wikidata entries and Wiki-markup, but not once posted to a talk page on any of the projects. They have been warned a couple of times for copyright infringement on other wikis, but no other problems noted. Loopy30 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Harassment of editors by User DBigXray

Editors involved-

• DBigXray (talk · contribs)
• Soman (talk · contribs)
• Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs)

First of all I have no involvement in this. I am just concerned with Xray's conduct.

Soman- There seems to be some dispute in AFD between these two parties. Xray templated[148] Soman for Personal attacks per this AFD[149]. Soman made these entries here[150] and here[151] to that AFD. It can not be construed in any way as a personal attack. They threatened to take Soman here.

I disputed there being any personal attacks and asked Xray for differentials at both their and Soman's talk page. He has evaded these requests multiple times. See here[152] and here[153].

Yappy2bhere- Xray is claimingYappy made a personal attack here[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Yuva_Morcha#frontal_org. I don't see it.

What I see is Xray biting/harassing two editors unless they prove otherwise....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not evading anything, I have been travelling for the last 4 days [154], ...William seems to be imposing some sort of unmentioned deadline to give him all the diffs of attacks, and when I asked him to clarify the deadline [155]. he threatened to drag me to ANI [156] and then promptly posted here [157], without even waiting for my response [158]. I will respond on the meat of the matter later, but just wanted to clarify on the accusation of evasion.  DBigXrayᗙ 13:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note that Xray made over 40 edits in the last 24 hours[159] and after my first request for differentials....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Well if it's differentials you want... :$\partial \left({\frac {u}{v}}\right)={\frac {\partial (u)\,v-u\,\partial (v)}{v^{2}}}$ EEng 14:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

No EEng, I believe this is what they were looking for. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Soman

• Soman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• [160] User had been alerted about the Discretionary sanctions on the topic area.
• Please see his comments on recent Afd [161].
• [162] *Keep, this is slightly ridiculous.
• [163] Spams the AfD with 78 links and then says,
• [164]Why don't you spend a few minutes extra and review the posted links? You seem to have little problem in wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs
• [165] I posted an NPA template on his talk page for the above WP:ADHOM comment.
• [166] Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate.
• [167] Templated again for this WP:ADHOM
• [168] he replied to the above template stating "Look, I've been along long enough here to detect empty postures. If you have an example of a personal attack, please bring it up in the relevant forum. I stand by the comments I made in the BJYM AfD, which were directed at your actions and behaviour and not your persona or person per se."
• [169] Inappropriate canvassing at a user's talk page about an article on AfD.
• [170] ... If you have concerns over the contents of the article, edit. AfD is not the place to address content issues.
• [171] Inappropriate canvassing at WP:INDIA with accusations against AfD noms stating There is a number of ongoing AfDs that break all logic and a wider community involvement would be of interest. A number of articles on entities ... are being nominated for deletion supposedly based on WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which is really weird ... Regardless of how one feels about political events in India today, arguing that organizations ... are non-notable defines common sense.
• [172] After successfully mobilizing Carrite to vote keep in the previous AfD, he made another inappropriate canvassing for another AfD
• [173] On Talk:Priashevshchina (which is on AfD) he attacks the AfD Nominator stating, DBigXray, whose googling skills aren't particularily impressive, has tagged four reference in this article.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, those dif's certainly seem snippy and rude. Do we give new users a bye on WP:CIVIL on WP:AGF?-- Deepfriedokra 13:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone gets a bye on WP:CIVIL. The reason Wikipedia is in the mess it's currently in with regards to civility is its lack of consistent enforcement. The other shoe needs to drop.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra and WaltCip I have said all I had to say on this thread. It is over to admins and ANI to decide on the issue now.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to respond in the table below;

Comment from DBigXray [174]	Comment from my side	re from DBX
*[175] User had been alerted about the Discretionary sanctions on the topic area.	Honestly, I found the assumption of bad faith by posting the DS notice on my talk as, well, an assumption of bad faith.
*Please see his comments on recent Afd [176].	Notably, DBigXray began his AfD nomination with the accusation (against me, article creator): "Article had been created using party website with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers" [177]	[178] I realized after nominating that it was the recent updates that were to be blamed for WP:PROMO and not the creator and I had already struck off my comment before Soman (creater) commented there. Soman seems to have deliberately hidden this fact.
*[179] *Keep, this is slightly ridiculous.	Yes? Tagging BJYM, the youth wing of one of the largest political parties in the world, for deletion due to supposed lack of notability, is ridicolous. 'Slightly' was added for sake of civility in the conversation
*[180] Spams the AfD with 78 links and then says,	Sorry, but here DBigXray was clearly the one who contributed to the deterioration of civility. He requested proof for notability, I posted a number of links, and when receiving them he refused to respond in mature way, and instead rebuffed the evidence of notability altogether.
* [181]Why don't you spend a few minutes extra and review the posted links? You seem to have little problem in wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs	Whereby DBigXray answers: "What you did above is nothing but blatant trolling of this AfD. Posting 75 links and asking others to click all of them is not something one expects from someone with good intentions. I looked at the first 5 and they are shit. Based on scores of deletion notices on your user talk page. is obvious that you have trouble understanding our WP:Notability criterias specially WP:ORGCRIT." (emphasis mine). Whilst the debates here aren't terribly uncivil, this clearly shows that DBigXray is hardly innocent in the this discussion.
* [182] I posted an NPA template on his talk page for the above WP:ADHOM comment.	Again, the posting of NPA warning was hardly helpful for the debate climate.
*[183] Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate.	Considering the editing pattern of DBigXray and his associate S. M. Nazmus Shakib over the past days, I have no doubt that WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies. I cannot find any other sensible explanation why BJYM would have been tagged for deletion.	I am a regular at AfDs. I am not related to S. M. Nazmus Shakib in any way and I take strong exceptions to this baseless accusation of connivance and a blatant violation of WP:ASPERSION.
*[184] Templated again for this WP:ADHOM	Again, issuing warning templates, saying "this is your final warning" etc, is hardly the hallmark of a mature editor
*[185] he replied to the above template stating "Look, I've been along long enough here to detect empty postures. If you have an example of a personal attack, please bring it up in the relevant forum. I stand by the comments I made in the BJYM AfD, which were directed at your actions and behaviour and not your persona or person per se."
*[186] Inappropriate canvassing at a user's talk page about an article on AfD.	This hardly qualifies as inappropriate canvassing. Carrite is an experienced, high-quality editor, with interest in history.
*[187] ... If you have concerns over the contents of the article, edit. AfD is not the place to address content issues.	AfD is not for clean-up. This is clear as per policy, and is a point often clarified in AfDs that complain about low-quality articles.
*[188] Inappropriate canvassing at WP:INDIA with accusations against AfD noms stating There is a number of ongoing AfDs that break all logic and a wider community involvement would be of interest. A number of articles on entities ... are being nominated for deletion supposedly based on WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which is really weird ... Regardless of how one feels about political events in India today, arguing that organizations ... are non-notable defines common sense.	Inviting broader participation is hardly inappropriate canvassing. And the underlining problem with POV issues of the AfD nominators remain, in my opinion.
*[189] After successfully mobilizing Carrite to vote keep in the previous AfD, he made another inappropriate canvassing for another AfD	See above
*[190] On Talk:Priashevshchina (which is on AfD) he attacks the AfD Nominator stating, {{gi|DBigXray, whose googling skills aren't particularily impressive, has tagged four reference in this article.	Sorry, but tagging 4 out of 5 references in one go, on an article that he himself nominated for AfD, doesn't exactly indicate the ability to verify sources.

For me, the bigger issue, which I feel was an expression of WP:HOUND was the fact that DBigXray tagged 4 other articles created by me for AfD (edit diff on talk page [191]) in one go, seemingly without respecting WP:BEFORE. I'm not going to elaborate on the merits of each article here, but I fail to believe that he came across these 4 articles by coincidence. All 4 AfDs followed accusation of personal attack. I find this behaviour disturbing and unconstructive. --Soman (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is ever advisable for one editor embroiled in a dispute to issue a civility warning to a fellow disputant, it certainly wasn't necessary for Xray to jump from an initial warning to a final warning. The added snippet of "since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the content and not attacking others" could, without much difficulty, be construed as a personal attack. When you also consider that Xray nominated four of Soman's created articles for deletion in between the two warnings, it all begins to come across as a bit heavy-handed. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have made 2 comments in the table above. The rest is quite easy to understand so I dont feel the need to respond to them. Lepricavark, They were given 2 warnings, on NPA, you can call it with whatever names one would prefer to. They have been editing here for more than 16 years, and if they still decide to disregard first WP:NPA warning, I dont think a second warning was really needed, but I gave it anyway. Now we are here, so hopefully this will be addressed and no more warnings needed. I have already given enough diffs where this user despite being warned about NPA continued attacking others on AfD. Accordingly my line in the warning where I said, "since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the content and not attacking others" is appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 19:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's how I see it. You can either nominate four of an editor's created articles for deletion or you can issue that editor a final warning for incivility. Doing both is very ill-advised, especially since you are not an admin. Your line in the warning may seem appropriate to you, but it was an unfavorable personal comment uttered during the course of a dispute. In that sense, it's not so different from the comments made by Soman to which you took offense. Lepricavark (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, I don't agree with any of your opinions you shared in the last comment above. I would leave it at that. DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I don't see any point in leaving this subthread open. Neither your nor Soman has done anything to warrant further action, although I do hope you will reconsider your tactics as they do come across as heavy-handed IMO. Could Soman have handled this a bit more graciously? Absolutely, but there's no need for sanctions or any sort of formal warning. Lepricavark (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yappy2bhere

• Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• [192] User had been alerted about the Discretionary sanctions on the topic area.
• This user was involved with me in a minor content dispute over copy editing a text, where something was added that was not supported by the source. I raised the matter on article talk [193] and accordingly a std template on WP:OR [194] and a std DS alert on WP:ARBIPA (which covers all Indian articles) was given [195].
• [196] He responded to the template stating Don't waste your time, son -- you're not in the right, you're not an admin, and you either don't understand WP policy or cynically contort it to achieve your own ends. Whether it's stupidity or audacity, you'll need more than chutzpah and a template to bully me.
• [197] on the talk page thread he responded calling me a "A diller" ( defined here as "The word 'diller' is a Yorkshire term for a boy who is dim-witted and stupid ")
• [198] I posted an NPA template for the above comment.
• [199] doubled down and continued his personal attacks on me on his user talk telling me You're a WP:BULLY with a big axe to grind. Take care that it doesn't fall on you, friend.
• [200] Calls me a boy, stating "Don't cry wolf, boy. You've not been attacked, neither there nor at AfD."
• [201] fed up with his personal attacks, I warned that continued attacks on me will be reported at admin boards.

As I have clarified in the diffs and the quoted comments, my warning were not frivolous and I have been needlessly harassed in the middle of my trip in real life. I hope an admin takes some sort of action on these diffs as the topic area is covered under WP:ACDS and the users were already alerted about it. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any kind of problem in DBigXray's behaviour toward Yappy2bhere. Putting a DS notice on someone's talk page is standard practice, it is not an attempt to bully them. Yappy2bhere's response was condescending and unambiguously rude - if anyone's behaviour needs examining, its theirs, not XRay's. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Concur with Girth Summit. I think Soman and Yappy2bhere need to address these concerns before editing further. I think the next incivil edit should certainly result in a block. Not averse to blocking now.-- Deepfriedokra 16:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Soman has reponded. I think we should give Yappy a chance to respond to Xray's side of the story before any sort of block is meted out. Lepricavark (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Wait we must. DBigXrayᗙ

• yes, wait we must. No problem in waiting to hear back. But I would like to note that looking at their sparse contribution history, and the fact that they did not edit in last 5 days, there is a good chance that we might need to wait for 5 months to hear back again from them.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Carrite

Soman is an outstanding encyclopedist. I have no idea if DBigXray is stalking him or not, but it certainly looks like there is some sort of personal axe being ground. Soman appealed to me to take a look at a couple AfDs as a subject expert, asking in a neutral manner. I had a definite opinion about one, which seemed to me a pretty easy GNG pass; no opinion about the other. Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Adams (commentator)

Long term edit warring to remove sourced content, back to 2018, claiming defamatory content. May require several measures, including page protection and user block. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This looks like garden variety edit warring. Have you warned this user? If so, WP:ANEW is the noticeboard for handling these sorts of simple edit wars, normally. --Jayron32 15:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think they know what they're doing, Jayron32; 72.48.31.2 (talk · contribs) and 199.114.230.209 (talk · contribs) look like the same editor. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I noticed the warnings and blocked them for 1 week. If the problems return, let us know, and we'll carry this further. --Jayron32 15:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan vandal revdel please

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

---

Can we clean the last few edits and summaries please. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request

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

---

Many, many years ago I requested my user and talk pages be deleted, which were done as at the time I was not terribly well. I believe a decade or so later that this may have been helpful for myself at the time, but it seems now it was a kindness not granted to many others.

Can I therefore please have User:Ta bu shi da yu and the corresponding talk page undeleted. Also, a request for comment: should my other accounts User:Tbsdy lives and User:Letsbefiends redirected to Chris.sherlock (talk)? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• User talk:Ta bu shi da yu already exists; it's just a redirect now, but the history is there. User:Ta bu shi da yu can be undeleted if you want, but it is perfectly fine to delete a user page upon the user's request, so its deletion wasn't done out of process. Just note here if you really want it undeleted, rather than thinking it "should" be because you were given some kind of special treatment. I don't know the policy-based answer to your request for comment, but the commonsense-based answer is, it should be completely up to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I can confirm I prefer it to be undeleted. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I've restored the userpage as requested. The user talk page was already restored in 2005. Redirecting the other accounts makes sense, but is not mandatory. El_C 23:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I was led to believe that my user talk pages were never undeleted. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

They were restored back in 2005 by MarkSweep (log). El_C 23:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

*User talk:Tbsdy lives needs its history restoring as well. The out-of-process deletion was done on the basis that the editor would never return to Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Sorry, hadn't seen the restoration. DuncanHill (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

You have made a number of false allegations about me over the years. You consistently used this point to attack me. I believe you owe me an apology. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

For what? And stop dishonestly claiming I've made false allegations against you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"the old talk pages have not been restored”. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"old talk pages have not been restored comment on the 7th January, Tbsdy lives talk page restored on the 9th. DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I wasn’t aware of that, certainly ST47 didn’t inform me. You are definitely hostile towards me, have had it in for me for a long tine and I do my best to ignore you. I won’t make the mistake of acknowledging you again. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Such a graceful apology! DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Review

My user talk pages were restored, I feel vindictively, by ST47. My concern was that he never notified me (not that he did the action) and didn’t notify anyone of reversing the actions of another admin, SlimVirgin. I am taking this here for review. I realise many will not like this, but I believe admins must be accountable and transparent in their actions. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Chris,

Looking at his deletion log, the only user page that I see restored is your former account's user talk page. User talk pages are typically not deleted so it probably shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. I would just blank it, if I were you. And I don't think anyone would have made the connection between the two accounts if you hadn't filed this complaint. Sorry but I think you are drawing more attention to this matter than you probably wanted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't read the discussion above this one when I posted my comment. Now I really think you are prolonging what might have been a discussion between you and ST47 (and any admin) and drawing attention to this matter on a highly visible noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Liz, the page was originally deleted because I had made some suicidal comments. In the thread above I asked to have it undeleted, but I was hoping to do so when I was feeling well enough and in my own time. Because ST47 didn’t ask for this to be reviewed, he potentially left me vulnerable. I have to assume that someone with his experience would know that if another admin with the experience of SlimVirgin wouldn’t just delete a user talk page, so him not advising anyone when reversing another admins actions is, to my mind, suspicious and vindictive. Incidentally, a few people have claimed I am “playing victim”. I in fact did end up in hospital. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, now I'm even more sure, Chris, that you should have contacted an admin via their talk page or via email. I don't know why you would choose to reveal such personal information on our most active noticeboard. You have my sympathy but I think posting this complaint was the wrong way to go about getting the results you wanted. Posting on ANI made you more vulnerable than any talk page comments would have. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I did. They deleted the message. What would you have had me do? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I do not know why Chris believes my actions were vindictive, as I am not aware of any previous encounter with any of his user accounts. It is possible that we met "back in the day", but I certainly don't have a long enough memory to hold a grudge from so long ago. The only page that I restored was User talk:Tbsdy lives. As best I can recall, I did so while browsing an AN thread related to Chris which mentioned his previous accounts, and noticed that one of the old talk pages had been deleted. Per WP:DELTALK, as they are usually needed for reference by other users, I restored it. I agree with Chris that users should be accountable and transparent in their actions, which is coincidentally the basis for WP:DELTALK. I have made no effort to shirk from either accountability or transparency, and indeed the restoration is visible in the page's rather remarkable deletion log. Despite the mentions of ArbCom in that log, the deletion appears to have been a normal admin action. SlimVirgin's decision to deviate from policy by deleting the talk page in 2010 may well have been entirely reasonable given the circumstances at the time; since Chris has returned, so should his talk page history. ST47 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you at least explain why you didn’t advise the deleting admin (or bring this here) or even have the courtesy to inform me? That page got deleted because at the time I was suicidal. WP:DELTALK states that “ Exceptions to this can be and are made on occasion for good reason." Slim would hardly have added that to the deletion log. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Is there something on the talk page in question that should be revdeled or suppressed? If so then please email URLs of the relevant revisions to Special:EmailUser/Oversight. ST47 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Not as sorry as I am! So let’s get this straight. You ask me this now, but never bothered to ask or find out at the time? Kind of about a month late for that... if you had asked for review then this wouldn’t have been a problem. Can I ask why you didn’t at least advise me you had undeleted my user talk page? This seems vindictive to me. I can’t imagine why you would not have at least informed me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that undeleted without anyone having contacted me. It was deleted after several discussions; the logs show it was deleted three times by three admins in five months. Chris has explained why above. It was understood at the time that he would not be returning, so the exception was made. Now that he's back, it's probably right to undelete it, but it would have been better to make that decision with Chris's involvement, so that it didn't just reappear on his watchlist. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Slim. I don’t disagree that the user talk page should have been undeleted, but I am concerned that it was not brought to my attention. Now I’ve got to move fast and find out what needs redacting. This is extremely concerning, it is not normal that user talk pages are deleted but there are exceptions. Any admin who reversed this sort of thing is playing with fire. If they do t ask the admin who deleted the talk page why it was deleted, they have no way of knowing if there is sensitive information they may be leaking to the world. You’d think someone with oversight privileges would realise this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Some previous discussion about this can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Ta_bu_shi_da_yu_has_already_left_the_building. DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Can I request that DuncanHill refrain from saying my user talk pages were deleted out of process? This was never the case. This is also not related to the current discussion, but instead it shows an ongoing grudge against me from literally over a decade ago. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

ST47: Chris has been open over the years about his mental-health issues, which have included suicidal thoughts. He is very upfront about this; he's not willing to whisper about it in corners, and that perhaps makes people uncomfortable, but I think it's the right approach. What happened here is that a page that had caused him a lot of pain was undeleted without discussion or warning. Now Chris is expected to look through the page quickly to find anything that needs to be revdeleted or oversighted, but that in itself might be painful. So this has not been handled well. The issue here is not only Chris; he's not speaking on his own behalf only. This is about how we treat people who are experiencing mental-health problems.

I understand that it's hard to know how best to deal with this and be fair to others who don't have their talk pages deleted, but to brush Chris off isn't fair either. (And Duncan, please stop commenting on Chris wherever he turns up.) SarahSV ^(talk) 01:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Since this is apparently open again, thanks for your response and the further information. I of course would like to see any material that needs suppression dealt with as rapidly as possible, if it exists. I'm neither a mental health expert nor an expert on Chris's case, so I can only trust that he is doing what he has to do to take care of himself and seeking help if it is needed. I also don't intend to call into question your original decision to delete the talk page; it was no doubt a reasonable deviation from policy at the time. Merely a matter of changing circumstances requiring a change in the status of that page, as was pointed out in that early January ANI thread, and which I felt would be a fairly uncontroversial clerical action. ST47 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Seems like a valid undeletion to me, per WP:DELTALK. It's not ideal to skip notifying the editor/deleting admin, but it's also pretty far from ideal the way the editor in question has handled this. There was nothing indicating that the deletion should not be reversed without contacting X, or whatever. If there are revisions that need to be deleted, or oversighted, the best way forward would be to contact the oversight team, or an individual oversighter (I understand that ST47 is an oversighter, and why you might not be comfortable mailing the list in this case). SQL^{Query me!} 03:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

ST47: thanks for the response, and I understand what you mean about seeing it as a normal clerical action. The question now is what to do. There's no point in deleting it again. At some point, Chris has to sort through it, and he has to be able to see it to do that. I think he would really appreciate a note from you that you understand why he's upset and offering to help him with any deletions. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Move Request

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Requested_move_11_February_2020

This not report to block someone, but to ask few admins to set a short term deadline before allowing another requested move again. This getting out of control with move request ,. Regice2020 (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You **** fuck

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

---

Ima leave this for the next admin. For the record, my warning on their talk page was prompted by this edit. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Psychologist Guy

Disclaimer: this was filed as edit warring, closed as the pages having been protected with this editor's changes already in place. It was also filed under the NPOV board and rejected since it was about an editor not an article. Do not take this as a criticism about the process or those involved, Wikipedia has a process and I believe in that process, but I do not think it would be right to not mention this.

The user in question appears to have a conflict of interest with respect to certain types of diets. Of note:

• Editor has been involved in heavy editing of Carnivore diet (now all but edit gore) which is now a redirect to Monotrophic diet.
• They added the section on the carnivore diet to Monotrophic diet, referring to it as a "fad diet": [202]
• Articles created by the editor include more positive worded ones such as Richard Dean (curate) ("an Anglican minister and early animal rights writer"), Humphrey Primatt ("an English clergyman and animal rights writer"), Robert Cook (eccentric) ("an Irish eccentric farmer and early veganism activist"), Audrey Eyton ("an English animal welfare campaigner, journalist and writer. She is best known for creating the F-Plan diet." - oddly enough not a fad diet), Louis Rimbault ("promoter of simple living and veganism"), William H. Galvani ("a civil engineer, vegetarianism activist and writer"), Wilmer Ingalls Gordon ("an American osteopathic physician and vegetarianism activist"), Edward Hare ("a vegetarianism activist" in the lead), Josiah Oldfield ("promoter of fruitarianism"), Charles W. Forward ("a British animal rights activist and historian of vegetarianism"), etc.
• Editor has also been involved in such articles as Animal welfare, Lacto vegetarianism, Vegetarian Society, etc.
• Editor has interests on their sandbox page which include "Animal rights by country or territory", "Animal protectionism", "Animal welfare", "Veganism", "Anarchism and animal rights", "Animal-free agriculture", etc.

WP:DUCK makes me strongly wonder whether this editor has a conflict of interest in writing more positive articles on animal-free diets and removing articles that discuss diets that include animals. Bringing up concern about the edit warring brought this response which included accusations of bringing the concerns about edit warring in bad faith, accusations of being a meat puppet, and that I was a "high-up friend on Wikipedia" roped into trying to get this editor banned (which is, as far as I know, not one of the generally handed down punishments from edit warring, usually that is just a time-out at worst.) There are other accusations which I think are unfounded and in violation of WP:GOODFAITH. I do want to be clear, I don't think the editor in question is a bad person, I do think they are letting their bias show which is not good for Wikipedia. I avoid articles that I have a non-neutral POV in, specifically for this reason, even if it's obvious vandalism. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, maybe Discuss Race and intelligence

Aticle is at DRV currently. Looks like editors may be trying to take a chainsaw to article again. Keep an eye on us please. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)