Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062

Legal threat and block evasion by Informed analysis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Informed analysis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

I just got a legal threat delivered on my talk page by Informed analysis who is known for using Toronto IPs to violate WP:MULTIPLE and to evade a block. Here's the threat: "...if you continue you may find yourself subject to police investigation and/or legal action." Informed analysis has used the same /64 range before, including ten days ago, saying "this is informed analysis - I forgot to log in - sorry".

The previous noticeboard discussion of this person is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#Informed analysis. The same /64 range was listed there, too. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 range for six months for block evasion, harassment and legal threats before I saw this, and revdel'd the harassing post. Acroterion (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!

Recently I reverted activity by the Toronto IP 99.231.158.242 because I knew it was Informed analysis evading their block. This was likely the catalyst for the legal threat. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I've also blocked the account indefinitely in view of the targeted harassment and legal posturing, and the 99.x IP. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Contributions/2603:8081:500:F700:0:0:0:0/64 and disruptive redirect requests

• 2603:8081:500:F700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP range, previously blocked for disruptive AfC review requests, is back at it again with similar requests, this time not just using the AfC draftspace process, but also repeatedly requesting redirects without sources at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. Contribution history may also contain other disruption, however, individual IPs were previously blocked for evading an existing block at 70.114.31.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an IP that also caused similar disruption. Note I've also had one of the IPs in this range attack my Talk page and trigger the filter on my user page as well.

Courtesy ping Cyphoidbomb as previous blocking admin of this range and Yamla as blocking admin for the latter IP. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

IP is continuing the same disruptive requests after this report was made. Just another case of WP:IDHT. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Geraldo Perez: Thanks for handling reversion of unsourced categories. I didn't even realize this was also a problem the user in this range exhibited. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor in range is adding unsourced bio categories to redirects. Nothing at targets support those added categories and, of course, the required references are not included to support the additions. This goes against WP:CATVER and WP:BLPCAT. This is a persistent problem with this editor. Editor has received warnings at:

Also was range blocked [1] Nov 20, 2020

and is still evading a 1 year block of User talk:70.114.31.252, the IPv4 alias of this IPv6 /64 range. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked Special:Contributions/2603:8081:500:F700:0:0:0:0/64 for a week. Let me know if more is needed later. Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thanks. There is still the issue of the somewhat blatant block evasion of 70.114.31.252 who is on his 4th block and now blocked Dec 19, 2020 until Dec 19, 2021. As noted above by JalenFolf this is obviously the same person making the same general type of edits. Geo location and ISP match exactly, same edit pattern. An IPv6 range block to expire the same time as the block on the IPv4 to stop the block evasion would seem appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yamla blocked 70.114.31.252 for a year (block log) as "CheckUser block". If Yamla wants to apply that to 2603:8081:500:F700:0:0:0:0/64, good. If not, contact me if problems persist, after the week-long block expires. I would prefer to see one attempt to engage with the IP. For example, the templates at this talk make the page unreadable. It might have happened long ago, but there should be another attempt to politely explain what it is about their edits that is a problem (in addition to edit warring). Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

172.58.224.180 - NOTHERE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 172.58.224.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rgalo10

Not sure I understand what this user is up to, nor do I think I want to know. Whatever it is, it's mad sus. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week for block evasion and disruptive editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing and behaviour by Lenchmobbin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lenchmobbin (talk · contribs) has been editing mostly articles related to African Americans since October 2020. These edits are very often deceptive deletions of content with the edit summary "Fixed typo" or "Added content". For example here [2], here [3], here [4], here [5] and here [6]. When confronted with this in the past Lenchmobbin has responded with profanity and personal attacks. For example here [7], here [8] and here [9].

Lenchmobbin has been warned about this behavior several times, and was previously blocked for 31 hours with the explanation "Possibly not here to build an encyclopedia. Maybe this will get their attention." [10]. All the edits linked above come after this block, so it seems it did not get their attention, and that Lenchmobbin is not here to build an encyclopedia. Knuthove (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And in all that time, nobody questioned this person's username? The Moose 19:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, that should've been a red flag from the beginning. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's obvious to me now, but I weirdly didn't pick up on it at the time of indeffing. El_C 11:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

a user is adding low level words on a page

Dear Admin,

someone is adding bad words on this page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_M._El-Khalil you can track him by checking the history of the page. i m the creator of the page and thus i need ur help to either ban this person or at least let him stop doing such low level acts

the user info is: https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=2A01:CB00:E1B:D500:A9C1:C0F6:BAF6:13C4

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabineantar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been almost a month since the vandalism took place, and the edit was more random text than bad words. Their other edits were the same and quickly reverted every time. There's nothing anyone can do here; you reverted the vandalism and that's all you could do so far out. Nate • (chatter) 16:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Response to speedy request

I seem to have poked a hornets' nest. :) I requested speedy and salting on Kenneth Tran, and immediately three editors appeared to contest it on the talk page, all with very similar style of writing both there and on their respective user pages. Now, I've no actual evidence of sockpuppetry, but it does look a bit dodgy IMO. There's also an IP editor involved who may have a COI with the article subject. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: If you are sure that there is sockpuppetry, and have the evidence for it, then WP:SPI is the way to go. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 10:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, yeah, it looks dodgy. What is even more surprising is that some of the accounts on the TP were created as far back as 2018 but have only made edits now - perhaps this is related to Kennethttran as well, whose account was created in 2017. I think there's enough evidence to file a WP:SPI unless anyone objects. Pahunkat (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait, reply-link gets past edit conflicts? Pahunkat (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Who else is feeling salty today? El_C 11:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kennethttran - FYI. Pahunkat (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It's two different sock farms. I blocked both. One belongs to Kennethttran, the other belongs to Chintan Patoliya. The Chintan socks are probably spammers. Tran is probably a self-promoting vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

My favourite part was: An an angel investor and the co-founder of Nemexia, which he acquired and later sold, he was interviewed by GamerzUnite who said "There's no stopping this guy." Well, I beg to differ. El_C 12:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all. That was funny one. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User Edgarstevano

Edgarstevano (talk · contribs) has been replacing low resolution fair-use images with higher resolution ones uploaded to Commons. William Avery (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

William Avery I warned them on their userpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Voodoo(company) Wrong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was looking through IceWelder’s talk and saw that User:Demon2343323 was related with me, an IP, on a section I made. The reason is that soon after my Paper.io article got deleted, on Voodoo(company), this user added my Paper.io text. The admins thought no one else would do this so they blocked him for IP Evasion. It’s not me running this account. 92.40.172.105 (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's not you, why do you care? If someone you don't know is reinstating your reverted edits you should be flattered. Seems like the blocked account would be the one insisting on the unblock. Fishy, that's all. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret: Seems related to 92.40.171.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, more block evasion. I've blocked this one. -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range of Greek IPs: false music certifications

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2A02:587:7176:8000:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody using Greek IPs has been changing music articles to have inflated sales figures and certifications. They do things such as change 183,000 to 200,000,[11] and change 1× Platinum to 3× Platinum.[12] None of these edits are supported by sources.

I linked to a /40 range above, but the range might be narrowed by someone searching the contributions of this person. Many of the contributions are single edits from one IP, for instance the one from Special:Contributions/2A02:587:7109:FE00:6D19:BADC:C1C7:EC82 in August 2020. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

They are still active, for instance this false certifcation level of 3× Platinum, which breaks the template and causes a red font warning. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the /40 range for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Superb. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion by Dr Holy Joker

• Dr Holy Joker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 176.12.191.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

A bit too obvious to bother with a full SPI case. The IP admits here before my user got blocked. Could someone do the necessary please? Thank you.

I'm trying to appeal the blocking and have a debate there. 176.12.191.29 (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Bloody Hell! I've partially blocked the IP for six months. Please feel free to shorten that if it is too long. Will add link to the UTRS ticket.. Pro tip-- block evasion does not reflect favorably on an unblock request! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #41453 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting the CIDR (/17, 176.13.0.0/16) shows no other edits to the article or talk in question. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Confirmed in UTRS discussion. UTRS declined by Yamla. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: and back again as 176.12.156.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) FDW777 (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Latest IP partially blocked. Acroterion (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If they persist, a partial block of 176.12.128.0/18 should cause no collateral damage. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Addition of factually inaccurate information

User:DaShita2021 has been warned repeatedly about adding incorrect information to BLPs but continues to do so.--User:Namiba 14:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Stifle (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Not to step on your toes, but I have moved the block to an indef for the username, they will need to change that before anything else is done and address the edits as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Please protect Poul-Erik Høyer Larsen and Badminton World Federation pages, they are in massive target of vandals. Thanks  Zoglophie 17:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Did WP:RFPP consider the request invalid or something? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Declined The amount of vandalism is not massive, and it stopped several hours ago. If the activity resumes, please consider posting at WP:RFPP, which is the special board for requests for page protection. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ondřej Kúdela

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please protect Ondřej Kúdela? The last 100 or so edits are all vandalism of this BLP. RPP and AIV don't seem to have much attention at the moment. Thank you kindly. Reba16 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:WikiCleanerMan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

First, I noticed WikiCleanerMan (talk · contribs) is removing WP:SORTKEYs from categories in different articles (for example: [13], [14], [15]), so I wrote on his talk page about the rules. He ignored and continued ([16], [17], [18]), so I reported him to AN3, but that ended without action. He continued removing sort keys ([19]), and I explaned him how it works, again. He's still removing it nevertheless ([20], [21], [22], [23]).

He's edit-warring and ignoring two users (Mclay1 and me) who are pointing out to his erroneous edits in Category:Israeli–Lebanese conflict: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].

Also, he's edit-warring against two users (The Banner and me) in Template:Campaignbox Hezbollah–Israel conflict ([29], [30], [31], [32]) and Template:Iran–Israel proxy conflict ([33], [34], [35], [36]). --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that some of his edits are not good. I have advised him on his talk page about guidelines on categorisation and other things. MClay1 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Mclay1 - unless it's already been pointed out, on their Talk page history, it seems like they've been warned about this behaviour before and have blanked their Talk page to remove these warnings. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Triggerhippie was rude to me about the sort keys on my talk page. Instead of just simply explaining it to me, something which is pretty minor, he said "You should learn among other things". He could have just shown an example the first time, not the second time he left a message on my talk page. Plain and simple. And frankly, I'm not edit warring with anybody. I already explained in my edit summary that I removed the sort key on Presidential transition of George W. Bush by accident. It was restored by another user. The only thing he reverted was a meaningful edit. He didn't even bother to look at the page history. He's making minor things into a big issue. He's in fact monitoring my edits and most likely just trying to undo everything over a minor thing. The sort keys are organized alphabetically. I'll agree the sort keys should be for main articles. How is the sort key for the category 1979 in Iran useful when Iran hostage crisis is listed under the letter H instead of I? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: I just showed above that I gave you link to the guidelines (which has examples) from the start. And I provided plenty of examples of your edit-warring. As for the Iran hostage crisis article, everything in the category "1979 in Iran" is related to Iran, so the sort key "Iran" is not useful. The same is with other categories you removed sort keys from. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hostage crisis as the sort key for 1979 in Iran does nothing other than list it under the wrong letter. Those categories like 1979 in Iran don't need a sort key unless it is the main article called 1979 in Iran. And Trigger I would advise you to edit Wikipedia on a large scale than just making minor edits and complaints. You are the one that is edit-warring undoing every edit I make on topics concerning Israel. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: I understand your POV on the sorting, but that's generally not how it's done. Consensus is against you. MClay1 (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mclay1: I honestly don't understand his POV on the sorting at all. Do you agree with his removal of sort keys in Iran hostage crisis? Could you explain? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: I don't agree with it. I think WikiCleanerMan is saying pages should be sorted under the actual page title. It is sometimes confusing for pages to be sorted under a word from the middle of the title, but on the other hand, it's not helpful to have a bunch of Iran pages in an Iran category all sorted under I. MClay1 (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4:@WikiCleanerMan: regardless of the adequacy of earlier explanations, I don't understand why you kept removing sortkeys when by your own admission, you clearly didn't understand how they are used and you'd already been asked to stop. If you don't understand something, maybe try asking whether the editor who asked you to stop or WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk rather than just repeatedly doing something you've been asked to stop? Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, you replied to the wrong editor. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, fixed. @WikiCleanerMan: also have you actually read the guideline WP:SORTKEY which has been linked to you above (and I assume earlier)? BTW, explanations aside, have you actually look at one of the categories you're effectively editing (by removing the sort keys)? For example Category:Politics by region. Can you not see for yourself why it's not helpful to have nearly everything sorted under P? Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The sort keys are not a major problem. I didn't admit I didn't understand them. You just assumed it. I explained my justification for removing sort keys for the categories that are not eponymous to the article's name. I have read the guidelines about sort keys. Not every category needs a sort key. It's really the behavior of Trigger. I explain my intentions well enough in the edit summaries and he ignores them to his liking. For instance, he made a big deal over the see also section on the Iran-Israel proxy conflict over hatnotes even though what I added in that section is relevant concerning the article. And frankly, Trigger isn't helping himself by continuously reporting me. He's just hounding me and I'm getting sick of it. Wikipedia needs to do more about certain users being disruptive on topics relating to Israel whether it's articles, categories, templates, etc... --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

WikiCleanerMan, your combative responses aren't helping you. You should also read WP:IDHT, because multiple editors are telling you your edits are problematic, and you are making statements about not caring what they have to say. If you don't start listening and taking this feedback onboard, I sense a TBAN around sorting in your future. Grandpallama (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. This is just becoming a common occurrence over some minor stuff. I'm helping with the topics at hand. Nothing else. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

>"I didn't admit I didn't understand them. You just assumed it."

One hour ago you complained here that I didn't explained to you better about the sort keys: "He could have just shown an example the first time, not the second time he left a message on my talk page."

>"I explained my justification for removing sort keys for the categories that are not eponymous to the article's name."'

You never did that. Diffs are showing it.

>"I explain my intentions well enough in the edit summaries and he ignores them to his liking."

It's the other way around.

>"For instance, he made a big deal over the see also section on the Iran-Israel proxy conflict over hatnotes even though what I added in that section is relevant concerning the article."

After you added repetitive links to "See also" section, I explained on your talk page why we don't do it, and that was it. I didn't made a "big deal" over it. I didn't even reverted you. How is this relevant? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Triggerhippie4, like I said about the hatnotes, you could've just changed it or removed it. I said this to you a while back. If it wasn't a big deal why leave a message on my talk page then? A simple change and that's that. Didn't I explain my intentions on the Iran-Israel template? I think I did because the edit summaries will show you. You keep removing a link to the Syrian civil war even though it's part of the conflict between Iran and Israel, having the specific article there is fine. But the Syrian civil war should be linked in the template. It's a statement of fact. Plain and simple. Your explanation wasn't better because the first time you didn't show an example about how sort keys worked, you just mentioned how I removed it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Syrian civil war is related to the conflict between Iran and Israel, but the former is not a part of the latter. Template:Iran–Israel proxy conflict already has a link to the Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, so link to the Syrian civil war is excessive. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think beyond the edit-warring, comments like thanks for putting up with that Palestinian and you must be Arab or Middle Eastern are a wee bit more concerning. Imagine somebody saying you must be Jewish or Israeli or thanks for putting up with that Jew. nableezy - 16:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Those comments were made in anger of an article dispute because there was in fact biased in opposition made about the article subject at hand. Two other users involved in that dispute can in fact back me up on the matter. Sorry for the removal. Accident. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Even with the article subject at hand, comments like that are just inappropriate. I'd argue especially with the article subject at hand, editors should particularly refrain from comments such as that - something I'd say to the two other editors you mention. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine. I made a mistake. I'm only human. But I've tried a billion times explaining to one editor why the article is well-sourced and deserves to stay. Nothing came off the editor's attempts to remove the article from the site, but that didn't stop him from these past three months to stop his unhelpful actions.--WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that some of the articles he's edit-warring in (e.g. Israeli–Lebanese conflict) are under {{ARBPIA}}. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New username and similar article names

Could someone please check Draft:The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch and Skinwalker Ranch against Skinwalker Ranch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), WaussusBeaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 174.3.212.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Potential to get messy, quickly. ThanQ.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This sockfarm was already blocked, I've reblocked and hardblocked the IP for three months though they already posted a retirement message. The draft can sit out six months to deletion unless anyone wants to work on it. Fences&Windows 01:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

David Schafer Ga Rep Party bio

Never done this before but the Wash. post published a retraction of a Pres. Trump story on 3/15.. Find the votes quote was never stated.. please correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.80.132.23 (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what administrative action you are seeking. Please name an article, user and/or diffs to clarify. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It'll probably be better to take this to WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N, but it seems you are mistaken. I assume you are referring to this [37] retraction/correction. But that correction has nothing to do with the phone call with the Georgia’s secretary of state Brad Raffensperger where Trump made the request to find votes. (Note he didn't actually say "find the votes" and I didn't see any our article of ours which say he did. Rather he said stuff like "just want to find 11,780 votes" etc.) The full transcript and audio of that phone call is available here [38] if you want to investigate further. The correction concerned a earlier phone call which was the subject of a Washington Post article on 9 January (not 5 January) with a Georgia elections investigator where the Washington Post incorrectly reported that Trump has asked the investigator to "find the fraud", when he never actually said that. Instead, Trump said "find things that are gonna be unbelievable." While there are some articles which look like they need to be updated as a result of this retraction, the David Shafer (politician) article is not one of them. I double checked and I don't think it ever mentions this claim, probably in part because it wasn't something Shafer got significantly involved in unlike the call with the Georgia secretary of state where the request to find votes was made. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Well in fairness, Trump did turn out to be right about his fraud claims being unbelievable. EEng 07:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop mocking pure hearted, organic-food-eating Vikings. You know, the right to pillage is in their Constitution! El_C 02:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Zaidershnir sock/block evasion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is an open an shut case, but disruption is ongoing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Headbomb: If it's WP:DUCK and the original editor is already blocked you can just report to AIV (which I've done). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

See also legal threats [39] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accidental publish - need delete please

Editing some paraphrasing I accidentally published blocks of copyright, please delete this talk page entry, bottom section "Underuse of Bernet / Wamboldt / Narrow white paper" speedy delete. Apologies--Frobozz1 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Frobozz1: I've WP:REVDELed the edits. Thanks for reporting the error. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The delete left a section on the page unsigned, and I don't know who posted it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. thanks EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven Hounding

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Hello. This user has, on three separate occasions, reverted an edit I made almost immediately after it was made. I also don't believe their justifications, at least not until a full discussion had ensued, sufficed. Therefore, I believe this user is WP:Hounding me. Here is the evidence:

• George Floyd - [40], [41] the user reverts the edit just 4 minutes after it was made because he fail[ed] to see what this adds in the way of balance. The discussion can be seen at Talk:George_Floyd/Archive_1#Revert. Here the user states that Because we already mention his crimes, we do not need this kind of detail. which is once again a weak justification.
• George Floyd protests - [42], [43]. A few weeks later, the user reverts an edit I made, with a vague justification and citing WP:ONUS, just 2 minutes after I made the edit. The discussion can be seen at Talk:George_Floyd_protests/Archive_2#Attacks_on_law_enforcement where the user provides a better explanation of their revert.
• Donald Trump - [44], [45]. Most recently, the user reverts an edit I make just 1 minute after it was made. The edit in this case is clearly non-controversial and I was simply attributing a phrase to a given source (NBC News). However, the user reverted my edit, which I believe to be a deliberate case of hounding. The revert was not done to improve the article, but instead because I believe the user intended to disrupt my editing, also evidenced by the weak justification I see at least two sources, not just one. The discussion can be seen at Talk:Donald_Trump#Revert.

Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you really sure this is hounding? I don't think Slatersteven and I agree on much when it comes to content but I don't recall seeing Slatersteven act with incivility towards other editors and even when I've disagreed with their reverts of my own edits I don't recall any time they wouldn't discuss the edits in question. I don't always agree with Slatersteven but I have found they are often willing to find common ground when discussions are made in good faith. Looking at the examples here I don't see hounding and it looks to be good faith edits and I would assume Slatersteven was following all three artices. I don't see any of the changes as obvious black/white cases for/against the content so I would hope the talk page would allow some common ground. Springee (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The user isn't uncivil and does discuss, but I believe, particularly after the incident today, that the user is following my edits or singling my edits out and reverting them. I fear that in the future the user will continue to do this unless action is taken. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

All 3 are on my watch list. Whereas Alice Tonini Sangharakshita and Eduard Jenay (all pages the OP has edited today) are not (and I have not undone him there). Note this is not the first time the user has accused me of hounding, and it was at my suggestion they came here (rather than taking up article talk pages with these accusations). In fact of the many articles, he has edited it is only on these three I have reverted him, all articles I have been active on for a year or more.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I, too, see no evidence of hounding. Disagreement is not hounding. Slatersteven is active at politically controversial articles such as these three, and explains their reversions clearly. You would need to provide evidence that Slatersteven is following you to articles that they've never edited before, or that they are singling you out as compared to other editors. This isn't it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: (multiple EC) AFAICT, with both 1 and 2 consensus involving multiple other editors ended up largely against your proposed changes. So why are you complaining about someone reverting you if your changes ended up to be bad? It mostly had to happen. As for hounding, the timing combined with the extremely high profile nature of these articles seem to work against such a claim. In other words, it seems far more likely that SlaterSteven simply saw the changes in their watchlist and reverted them because they disagreed with those changes rather than is following you, and as soon as they see you make an edit, checking to see if they can revert it. I mean I guess an editor could have a tool which would alert them as soon as an editor makes a change. Or maybe SlaterSteven is manually updating your contribs every few minutes. But the likehood of either of those compared to SlaterSteven simply going off their watch list seems low. Also one of those edits was back in January, the most recent one is a few hours ago. I had a look at your contributions and 500 only got me to 1 March. If SlaterSteven is hounding you, why is there such a wide time spread over these edits, and why are they all in high profile American politics disputes? Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I only occasionally edit American politics articles, as evidenced by my contribution history. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Also [[46]], an edit of theirs (on one of these articles) I did not revert. So I am not just automatically undoing all of their edits (even where we are interacting).Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

In order to not draw attention. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not batman.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. For the record, I'm not Superman. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I obviously don't disagree with the thrust of your comment but it's impossible that you have been "active on for a year or more" on George Floyd protests or George Floyd, as few people knew who George Floyd was before his death on 25 May 2020, so we didn't have either article. Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Your right I forgot to add (due to laziness) "or since they were created, last year", I just forgot that "last year" does not always mean "A year" (well 10 months).Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

At [47], the user doesn't make an edit on the article for 12 days (between 11 February and 23 February) during which time 7 editors make changes to the article. The editor then proceeds to revert my edit 2 minutes after it is made. The user specifically targeted my edit. As evidenced by the revert at Donald Trump, the user doesn't just revert my edits because they are larger or add more content, but instead because they were made by me. Of course the user isn't going to revert my changes on different areas of Wikipedia as this would be obvious hounding, but rather they keep the edits to politically related articles so as to seem more inconspicuous. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Until you fetched upon George Floyd I had never even heard of you, read wp:hounding and explain how I even come close to that, 5 interactions over 3 months. Does it occur to you the reason you are getting undone is that you are making controversial edits to controversial subjects whereas most of the edits I ignore are not that controversial (which is why you have also been undone by ot4hr users as well)? This is a frivolous and vexatious report.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: the more likely explanation is that you were the first to make an edit in those 12 days which they substantially disagreed with or at least that they saw before someone else reverted (i.e. if you both edit at similar times this may also be a factor). While even justified reverts can be part of a pattern of hounding, I'd note that again, it's quite hard to see any case when you're complaining about a tiny number of justified reverts (where consensus was against your changes) in highly politically charged high profile articles over 1.5 months. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a reason why I didn't report to ANI after the incident at George Floyd protests; I realised that although it was the second incident in which the user had quickly reverted one of my edits, it was still 'controversial' to some users. However, after the recent incident at Donald Trump which was clearly non-controversial, I realised action needed to be taken as this was a clear case where the user's revert was unjustified. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me make this quite clear, I will continue to revert this user if they make changes I disagree with. Even if (and I want to make this absolutely clear) even if it's only after a few seconds. What I will not do is allow a blatant attempt to use wiki...sorry...bad wikilawyering (as in misapplication of policy) to try and intimidate me into not undoing another user's edits (which is what I believe this is). The more this carries on the more I am leaning towards a boomerang warning.Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Let's be clear; this is not hounding. Hounding is when you look at a user's contribs and revert a large number of them in a short time. These were reverts all made shortly after they were made, but the three incidents are all a month or so apart. The user doesn't make an edit on the article for 12 days (between 11 February and 23 February) during which time 7 editors make changes to the article. The editor then proceeds to revert my edit 2 minutes after it is made. The user specifically targeted my edit. No, the user didn't object to any of the previous 7 editor's edits, that's the difference. I am completely unsurprised that those articles are on Slatersteven's watchlist (I've had all three of them on mine at one time or another). The Trump edit wasn't an improvement, and the other two are subject to WP:BRD especially when you are adding large sections to contentious articles. There's nothing to do here. Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Your definition of hounding isn't consistent with WP:HOUNDING. There is nothing about when you look at a user's contribs and revert a large number of them in a short time. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

And nor is yours " Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I have not followed you, you have followed me (if anything), my first edit on George Floyd [[48]], when was yours? My first edit on George Floyd protests [[49]]. I have not checked Donald Trump as its an old article, but I suspect I edited the first as well. So no I have followed you anywhere, I have not once fetched up on an article after you have edited it (oddly you have).Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If you make a number of edits - especially on high-traffic or controversial articles - that are either contentious or not improvements to the article, you should expect a significant number of them to be reverted. If it is the same editor that happens to do some of these because those edits are on their watchlist, that is not hounding. If they had followed you to articles which they had previously not edited, then you would have more of a case (although there are still valid reasons to do that, as well). Actual hounding is easy to recognise. This isn't it. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• What Black Kite said. (Which should be the closing conclusion of this thread) DeCausa (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• @Willbb234: For goodness sake. Slatersteven has not stalked you. I believe it is time for you let go, apologize, and try to fix the problems with your edits. --Deepfriedokra (talk)20:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

I am bowing out now, before this ends up as baiting. I am happy for this to be close, and really have no more to say that would not be sarcastic (and have in fact already been sarcastic once here).Slatersteven (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• I hope that this thread will be closed quickly as being without merit. Reverting bad edits to articles on one's watchlist is simply the normal editing process at work - nothing remotely like hounding. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Reverting of poor edits is par for the course in high-profile subject areas, as it should bem as these articles come under wide scrutiny. Slatersteven has done nothing wrong. Can we please have a close? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I opined. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misuse of edit note for grave personal attack and 4 letter words

Severe personal attacks in edit note and swear words: [50]. -89.15.237.233 (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's out of order, but I recommend you use the article Talk page to discuss the improvements rather than getting into an edit war. Deb (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Problem is: He is absolutely not interested in the article and the problems at all! - I wrote a lot of stuff in French that would be very helpful for an expert (which in the first place was the reason for the template "expert needed"). -89.15.237.233 (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Deb has warned Bueller 007 for incivility.

89.15.237.233, the extensive notes in French on the talk page are not helpful because we need to discuss Descartes' work using secondary sources, not provide our own commentary on or analyses of his original writing. Some secondary sources in French were also provided in the talk page section "Form and Purpose of the Discourse", but no suggestion was given on precisely how this should affect the article itself. We can use French sources, but we prefer English when available. Rather than edit warring over the page notice, please explain in a new talk page section what additions or changes you are proposing and what sources you are basing this on. Fences&Windows 13:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I know this is a few days old, but I just wanted to note that this user has regularly leaves extensive edit summaries that should probably be discussed in article talk pages. Here are a few [51] [52] [53] [54]. This one is also a bit rude [55].  Augu  Maugu ♨ 00:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the first and the last of those diffs. They are fine ("two crappy references" is reasonable particularly given the details in the rest of the edit summary). There might be a problem if the editor did not discuss reverts other than via edit summary, but that did not seem to be happening. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced claims of illegal activity at Handforth Parish Council

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The edits, by at least two accounts, have been reverted multiple times. Requesting rev/deletion as WP:BLP violations. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SPA edit warrior at Vineyard Vines

OdinNeith is an SPA edit warring over material in the Vineyard Vines article since July (but has not exceeded 3RR, it seems). This went to WP:NPOVN, where a thread is presently open. That's where I first saw the issue. I offered advice (as have others), but they seem disinterested in discussion. Basically just look at the history. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites This is factually untrue. There has been no evidence of violating any policies or guidelines, I encourage admins to look into the suppression of factual, open source, publicly relevant data and content that has been posted and factually referenced from multiple independent and reputable sources. Furthermore, there are countless examples on wiki of same or similar content existing on other company wiki summary pages without incident. I encourage administration to look into this, I suspect there may be an attempt by the company and or representatives to suppress this information and content which is in direct conflict with the intent and purpose of wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 19:31, March 18, 2021‎ (UTC)

Read wP:brd, being right is not an excuse, you do not edit war you make a case at talk.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Note I came here because I was going to leave a 3rr warning at their talk page..Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Odineith: You need to stop claiming that editors reverting you are simply whitewashing the company's legal disputes, without any evidence. Such claims are harmful to our encyclopaedia's collaborative nature, and will only result in sanctions being levied against you. And absolutely stop reinstating your bold edits. You must propose your case at Talk:Vineyard Vines, not continue reverts. And no, don't go and accuse me of being in on the conspiracy either. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 08:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Rhododendrites for starting this discussion. All my attempts at having OdinNeith present his arguments at the talkpage of the article have failed so far. The only contributions of the user to Wikipedia have been to repeatedly add a lawsuit section with two lawsuits that have received little coverage and the categories "lawsuits" and "discrimination" to the article. His reaction has been to accuse me of working for the company, threaten to report my account and Rhododentries' for suspension and to repeatedly restore the controversial content without any real attempt to reach a consensus. His only argument so far is that if it is factual and referenced, it can not be removed. For further reference please review edit summaries at OdinNeiths contributions, the discussion at my talk page, the warnings at his talkpage, a request by an account with a declared COI at Vineyard Vines' Talk page, the attempt at discussion with the user at the article's talk page and the thread at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Long-term IP disruption; range block needed

No idea who operates these IPs, but since 2018 (!), for more than three years, they have been actively trying to inflate/promote anything related to North Caucasus peoples on Wikipedia in a disruptive way. The operator tries to do this by inflating population figures without sources, changing battles/wars in favour of North Caucasus peoples without sources, removing sourced content, adding unsourced info, etc. They are also actively involved in diminishing the long history and influence of non-Caucasus peoples in the region (i.e. Russians, Iranians, Turks, etc.), by, in the same way, either adding unsourced information or removing sourced information. A range block was conducted a long time ago, but a new one is needed methinks. He/she is on an active WP:SOAPBOX mission, violating WP:WAR and WP:TENDENTIOUS with almost every edit-spree. He/she is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia.

Here is a list of some of the IP's. Pinging @Ymblanter: as he patrols this topic area:

• 2603:8000:A403:8807:2C83:CB8C:6E9F:B31C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:A403:8807:C520:E10:44C3:39EB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:a403:8807:e511:868:ac02:ccdb (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:a403:8807:49d5:5606:e4a3:e5fb (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:a403:8807:c520:e10:44c3:39eb (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:a403:8807:e0b9:73c2:3aa5:2798 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:a403:8807:10e8:1c69:c632:3ee9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:a403:8807:a1fa:acd5:1e27:273a (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:a403:8807:5910:20d2:de1c:3a19 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:a403:8807:c016:e757:6ccb:9e8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:e000:151e:8550:ed15:737e:8e23:206 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:e000:151f:c425:bdcf:d536:2dbe:8d91 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:e000:151e:8550:8100:fbaa:6392:e2c9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:e000:151e:8550:a02c:2d26:4a1b:40cd (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:e000:151e:8ca7:31ad:1ab6:39b5:bd0e (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2605:e000:151e:a1f1:38b1:bfcb:4842:535d (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2606:6000:608e:1500:50c0:17a4:44a6:846 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2606:6000:608e:1500:8d7e:46ee:d781:2fc7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

- LouisAragon (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If unable to impose a range block, I highly suggest adding auto-confirmed protection to his favorite target articles, including Nader's Dagestan campaign, Circassians, Chechens, Caucasus, Dagestan, Lezgins, Ossetians, Derbent, etc. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: This is the edit summary he just left me "I have already contact various North Caucasian wiki editors about you. Keep your Pan-Iranian sentiments to yourself. Consider this my final warning to cease and desist from further vandalizing North Caucasian topics."[56] - LouisAragon (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

All recently active IPs are on 2603:8000:A403:8807::/64. The other IPs listed haven't edited in months to years. Blablubbs|talk 01:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the /64 range for two weeks. Looking at the contributions for 2603:8000::/32, I think it would result in a lot of collateral damage if I were to block it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I protected whatever was reasonable to protect--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Bobturner101

New, single-purpose, COI, socking user dedicated to gutting referenced sexual assault allegations from Gentleman Jack Gallagher. Immediate predecessor 82.29.139.172 and the older 94.196.139.247 made the same gutting edits, with both IPs using the same edit summary ("slanderous"[57][58]) and being traceable to the subject's hometown of Manchester, England (possible Freudian here). Talk page attempts to reason ignored[59][60] as user pushes on with agenda. 3RR shattered with many reverts of other users in quick succession (yet more including most recent IP). Absolutely WP:NOTHERE. Cloudbearer (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User has relented edit-warring for now, but even if we're going to ignore the egregious 3RR vio, we still have flagrant violations of several other policies. The account exists solely to push an agenda, not to contribute. Cloudbearer (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• Have I mentioned how long overdue is a housecleaning on our coverage of "pro" wrestling. The in-universe narration of phony story lines, as if they are actual events happening to real people, is just nauseating. EEng 06:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • All that, yeah. Anyway, someone (apparently the subject) is gutting real-life allegations, not storyline allegations. Can an admin help with this glaring COI? Cloudbearer (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Kalunk adding unsourced content

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

Kalunk has added unsourced content to dozens of articles since December 2017. Their average edit adds 929 bytes, which is quite high. I raised an unsourced edit with them a couple of days ago and after seeing two previous notices from 2019 on their user talk page about unsourced edits (and another about edit summaries - they've never left one), I checked their other edits and found serious concerns with unverifiable edits and what appears to be original research. Because of the scale of the problem, I believe we should discuss how to manage their previous edits and future editing rather than waiting for a response to my comment on their talk page (they last edited on March 13 and before then in December).

I suggest an edit restriction such that Kalunk must provide inline citations for every sentence added to an article and for any revisions. If an existing inline source verifies the content, this must be stated in the edit summary or on the talk page. Any unsourced or unverifiable additions will be reverted and Kalunk will be blocked for escalating periods.

Here is an analysis of their 12 most-recent substantive edits in reverse chronological order, back to the start of 2020:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coup_d%27etat_(Plasmatics_album)&diff=prev&oldid=1011853893 - unsourced inline but verifiable using an existing source, though they misattributed this to Village Voice rather than Consumer Guide. I fixed this.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurence_M._Keitt&diff=prev&oldid=995674976 - unsourced, partly verifiable. No source uses "sharpshooter" (not really a thing with muskets) and he was hit in the gut, liver, or lung according to the sources I found while the edit said "chest". I reverted and sourced his death myself.
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1952_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=993107741 - reverted by another editor, this seems to be original research.
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boulder_Dash&diff=prev&oldid=980031806 - reverted by another editor, I couldn't verify that the creator disliked ports to other platforms.
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Florence_Sally_Horner&type=revision&diff=961287405&oldid=959332232 - a sensationalised account of this child abduction talks of her "providing him with sex" (rightly edited by others to "rape"). This was not supported by the article in The Cut used as a citation. I believe the real source material is an article from the New York Post, which is not a reliable source (see Talk:Florence Sally Horner). I reverted.
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_in_Wonderland_(1951_film)&diff=prev&oldid=956041985 - unsourced, reverted by another editor. I could not find a source to corroborate a controversy in the UK about ensuring Alice was cast with a British accent, however plausible.
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ub_Iwerks&diff=prev&oldid=951795137 - content about his father not sourced inline, though verifiable using a book already cited in the article. I added that citation.
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_266&diff=prev&oldid=949668446 - unsourced inline, but all verified by the crash investigation report already cited in the article.
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Airlines_Flight_191&diff=prev&oldid=948437196 - unsourced additions to a Good Article. A paragraph about simulator tests was not supported by the cited accident investigation report and was tagged as unsourced five months later; I could not verify it and removed it.
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midwest_Express_Airlines_Flight_105&diff=prev&oldid=948275739 - unsourced, the edit notes the pilots' ages whereas the investigation report noted the pilots' flight experience. Also a mention of initial survivors is not verifiable and is contradicted by the report, which calls the crashed plane a "non-survivable environment". I corrected both issues.
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_182&diff=prev&oldid=947248089 - detailed account of "a scene of incredible carnage as the passengers and crew were mutilated and dismembered", quoting an NTSB investigator at length and apparently citing the report. However, the quote resembles creative writing and is unverifiable. Another editor queried it on the talk page and I removed it.
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1941_Ford&diff=prev&oldid=942536087 - unsourced. Probably verifiable, but some parts may be improper synthesis. Btw, the 1941 Ford strike is likely notable.

Help with assessing their earlier edits would also be appreciated. Fences&Windows 15:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Incivility from User:SeoR

User:SeoR has made baseless accusations against me and has brought about intolerable incivility. I request that this user be temporarily blocked so that they can be given time to reflect on their mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeKublai (talk • contribs) 00:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Snuh? Where and in what way? El_C 01:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably at Ruth Dudley Edwards, where SeoR was reverting stuff that the OP was attempting to add. ComradeKublai, while it wasn't necessary to describe your edits as vandalism, you must not add stuff like that to the leads of articles unless it is well-sourced and discussed in the body of the article. Since this is a WP:BLP, this is particularly important. I'm about to drop some important information on your talk page - please read it and take it to heart. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit for the notification. Hi ComradeKublai, while there are no diffs offered, I take it that it is about the recent Ruth Dudley Edwards edits. I have checked my recent history, and your own, and I am puzzled, as I thought I was being brisk but polite. In the first instance, for example, you removed, without explanation, the main professions of the subject from the lede, and this is simply not OK. I see you have something like 18 edits to pages and Talk pages, and you will learn more over time, but it is crucial to understand, as Girth Summit has kindly shared with you, that the rules on biographies of living people are, for good reason, strict. And the page on Ms Edwards has been subject to numerous attacks over time. We really do need all the hands we can get, so you are very welcome, and if I did get the tone wrong somewhere, you have my apologies. Should there be any future issue, please communicate via the relevant article Talk page, or my Talk page - this board is for urgent, important and/or recurrent matters, as I understand. SeoR (talk)

Block a vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A *user:Kashmorwiki is vandalised a Nahata college article by editing Speedy deletion tag on it. The article have well reference. Research Voltas (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, Kashmorwiki did not put a speedy deletion tag on the article, but rather an WP:AFD tag on the article, that is, listed the article for a deletion discussion which is available here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahata college. Neither action, placing a CSD tag or an AFD tag, constitutes vandalism. Second, when opening a thread about another user at this noticeboard, you must notify that user about it at their talk page. See the instructions at the top of this page for how to do that, including the relevant template. You have failed to notify User:Kashmorwiki about this thread so far. Please perform the required notification now. Third, improperly accusing another editor of vandalism is a form of a personal attack. You should retract that accusation. I realize that you are upset that an article you created has been nominated for deletion, but the correct way to respond is to participate, civilly, in the above linked deletion discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP's abuse

• Talk:Duchy of St Sava (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• 109.165.152.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.153.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here's series of poorly formatted text-walls of extremely defamatory and abusive language against involved editors, primarily myself, by unsigned anonymous IP (I actually suspect that person behind these two IP's is admin and bureaucrat(!) at bs.wiki project, but I think they don't have an account on en.wiki):

• Possible vandalism. The reasons for removing the text are probably chauvinistic. [61];
• Despite this, the title of article "Duchy of Saint Sava" was changed to "Humska zemlja" for non-scientific reasons. [62];
• This often happens to those who deal with history recreationally or for nationalist reasons. Relevant sources are usually ignored or such people do not know the historical sources at all. [63];
• In any case, everything is easy to check in the above literature (L. Nakaš) unless you have a chauvinistic odium towards the Cyrillic alphabet. [64];
• I have to notice an identical and simultaneous change on Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedia. Croatian Wikipedia has the lowest rating and is marked as extremely chauvinistic. [65];
• This is chauvinistic terminology used on the Croatian Wikipedia. When they have no arguments, then they start with such disqualifications. [66];

followed by:

• All detachments are Western (predominantly Catholic)(!?) sources. In order to fight against false information that usually comes from right-wingers and ignoramuses [67]
• *IMPORTANT NOTE: On this occasion, I once again draw attention to the infiltration of right-wing editors from the Croatian Wikipedia, which is qualified as chauvinistic garbage: [68]
• The abundance of historical sources as well as relevant literature here is deliberately ignored or ignorance is involved. In any case, the tendency to edit as on the Croatian Wikipedia has been very noticeable lately [69]
• Along with all the other listed sources, I do not see what is disputable here. Unless there is some vile and chauvinistic intent. [70];

it just kept coming:

• User Santasa99 deleted this article from the Croatian Wikipedia and tried to deleted it from the Bosnian Wikipedia. It is more than obvious here that this user approaches the editing of Wikipedia in accordance with his CHAUVINISTIC beliefs. ([71]);

and coming:

• SPECIAL ATTENTION should be paid to users under the nicknames Santasa99, Mikola22 and Tezwoo. There is a high probability that some (or all) of them are trying to apply practices from the notorious Croatian Wikipedia. It is also necessary to consider the possibility of an organized group of Croatian right-wingers. ([72])

Needless to say, but just for the record, involved editors have no more than a handful of edits on mentioned other projects. However, it is impossible to have usual, normal discussion at this TP for two reasons, these assaults and the fact that they are posting them in form of enormous walls of really poorly formatted text.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Range blocked. User:Santasa99, this report is way too long. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies, and I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience, I really didn't know how to put together this, nor what to do with it. Hopefully, this will do. So, thanks again, and stay safe and take care.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Not here to build an encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we take a quick look at Bshjsn's contributions who does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia and all is doing is removing referenced content without any explanation in the edit summary ([73][74][75][76]) and making vandalistic edits. The user created three articles today by copying exact contents and references from other Wikipedia pages which i have tagged for speedy deletion (Amisha Hathiramani, Biju George, and Kiran Kumar Grandhi).--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Seems the user is turning a deaf ear to warnings which i and others have given on their talk page and continuing to do what they have been doing[77].--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• Maybe I am reading the Diffs wrong but the first claim about removing content seems to be a dispute about layout of a specific section. They have been reverted multiple times as vandalism but those edit summaries seem to be failing WP:AGF. Slywriter (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing complaints

Combined competing reports into one section heading. --Bison X (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Traineek

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

Since Traineek's last block (ANI here), the editor's behavior has become significantly worse in every aspect in their edits on Great Wall of China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other articles. Some examples:

Personal attacks:

• "... systematic sabotage against me from a certain group of people that according to the WIKI are mainly Chinese speakers." On User talk:Traineek. Note that most of the editors involved are not Chinese speakers.
• "... intentional sabotage by Esiymbro to censor my contribution." On User talk:Traineek.
• "Is it because in China there can only be one opinion on every issue, so the way you handle different opinion is completely censoring it?" On Talk:Great Wall of China.
• "@Ouatssss--23:I don’t know what makes you say that the Khitan had nothing to do with Xianbei in an absolute manner and speaking as if your claim is the ultimate truth, no objection is tolerated. Kinda like how things work in China, no question ask on government's decision and everyone must obey." On Talk:Great Wall of China.

Edit warring:

• 4RR on Goguryeo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Already warned multiple times around the time of Traineek's last block.

(Edit: There is a 5th revert now. -07:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC))

Other WP:TE on content against consensus:

• See the page history of Talk:Great Wall of China [78]. Just now the same discussion moved to Talk:Tang dynasty [79].

A particular issue in the discussions is adding fake citations and distorted content:

• The best example is here [80]. The majority of the citations do not support the content, and most have already been extensively discussed for days on the talk page.
• Continuing to demand adding content [81] despite already acknowledging theat it was not true [82][83] (See the part about "South Korea refuted ...").

(Edit: Yep, they are still doing this right on this page. -07:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC))

– Esiymbro (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Esiymbro

User Esiymbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made several changes on Goguryeo page [[84]]yesterday without getting consensus in the Talk page. He continued to making changes despite the warning. And after few times of vandalisms, he finally left message on Talk page, his question has been answered and addressed. [[85]]

1 User Esiymbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is taking words out of context to make false accusation about me behaving disruptively and even resorting to personal attacks.

2. My previous temporary block was due to i was not sure of WIKI rules that i had to get consensus in talk page before editing, it has nothing to do with personal attack nor my contribution content. All my contributions are factual and well sourced.

3. My contribution to the page of great wall of china are well sourced. in fact it wasn't even reversed for the content itself, but more of i didn't get the consensus from editors which I mentioned above I wasn't sure how to do it back then.

4. There is systematic sabotage against me from a certain group of people that according to the WIKI are mainly Chinese speakers. I am still being sabotaged by Esiymbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as he goes around different editors pages spreading false accusations against me to stop me from engaging in further discussion on my contribution content which he wants to censor completely.

5. The very first time my contribution got reversed for word-for-word plagiarism of the sources by Editor Underbar dk in 17:29, 2 March 2021?. So i rephrased my content and posted it again the next day. and on 09:39, 3 March 2021, editor Ouatssss--23 amended my content, saying only Korean scholars showing skepticism. So i provided extra links to show that non-Koreans are showing skepticism as well. Until here, the dispute is not on adding the controversy section itself rather the details of the content. It was then the user Esiymbro started sabotaging my contribution with reason that i didn't get consensus in talk page. I was not aware what that meant at that time exactly, so i reverted the content and wrote my reason while editing again on the edit page. Then Esiymbro kept reversing my content several times. and it drew attention from other editors and gave an impression that i am vandalizing the page. Basically, that was the main reason my contribution got so many reverses mostly from user Esiymbro, it has nothing to do with the content itself, but more of intentional sabotage by Esiymbro to censor my contribution.

Basically, both South and North Korea, and some experts in the field are refuting the claims by China that the great wall of China ever extended all the way into Korean peninsula and even questioning whether some of the walls in Liaodong area should be included in the great wall of China as some of the walls were Goguryeo walls built to defend against China. and China has been revising the length of the great wall of China since 2001, the same year China started the controversial North-East project to rewrite the history of the ancient nations that existed in modern day Chinese territory in the region. These are all factual events that anyone can find online covered by all major news agencies. I am not making things up and there should be no reason to silence the fact that not everyone agrees with the China's modern day claim and therefore the controversy section need to be added. if anyone has different opinion on my contribution, we can have a discussion, but censoring the controversy section completely is not in line with the purpose of the Wikipedia as open platform for exchanging ideas and presenting voices from all sides to give audience a broad understanding of the topic.

Lastly, ever since I was informed of Wikipedia:Consensus, I have not added any content in Great Wall of China page, i am still engaging in a discussion with editor Ouatssss--23 in [[86]] on whether there should be Controversy section in the great wall of China page. Therefore i did not violate any WIKI regulations, i have no idea the sudden accusation from the Esiymbro (talk · contribs) today but it seems he has again started engaging in sabotage against me with my words taken out of context and false accusations.--Traineek (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Traineek, you are on very thin ice here. Your previous block, for the billionth time, was for edit warring, and it appears that even now you somehow still don't understand what that is, as you have been doing it again at Goguryeo. You seem to be under the misapprehension that the message you were supposed to get from that block was "all edits must be discussed before being made", which is dead wrong. You just are not supposed to edit war to force your preferred version of an article. And on top of that you are making accusations of vandalism, which has a specific meaning that is not "any edit I disagree with." And here [87] you did not answer the question that was actually asked, but reverted anyway, somehow not even realizing that you removed a {{main}} tag even when directly questioned about it in the edit summary of the edit you reverted. From my perspective it looks like you are either unable or unwilling to even try to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works, and that your main focus here is to argue against what you perceive to be the "Chinese perspective" on certain historical topics. Wikipedia is not the place to try and right perceived wrongs or engage in battle and it tends to end badly for users who don't get that. . Beeblebrox (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, isn't the rule whoever making an edit need to get consensus in the talk page first? Esiymbro made several changes to the Goguryeo page on 16th March without getting consensus in the talk page. and the question raised by him regarding the citation, has been answered in the talk page. [[88]] and i checked the main tag was added by Esiymbro on 15th March the reason given was false citation which is not true. [[89]] I didn't engage in edit war. It is Esiymbro continously sabotaging me knowing that i am new to the wiki page and isn't familiar with the rules. please check through the edit page and see what happened. thank you --Traineek (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

When people keep having to repeat themselves when talking to you, that's a pretty clear sign you aren't really paying attention. You ask if it's the rule that you must get prior approval for every single edit, when I just told you that is wrong. You still apparently haven't taken the time to even try and understand what the {{main}} tag is, and why your repeated removal of it is incorrect. And you continue to blame everyone but yourself. This, all of this, needs to stop, like right now. Take responsibility for your own mistakes, follow the various links to policies and guidelines people are sharing for your benefit and actually read them. Or don't and get kicked out, the choice is yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion the next logical step would be an indefinite block of User:Traineek. His charges of 'intentional sabotage by Esiymbro to censor my contribution' are the icing on the cake. This is not a person who is just slightly out of line and can be persuaded to mend their ways. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox:, The reason i had to double confirm with you on the edit rule was because that's the reason editor User:Aza24 used to reverse my contents. [[90]] [[91]] , after i presented my reasons for my contribution, Aza24 still reversed my content for not getting consensus from everyone which was impossible as there is a member Ouatssss--23 just won't acknowledge any different opinion that contradicts the Chinese source. [[92]]. Regarding main tag, There was no {{main}} tag on Controversy section before 15th March, it was added by Esyimbro on 15th March [[93]] with a reason that the citation is false, which is not true. Esyimbro argued there was no Southwest history revision project in China and added {{main}} tag to the section, which was answered in the talk page [[94]]. And that is the reason i reversed the main tag back to before 15 March 2021 version. In summary, i have no intention to engage in any edit war to begin with, however the user Esyimbro is going everywhere to make one sided accusation against me. I hope you can spend a little time to check out what happened. And i don't hide the fact that i am new to wiki edit. But i have been following the rules that was told, including the [[95]] which you said is not neccessary for making an edit. Again, i have no intention to disruptive edit, i just want to add some counter argument to the pages that i find only shows one-sided claim from one party without counter argument. And i believe that is the purpose of Wikipedia as an open discussion platform. Thank you Traineek (talk)

@Traineek: A couple important points:

• They gave you that advice after you had started edit warring. Once your edits are challenged, you need to stop and discuss. I can't believe what edit warring is still needs to be explained to you for at least the fifth time.
• The revision you say shows the adding of the main article template does not show what you say it does. It seems clear that even now, you haven't taken a moment to be sure you even know what that template is for or you wouldn't be arguing this point at all.
• You say "i believe that is the purpose of Wikipedia as an open discussion platform. " In point of fact Wikipedia explicitly is not an open discussion forum, it is pretty clearly an encyclopedia.This is the most basic fact about Wikipedia.

So, I'm afraid I am forced to conclude that, for whatever reason, you are either unable or unwilling to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works and therefore I will blocking your account indefinitely, and will be sure to link to this message in the block log. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this, Beeblebrox and EdJohnston. Esiymbro (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Analysis by Aza24

I reverted Traineek numerous times, as they were not able to form consensus for their contributions, which were obviously controversial. Including the fact that having a "controversy" section for something like the Great Wall of China is a clear violation of NPOV, should we have an "achievements" section too? No.... see WP:CSECTION & WP:STRUCTURE. They continue to alter reality as to support their claims. Singling me out is pointless, they have been reverted by at least four other editors on the same dispute [96] [97] [98] [99]. I'm not even going to begin discussing the ridiculous dispute between Traineek and Ouatssss; they've both spent multiple paragraphs using primary sources and there own knowledge on Chinese history as talking points, leading to round circle discussions that have resolved nothing (and made the discussion virtually impossible for any other participants to follow).

I've not looked into the content of the Wall of China controversy dispute myself, but there is clearly no consensus for the POV edits of Traineek. Addtionally, they have brought up factually incorrect arguments. For example, admins may want to take a look at this this; Traineek brought up the fringe theory (with no sources) that the Tang Dynasty was ruled by leaders of Xianbei ethnicity, rather than Han Chinese. Traineek and Ouatssss then proceeded to argue with primary sources (or no sources) back and forth, until I presented a clear modern secondary academic source (Ethnic Identity in Tang China by Marc S. Abramson) which literally says "Tang: Han Chinese" on Page 194... In light of the situation on the Tang Talk page, I'm not inclined to AGF on Traineek's contributions, especially considering they are continuously accompanied with no consensus, personal attacks and repeated edit warring. Is really no one going to do something about this? Aza24 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose the above is irrelevant now, thanks for your action Beeblebrox. Aza24 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox:, a few hours later this account: Donkkas has appeared and made their first edit as another controversy section and a comment on the talk page in question... the behavior is extremely similar to the now blocked user. Is this a sock puppet? Aza24 (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Samoht99

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Samoht99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Changes made by this user have been undone multiple times by different editors, yet they still continue to add unsourced/fake information to the Zack Snyder's Justice League. Warning or edit summaries didn't work. I think this is the right time for topic ban. ภץאคгöร 18:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You warned them for vandalism. Could you either back that up with at least one diff, or retract it? This looks like a rather mundane content dispute to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Stmdup

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Although this report is preemptive and its substance doesn't yet pose a serious threat, I'm concerned with the uncollegial editing, unnecessarily assertive tone, and aggressive edit summaries of this user.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

I tried to warn them to no avail, so maybe admin attention would come in handy, either for an action atm or a reaction in the near future. Assem Khidhr (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". I have criticised the poor quality of articles that I have edited. That is not an urgent incident nor a chronic or intractable behavioral problem. Making reports just for the sake of causing problems for people is a waste of your time and mine. Stmdup (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I couldn’t see anything in Stmdup’s small number of contribs that warranted being at ANI (albeit they appear to be pointlessly and repetitively combative). However, they should cut out edit summaries like this, otherwise their future will certainly head in that direction. DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

With DeCausa here, Stmdup's edit summaries could have a chilling effect on new editors especially those that English is not there first language. Maybe not ANIworthy but good time for a discussion on civility especially as their response here shows they do not see an issue with the tone of their edit summaries. Slywriter (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:‎Podmarbo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

‎Podmarbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor have been harassing multiple editors's Talk pages as well as on Talk:WandaVision about raping people's wives. This editor is a harassment account-only. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:‎Agenda Pushing

‎Agenda Pushing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia, but only to push their agenda (hence the mocking username). This account was apparently created by these IPs, after the article SCUM Manifesto was protected due to their edit warring (attempting to remove content they disagree with). I explained why their edits were not okay on User talk:90.217.216.34, and they responded with a pretty extreme screed/manifesto. See also their edit summary here. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether or not that content should be included in SCUM Manifesto, but misandry does not exist is definitely not a good reason for its removal. They also seem to be violating WP:NPOV with their edits to Opposition to pornography. -drt1245 (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The idea that misandry is the subject of the SCUM Manifesto seems very odd. I think you should stop edit-warring to include it in the infobox. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point, Genre would probably be a more appropriate term. But it seems like the same logic applies to the other listed "Subject" (Radical Feminism), as well. That said, I am not trying to edit war to push any particular view. However, I do have a strong aversion to other editors removing content they find disagreeable, which is the why I posted this here. -drt1245 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Abuse and disruption from Star Fiver on soybean article

A user Star Fiver has been edit warring on the soybean article. This user has been reported [100] but continues to use anonymous IP addresses on the article to remove the same sourced content and attack users on the talk-page:

• [101], [102], [103], [104]

The user Star Fiver also left a nasty comment on my talk-page earlier claiming "Europeans don't know nothing about deforestation in Brazil. Go to the country to see the reality. And you need to worry about the end of France in first place. Europe will melt into CoronaVirus and Islamism". [105]. This user and the IP addresses they are using to edit war is clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Can an admin please look at this? Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this editor for their wideranging misconduct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Knoxville IP range – persistent NOR violations and hoaxing

• 2600:1700:5010:C220:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Since June 2020, somebody from Knoxville has been sharing their fanciful ideas with the world. They have been inserting tons of unreferenced stuff into film, game and TV articles. For instance, the Knoxville person added a bunch of actors who turned down the main part in Pixar's A Bug's Life, and said that Lasseter liked De Niro in Taxi Driver, which is nowhere in the cited source.[106] The person wrote that Who Framed Roger Rabbit is one of the best film ever made,[107] despite the title missing from every list of the top 100 films. The person fabricated a supposed Disney refusal of the Princess Bride project,[108] which is not to be found in any source.

Can we do something with this problem? Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Digging a little deeper I found that this guy is currently blocked as Special:Contributions/96.60.55.118, so we are into block evasion. Binksternet (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

God their writing is atrocious. Thank you Ferret. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Done here, thanks to year-long blocks by Ferret. Let's see whether this Valuable Contributor® is still with us next March. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless they can exhibit an official registration document from somewhere, anywhere, I can only rate them as Valuable Contributor™. Narky Blert (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

San Francisco Board of Education

Request rev/deletion of defamatory content. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. At ease, sailor! El_C 02:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hah! Thank you, El_C. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing. I see a promotion to Master chief petty officer in someone's future. El_C 02:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Another case of WP:RADAR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MaryKember205 (talk · contribs) continues to make unsourced changes to BLPs after receiving all 4 level warnings. They have not responded to anyone or used an edit summary at all. SK2242 (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I saw the ANI notice when I went to their talk page. MaryKember205 has had 35 of their 45 edits reverted. Most seem to be unsourced changes to month of birth. Schazjmd (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Parental Alienation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could we have some uninvolved admin eyes on this article? A couple of new editors have recently started editing the page, one in particular very aggressively.

User:Frobozz1 has had previous difficulties with disruptive editing (including 2 blocks) on US politics related articles (e.g. Appointments Clause, Impeachment in the US, Impeachment Officer of the United States They have been warned twice (by other administrators) [109] [110] for copyright violations.

A brief overview of the problem:

• Frobozz1 has been editing in a POV manner to promote the existence of Parental Alienation and that there are effective interventions for it. Note that PA is highly disputed: it has not been recognized by virtually any medical or psychology or legal institutions, and yet the edits attempt to create narrative that PA is accepted, that it is, for example actually it is somehow included in the DSM-V, which it is not. [111][112][113][114]. See also for personal opinion on topic [[115]
• They have made statements (including a link to a PA related business website) that strongly suggest that there is a financial WP:COI on this topic [116][117] though there has been a recent denial.
• They have included list of Parental Alienation activist organizations, sourced only to themselves.[118][119].
• They included more copy and pasted copyrighted material.[120][121]
• They have likely mage logged out edits as User:199.46.249.141] and User:47.196.197.231 (note previous edits on these IPs to the same articles Frobozz1 edits). These are perhaps inadvertent except that by one an IP this morning reinserts material that clearly has no consensus on the talkpage[122][123] includes copyrighted material identified on the talkpage and has disingenuous edit summary referring to WP:BRD

Thanks in advance for taking a look at this. Slp1 (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This article has a history of getting attention from editors who edit few, if any, other subjects. While that can raise questions when a new editor arrives and follows that pattern, I think that the edits to the Republic of Ireland section are being made in good faith by an editor who has strong feelings about the subject matter and who doesn't fully understand this project's goals and policies.

As for the rest, after a very long clean-up process, the article has been inappropriately edited into a form in which it is biased, and in which fringe views are represented as dominant. It would be helpful to resolve this matter quickly, so that the article can be restored to a much higher quality form without any more of this unnecessary drama. Arllaw (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I have heard their points and we have discussed this into a wall. There appears to be a passionate WP:OWNERSHIP of the [Parental alienation]] page commissioned to protect a narrative. Objective sources are not allowed; in fact, no changes are allowed. There are hand-waved attempts to fit revisions into policy, but all fail to meet Wikipedia standards. Specifically, Slp1 made an impassioned bulk revert when the APA stated that they have included Parental Alienation in their newest revision of the DSM-5: Special:Diff/1012850568/1012859434

• I posted the statement exactly as written, several times in several rewrites. Two editors bulk erase it. This s the statement they are so terrified of allowing into the Parental Alienation article, in any form at all:

Associate Director William E. Narrow of the APA served as chair to the committee within the Working Group on Relational Problems (WGRP) of the DSM-5 Task Force which was charged with organizing the accepted relational problems selected for inclusion in the new manual release.

Members of the WGRP participated in Dr. Narrow's committee, which ultimately recommended that the concept of PA should be in DSM-5, but not the actual words parental alienation.

• I have opened discussion sections, waited a week; they refuse to comment, but when I post the content, the claim "no consensus." Can we stonewall consensus attempts?
• I submitted for a WP:3O. They ignore the opinion.
• I created an RfC for the source I am citing (and which Slp1 claims to be WP:RS, however belives to be "fringe" and should be banished from the PA discussion.

Parental Alienation, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for Reliability and prominence of the Handbook as a source. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

• There is an intense need for these few editors to be !TRUTHFINDERS and we cannot by any means inject WP:BALANCED reason or debate into the project page, which seems to work fine on the other "pseudoscience" pages such as Stockholm syndrome.

Thank you for your help. --Frobozz1 (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Briefly, Arllaw argues "This article has a history of getting attention from editors who edit few, if any, other subjects." which could easily be because editors interested in quality standards find WP:OWNED articles a time-consuming challenge. If Arllaw could factually disrepute any citation editors would likely gladly step aside. Even in these comments the assertions of fact such as "if you look at their publication record, the authors of the book have been anything but quiet in subsequent years" and "leaving aside that the book is a work of advocacy" (is any book not advocating its topic?) and "it is also at this point eight years old" (and what then is the most current revision?). They simply offer no counter-argument that originate from outside the impassioned article owner's opinions. This is a true challenge for editors seeking to eliminate WP:OR. Thank you again, --Frobozz1 (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

it's very odd that you would say that "I submitted for a WP:3O". Because an IP actually submitted to WP:3O [124]. Even more curiously, another IP reverted some edits - with an edit summary of "From WP:3O Removed disruptive reverts, more than 90 minutes BEFORE the post to 3O. The IP that made the revert, User:47.196.197.231 has shown very similar interests as you. Another administrator has asked you on another article whether you are engaging in WP:sockpuppetry [125], and you seemed indicated that the IP was you. Would you care to clarify what is going on here? Slp1 (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Occasionally I don't realize I'm not logged on when I start, 47 is me. I logged on when I saw the captcha come up and continued. --Frobozz1 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

199.46.249.141 is you as well, right? Why not admit that as well? You edited your sandbox with that IP. And over here, you posted a proposal to delete content as 199.46.249.141, voted in support of deletion as 47.196.197.231, then announced under your username that you were deleting the content, seemingly on the basis of a 2:1 vote for which your IPs were two of the votes. Arllaw (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

No that is likely another address of an editor I asked for help for my first time using noticeboards and 3O. Maybe a work policy against logging on? Hotornotquestionmarknot --Frobozz1 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

In other words, it's somebody that you involve for purposes of meatpuppetry, including by having this friend copy stuff that you wrote out of your sandbox and paste it elsewhere as if they were the author? And it's coincidence that they share your writing style and sign their contributions to talk page in the same manner as you? Also it is peculiar that, above, you described something done by your friend as something you personally did.

With your clarification that 47.196.197.231 is you, it also appears that you performed four reverts within a 24 hour period, on 3/18 starting at 11:41 AM, 13:18 PM, and 15:40 PM, then the one under your IP on 3/19 at 11:24 AM. Arllaw (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1: the locus of the problem?

Regarding the "discussion into a wall" referred to above by Frobozz1, it appears to me as if Frobozz1 is the wall, and that they are editing from a strong personal POV regarding the subject matter. Perhaps what should be under discussion here is a partial block from the article? For an editor who's only been here 1 month to have already received two blocks, one for disruptive editing and one for personal attacks or harassment [126] does not look good at all when there's evidence presented above of edit warring and possible subornation of meatpuppetry (or, worse, sockpuppetry). Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

In this edit on Talk:Officer of the United States, Frobozz1 writes: "I generally work incognito and only log in if I'm doing anything significant or voting". In other words, the "mistake" regarding their use of the 47 IP wasn't a one-time error in not logging it, it was part of their usual editing procedure, avoiding scrutiny by editing as an IP before logging in as Frobozz1. On Talk:Officer of the United States they posted as the IP and only switched to their account when confronted by an admin. In discussions on Talk:Impeachment in the United States, both the IP and Frobozz1 were involved in the discussion, and may have been used to attempt to create a WP:False consensus. This is a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry. Frobozz1 should be told to use only their account and not switch back and forth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at this edit by the 199 IP [127]. In it, they:

• Add a <br/> after the previous comment, before adding their own comment; and they
• Go to a new line and type in two dashes before adding their sig.

These are things that Frobozz1 and the 47 IP (=Frobozz1) do as well. (eg. [128]) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Here, the 199 IP edited User:Frobozz1/sandbox to remove a warning that had been placed here. Would a friend do that? Perhaps. But the edit seem proprietary to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Several editors are indeed collaborating on some projects, I have a couple sandboxes set up for testing, as do they. I began my account only a month ago and was learning about the anonymous edits (which I thought were fine). I was warned about the "sockpuppet" thing and stopped as can be seen. Once in a while I pick up my phone or start an edit and find I am not logged in. It happens, I then log in. If I can go back and "own" my posts I'll do that, tell me how.

Thanks.

The POV is clearly a WP:OWN problem on the part of one editor who has lived in that page since 2017. Here is all that 181 intermediate revisions by 32 unique users has been able to get past this page owner: Special:Diff/936482143/1012922597. Pull up the number of edits on this one page Arllaw has done in that span, it's over 60%. All of them are revert/delete content from the majority opinion of 32 editors.

WP:OWNERSHIP is a serious QC problem. Arllaw has been invited to edit the relevant content, they know only how to "delete" things that they do not believe. The editor is an unabashed WP:!TRUTHFINDERS as well, they could benefit from a reprieve. I clinical Psy.D. stopped by and had to note the horrible state of the article. A good version of this article would look like [Stockholm Syndrome] which shares the fact that it is not a "diagnosable condition," it has no real empirical body of evidence because it is so rare, yet it has a treatment posted on the page. We can achieve this NPOV. Or, we can scare away good faith editors and grant page title to zealots.

I note here that my criticisms are all character attacks. It is good to know my content passes the WP quality test. --Frobozz1 (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate conclusion to draw, not at all. ANI is for dealing with behavioral problems, such as edit warring and sockpupetry and WP:BLUDGEONing discussions, not with content disputes, so your content edits are unlikely to be discussed here, unless you are improperly using unreliable sources or misstating what sources say - both of which are behavioral problems. That your behavior is being examined -- and not "attacked" -- is precisely what this board is for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, the only "WP:OWNERSHIP problem" I see here comes from Frobozz1, who appears to want to control everything that goes into the article. What I see from other editors can best be described as WP:STEWARDSHIP, against which there is no restriction, and without, which, in fact, Wikipedia would be a shambles. Every article of importance needs an editor or two or three who care deeply enough about it to protect it from unscrupulous POV SPA editors who would take control of the article and skew it to match their own personal views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken your clan at one time may have been the WP:SHEPHERD but that is not true today. The personal attack is a red flag: calling collaborating users WP:MEATPUPPETS, WP:DELETE user's private pages which are being properly used for test edits, and dominating talk pages with WP:VOTE topics in lieu of WP:CONSENSUS. We all can count the number of editors granting "consensus" through the past 3+ years. It is not the heterogenous diversity a good article requires.

You few editors have created a product, this is clear. But it is not owned by any of you. I am the only one here who has even tried to work within the Wikipedia tools to achieve an NPOV. Arllaw literally declares within their own head what is WP:MAINSTREAM and what is WP:FRINGE, and never once reaches out to a Village pump, or NPOV notiveboard, or 2O, or even a legitimate WP:CONSENSUS (what you are doing is voting.)

What have I contributed? You all have the imagination that WP:OR only applies to content. Not so. It applies to exclusion of content just as well. The opinion that a source is reliable or valid never lies on one editor's shoulders, or on a coalition of editors who vote on it, or any such co-aligned faction whatsoever. The source has a default standing per WP:policy, then through tiers of validation it may be revised upon the agreement of editors, a discussion on consensus, the RS noticeboard, and ultimately the Perennial RS list. I have done all of these; your team has done none. To wit:

• I began this attempt to correct POV issues with a source which was de-facto WP:MAINSTREAM then Slp1 bulk-deleted my edit and opined that it was both WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, no citations. Following Arllaw's example of "Please do not delete properly sourced content, Personal disagreement with content is not a basis for its removal," I Then began a quest to find something other than one editor's OR that the book was WP:FRINGE—and paradoxically my same source was cited several times already in the PA article—such as some WP:RS citation in the Talk page. None was offered, so I posted a reminder that both excluding and including content are bound by WP:NOR to achieve a WP:WIKIVOICE, and asked succinctly: "Do sources hold the opinion that the DSM-5 describes PA, or do they claim it does not? "
• I got a red herring from Arllaw about "The DSM-V does not provide for a diagnosis of PA," and a repeated WP:OR claim that the Handbook was "fringe" (and still somehow used in the article elsewhere). Again, I asked for a citation. Again, none was offered. I re-iterated that we are "editors," not "experts." Arllaw replied with a wall of expert text, and not one citation. Arguing was not going to work.
• You recall I noticed your PA team that I opened an RfC for consensus about the content you keep reverting; and asked if you likewise had some credible source opposing it. Well, instead I got book reviews in favor again that it was RS. The talk page likewise found a doctor who left feedback. This was my goal, obviously.
• Here we are all wasting time trying to obstruct one book from ruining a baby this WP:TAG TEAM seems bent on protecting in the guise of shepherds. But numbers do not lie. The reverts come from the same people, and the page has been set in stone for years against hundreds of good faith editors in the larger community. At some point we must ask, is it really possible that over 30 editors were wrong and these few who removed their edits are all-knowing? I simply could not turn a blind eye to such an amazing statistic.

Banning is not a punishment, I have learned, but it is a good thing. Maybe a showing of good faith would do you all well by letting Wikipedia own one article for a while after the years you have personally invested in it. They won't break it, you can be sure.--Frobozz1 (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Eventually I allowed your team to completely introduce the reliable content in whatever manner you wanted with the obvious exception of "unqualified exclusion" (which is WP:OR) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"Eventually I allowed your team ..." You have the unmitigated gall to write that at the same time claiming that other editors have an OWNERSHIP problem? Clearly, you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (see the ongoing discussion at WP:RSN [129]) aand are WP:NOTHERE with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a story called The Little Red Hen, about a hard-working hen who asks a wide range of people to help her in her efforts to bake a loaf of bread. They all make themselves scarce when there is work to be done. I came to the Parental Alienation article when it was in a rather dreadful state (perhaps not as dreadful as it is right now) and dealt with some other editors who engaged in a similar obstructionist, walls-of-text approach to discussion, up to the point that some subject matter experts contributed to the article and talk page and Guy Macon attempted to broker a resolution. As soon as there was an agreement as to how clean-up would proceed, the editors who had been objecting to the changes disappeared, so I cleaned up the article without help, all the while giving notice of my efforts on the talk page. So no, really, I owe no apologies for doing all of the work of cleaning up the article based upon the consensus reached after Guy Macon's intervention.

As should be patently obvious from the talk page, every significant contributor except Frobozz1 has been attempting to seek consensus, whereas he throws up walls of text and then does whatever he wants -- a pattern that Frobozz1 appeared to follow in the other discussions that twice led to his being determined to be editing disruptively. I do not appreciate his flagrant misrepresentations of my editing history for this article, and I similarly do not appreciate that Frobozz1 has taken to harassing me on my talk page.

Given that Frobozz1 has now effectively admitted to meatpuppery, I would appreciate it if he would disclose all of the editor accounts with which he is collaborating. Arllaw (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I was looking at User:Frobozz1/PA-design and the text seemed somewhat .. familiar. It is a word-for-word copy of Stockholm syndrome. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Frobozz1/PA-design. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Whatever User:Frobozz1 is doing makes little or no sense. I think User:Beyond My Ken is right that Frobozz1 is the problem. Why are they trying to conflate Parental alienation and Stockholm syndrome? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't say for sure that this applies to Frobozz1, but the area of parental alienation has a huge problem; divorce lawyers use it as a tool to get full custody of children. Medical professionals have no use for the concept except when they are paid expert witnesses in a divorce proceeding. Both the lawyers and their clients are highly motivated to have potential jurors believe that parental alienation is a valid medical diagnosis. Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

There is little in this statement suggesting an NPOV to be sure. No one thinks PA does not exist, if you only look at every citation included in that article. Nor is any cite posted agreeing that it has no value in court. This is the POV, or balance problem that needs fixing. The locus of the problem is certainly the few editors who WP:OWN that article since a merger 4 years ago. --Frobozz1 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon - You are identifying a range of content issues that perhaps should be addressed in our article on parental alienation or in other articles. There are also conduct issues about the editing of the article on parental alienation and other articles, and this is a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't ask questions like "Why are they trying to conflate Parental alienation and Stockholm syndrome?" if you don't want answers speculating on why they might want to conflate Parental alienation and Stockholm syndrome. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Mulligan

• I have reverted Parental Alienation to an earlier version, the last good version before the editing of Frobozz1 whom I deem by the available evidence to be a disruptive POV SPA. All of that material is now officially disputed by me, and restoration of it requires a WP:CONSENSUS of editors on the talk page, in which the possibility of WP:Canvassing, WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Meatpuppetry will be closely monitored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the purpose of doing this is to insure that any subsequent changes made to the article by Frobozz1 which are in the nature of restorations of their previous edits are approved by a consensus of editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

As is abundantly clear from this discussion, the discussions on Talk:Parental alienation, and the one on RSN, in regard to the subject of the article Parental alienation, User:Frobozz1 is not able to edit in a neutral manner. They have WP:BLUDGEONed every discussion about it, including this one, with WP:Walls of text; they have WP:CANVASSED other editors to those discussions; and they have edited in such a way as to arose suspicions of WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Meatpuppetry. Regarding that subject, they are clearly here to act as a advocate for "victims" (their word) of Parental Alienation and therefore to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. They are WP:NOTHERE with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, but are, instead a WP:POV WP:Single purpose account (SPA).

For these reasons,, I propose that Frobozz1 be indefinitely partially blocked from editing Parental alienation, and topic banned from discussing it anywhere on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, to the claims made by Frobozz1 that I am part of some tag-teaming cabal or team or "clan", my first edit to Parental alienation was at 00:14, 20 March 2021 [130], and my first edit to its talk page was 00:24, 20 March 2021 [131]. These claims are unfounded. Except for Guy Macon, I am unfamiliar with the other editors involved in the dispute; I am, in fact, an uninvolved editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting this report made by Frobozz1 below. I was unaware of it when I posted the above proposal, but would have proposed it anyway if I had been aware of it. It is an example of Frobozz1's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support as described by BMK, noting that this is not a proposal to block Frobozz1, but to topic-ban them, accompanied by a partial block. Whether Frobozz1 should be blocked is a different question; that might become necessary if they continue ranting. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, despite their two previous blocks -- unusual for an editor of 1 month's history here -- I did not think that an actual block was appropriate quite yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Because of Frobpzz1's continuing disruptive behavior, I now have supported the boomerang block suggested below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I don't think an indefinite block is the right tool here, but letting the disruption continue isn't a viable option either. The question in my mind is whether Frobozz1 will be disruptive wherever they edit or whether the disruption will stop if they can't disrupt the parental alienation topic. I don't think we have evidence for the former, but a page ban with associated topic ban will quickly show us whether they are willing to become a productive editor in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment In this edit, Frobozz1 attempted to remove over 24K of other people's comments from the discussion page, while adding to their own comments. They were reverted by admin Slp1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Boomerang appear to be duplicates of the same topic. I propose that we collapse Proposed Boomerang and centralize the discussion at Proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - No, User:Guy Macon, you are making a good-faith error in saying that there are duplicate proposals. This is a proposal to topic-ban Frobozz1 from the Parental Alienation. The other one is a proposal for a short block to get them to stop ranting. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support both proposals, per the evidence in this thread and Frobpzz1's editing since it was opened, which can only be described as disruptive. --JBL (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support assuming the block would extend to both the article and the talk page (in addition to the topic ban). Their edits have been nothing short of tendentious and WP:IDONTGETIT; and their participation in this discussion here and elsewhere shows they aren't getting the memo (in addition to continued walls of text). The block would be a proper preventive measure to prevent this pointless waste of everyone's time from continuing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I've been watching this for a while now and have been keeping an eye on Talk:Parental alienation and a few relevant user talk pages and it's very clear that Frobozz1 is either unable or unwilling to work alongside other editors in a collaborative environment to the point that it's bordering on disruptive, which is to say nothing of the (ongoing?) copyvio concerns. This in particular suggests that they don't get it, don't want to get it, and will fight in this battleground until everyone agrees with them. - Aoidh (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel personally attacked for good faith edits - MfD my user page, Incident threats, BRD disruption - still learning, am I wrong?

I checked the Wikipedia:User pages#Deleting others' user pages closely but can't find why Guy Macon is trying to delete my test page. All I got is a cryptic message on my page (User talk:Frobozz1#MfD nomination of User:Frobozz1/PA-design) that my test edit is being deleted. Have I done something wrong? Another attack came in an agressive dismount from my consensus attempt, as Beyond My Ken bulk-reverted mine and several other editors' work after myself, completely without consideration to replace the non-"offending" content from those editors, and also this current conspiracy to block me.

I do not seek punishment, I genuinely want to serve the Wiki community in cleaning up WP:OR and factional biases for the benefit of the viewership. I have made missteps and found myself banned early into this vast community, and I understand that I have not been punished, but corrected, and hope to continue to grow. Wikipedia has a right to protect the content it owns from impassioned editors who fail to check their biases.

The line between one's personal bias and another's sense of duty to present an WP:NPOV is a thing that only someone outside the quarrel can see. Both motives tempt editors toward WP:EW and hopefully my efforts HERE have used your tools correctly.

If this were our first encounter I would not ask help. But a tremendous amount of legitimate consensus-building on my part seems to be getting ramrodded by this user, along with an alliance of three editors who fairly openly have taken WP:Ownership of content at the Parental alienation. There are a number of overt tools this apparent ownership deploys which would span several noticeboards, and one editor lacks the tools to improve article content against such an editorial Wikipedia:Tag team.

I saw a good page template for an edit starting point, I don't know how to do "attribution" or whom I was suppodsed to attribute? You mean the editors who originally typed it? Or something else?--Frobozz1 (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It is fair to assume these editors are a WP:SHEPHERD team and I am simply in a minority opinion about my edits, certainly they use that language outwardly. But the recent personal attacks on my user page, disregard for consensus (they use a WP:VOTE system instead), plus three years of history on this article show that this is not the case. I document what I feel are the WP:GOOD FAITH efforts to hold articles to policy, as I have detailed on the incident-report attack by Beyond My Ken.

Thank you for helping me improve, --Frobozz1 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This is connected to this discussion above, which the OP is heavily WP:BLUDGEONing with walls of text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The sub-page from Frobozz1's userspace which has been MfD'd, User:Frobozz1/PA-design, is a word-for-word copy of Stockholm syndrome, with the contribution history removed, giving the imporession that the uploader -- Frobozz1 -- is the creator of the material. As far as I can see, that creates a WP:COPYVIO, as the copyrights of all the editors who contributed to Stockholm syndrome are being denied. Copyright violations are not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia, including in userspace. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, in the discussion above, Frpbozz1 constantly referes to editors who oppose their actions as being a "team" or "tag-tem" or "clan", without the slightest bit of evidence to support that contention, While they have admitted to WP:CANVASSING other editors, and to regularly using an IP before logging in to !vote or make substantive edits, without acknowledging that the IP is them until they are confronted about it. This is something they did on both Talk:Officer of the United States and Talk:Impeachment in the United States. The evidence for this is given at the discussion above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, Frobozz1, you have done something wrong although it may have been unintentional. You copied Stockholm syndrome, a very lengthy article, to your userspace without attribution. Please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. When you copy content, you must give attribution. When you fail to do so, that violates the copyright of the many editors who contributed to the original article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  This is not really germane IMO. It's the kinda thing a policeman nails someone for when someone's done something actually wrong but they can't prove it, so they give them a ticket for something minor. Yes, it's a copyright violation. It's incredibly frequent however, done by admins too. Solution is for someone (anyone) to make a blank edit with the link to the article for attribution purposes, not sanction at ANI (per below section). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Along with their problematic additions to pages such as those linked by Ken; their continued lack to understand this as a collaborative project (hence the lack of AGF as clear from the section title); prior problematic emails (see the section on their talk page); now the copyvio; this smacks of CIR. And the apparent use of non-mainstream legal scholars to support their sometimes convoluted arguments might also hint at NOTHERE. Is there any case for a BOOMERANG here? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It would appear, randomcanadian, that I am the only party here who understands the difference between tag-team reverting and NPOV; between voting and collaboration. My history is clear. I discuss, try for consensus, get 2nd and 3O, use noticeboards (besides the incident one), seek RS opinions, and invite bipartisan involved editors to comment. I also directly engage opposing views and invite them to produce something other than OR for their criticisms. And as a last resort, I lay it all out for the administrators to secure ownership of their material once again. Am I trying to take anything through intimidation? The tag-team certainly is and has for years. The history is riddled with intimidated editors trying to participate in this project. But that is not my fight. It belongs here.

Look at the panic this team has over loosing their pet project to the wiki community. I have made exactly one contribution to the PA article in on day, and it was an addition. Here now, I am being proposed for a permanent block? It's not healthy behavior, having this much attachment to exactly one article in all of WP mainspace. What possible grounds is there for my single edit to warrant a permanent block from only one page? My behavior is not what scares them. Loosing their baby to its rightful owner - the WP community does.--Frobozz1 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, you are not the "Wikipedia community". You are a single disruptive editor with a couple of CANVASSed meatpuppets. The true Wikipedia community is the community of editors who care about Parental alienation and are attempting to stop you from damaging it. You can try to wrap yourself in the flag all you want, but it's not going to play here, not after all the comments you made in the various discussions, which have shown you for exactly what you are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"Panic?" That makes no sense, and that applies to much of what you have written above. Frobozz1, please address your copyright violation which I described above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That can’t be serious. Who’s running around screaming block and ban and banish for one post?

Cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a note that I was violating something would make all our lives easier? It is how the MfD policy reads. This was a hostile attack, as is everything this tag-team does to prevent a collaborative article.--Frobozz1 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The editors of Parental alienation -- who are not a team, a tag-team, a clan, or a cabal -- are not in a state of panic, nor are they in danger of "losing the article to the wiki community", that's simply your propaganda in attempting to spin this situation to your benefit. What's happening here is that you, a disruptive editor, have attempted to take over the article and control its content, and the community of editors who care that the article be neutral and factual are attempting to stop you from doing so, because your attempted OWNERSHIP -- which is what it is, your reverse claims are pure projection on your part -- would make a article which is reflective of your person non-neutral POV.

You know, Wikipedia editors aren't idiots, they can see what you're trying to do and the objectionaable way you're going about trying to do it. Your behavior is clear and understandable, and it will catch up with you, sooner or later. In the meantime, editors will protect the article from any harm from you or your CANVASSed meatpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

We have math. The number of reverts: zero. The number of edits: one. The number of posts to me to remedy whatever you're afraid of: zero. The number of "Hurry up and permanently block/delete templates/ban one user who is asking for collaboration on our page!" cries: three.--Frobozz1 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous, especially when the facts can be checked so easily. You have 49 edits to the article [132], the vast majority if which have been reverted, and 40 edits to the talk page [133] attempting to blockade changes you do not approve of by WP:BLUDGEONing with WP:WALLSOFTEXT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, have zero edits to Parental alienation and zero edits to Talk:Parental alienation. I guess that means I am about to get fired from the tag team. Does anyone have an opening for a minion? I have a lot of experience as a henchman and want to move up. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"You have 49 edits to the article [180], the vast majority if which have been reverted," The australian animal is there after all. You can count on one hand the number of contributors who have not been completely reverted over the years. Anyway, I'm not tryng to be right. I'm on this board to do right. Special:Diff/1013205401/936482143 adds up really strange in a supposedly collaborative site. 36 users tried, less than 10 succeeded in the "collaborative" effort. Anyway, you're not the reverter. You're the voter in all those "consensus" topics you like to claim. I mean just look at the talk page archives, and how many users got quashed by the few. How many times has your team used collaborative tools like I do? Ever ping different opinions into your "votes?" A user tries for consensus, you email the crew to stomp down the vote, then when tag-team reverts get close to your 3RR and WP:RS fails to disprove, you issue a "Reversion Proposal," put it to a vote (of two people), and restore your WP:OR narrative. You genuinely would not know what a consensus looks like.

And this is cute! The gang now wants to boomerang! By WP:VOTE LOL--Frobozz1 (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is an RfC about attribution when copying within Wikipedia here. Input is welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Boomerang

I think that the Original Poster, User:Frobozz1, has thrown an Australian weapon at an Australian animal that isn't there. I think that a block of 48 hours is in order to permit other editors to sort out this mess without any further walls of text.

• Support as Proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support for disruptive editing in general, and failure to respond to my specific question about their copyright violation in particular. 48 hours may not be long enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Since I made the proposal above, for a topic ban and a partial block from Parental alienation, Frobozz1 has not abated their disruption, but has instead doubled-down right here. I now think that a short block is in order to stop the machine from continuing and to give Frobozz1 a chance to consider their counter-pruductive behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Boomerang appear to be duplicates of the same topic. I propose that we collapse Proposed Boomerang and centralize the discussion at Proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  I had originally moved Frobozz1's report up the join it to the other thread, but because I was heavily involved there, I reverted myself. I do still think, however, that the two threads should be combined, as it's difficult to grasp the totality of the situation with the split up like this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support As I originally semi-directly suggested this. The doubling down after my comment and further throwing of oil on the fire isn't conducive to further collaboration: after all, this is a collaborative project. Also note Frobozz1 has already been blocked for personal attacks... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  Also note the very suspicious Special:Contributions/Hotornotquestionmarknot, for ex. their edit to Frobozz's user page. Though this could be somebody else; got no clue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  In the discussion above, Frobozz1 claims that Hotornotquestionmarknot is "an editor I asked for help for my first time using noticeboards and 3O" and is probably the editor behind the 199 IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - The two proposals are not the same. This is for a 48-hour block, and can be closed because Drmies has done it. The other one is for a topic-ban implemented by a partial block. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon Frobozz1 is not currently blocked. The two blocks by Drmies in their block log were previous ones. [134] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification, User:Beyond My Ken. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have never once been punished with a block. “Ban” is different.

I have requested deletion of my unattributed template cullen328. —Frobozz1 (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1, you have it backwards. You have never been sanctioned with a ban, but you have been blocked, twice, as you can see from your block log. [135]. Read WP:BANBLOCKDIFF to learn the difference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Now seeking community opinions = disruption?

“ Frobozz1 has not abated their disruption, but has instead doubled-down right here. ” — Beyond My Ken

There are not a plurality of interpretations for this attempt. Block the voice of the many (all the editors intimidated over the years) to protect the echo chamber of the few. I may be the messenger. The Talk page is riddled with editors treated the same way. There is no debate that the page is the product of a handful of editors who are a outnumbered by editors who have been chased away. Beyond My Ken orphaned several edits in the latest bulk revert (which ignored consensus-seeking BTW). I just put it back - the recent study in Romania was never in dispute. Let’s put it to a test and see if the team lets the community judge the content for a change. —Frobozz1 (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That material is now disputed, and you must have a consensus to restore it.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support at least a block and probably a topic ban as well - They have admitted to using sock- and meat-puppetry and their behaviour on this page is enough to show that they are not willing or able to collaborate in this area.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support but the Messiah complex better be gone when they come back. It has to be made clear to them that they can not simply resume the same behavior upon their return. TBH I’m surprised they haven’t been indeffed already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Discussing a 48 hour block at ANI cannot possibly meet WP:PREVENTATIVE. It'll take 48 hours just to get consensus for it. If there's immediate disruption, an admin can always pblock themselves. Frobozz1 has only made one edit on the article under discussion (afaict) since the ban was proposed, and most of their participation is at ANI and an MfD on one of their userspace pages. However, this and this suggests there may be a WP:CIR issue here. Personally, if I were Frobozz1 I'd tone it down a couple of notches. Haven't looked into the merits of the actual issues, but I suspect their approach alone will make editors view their grievances with even more scepticism (which often doesn't end well for that party). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a block. This person needs a nudge in the direction of realizing that the community is bigger than they are. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs against Romania?

Update to OWNERSHIP problem in Parental alienation: Beyond My Ken has entered a deeply offensive ethic discrimination against Romanian science and Romania in general.

Admins must IMMEDIATELY reverse this offensive and blatantly directed attack on my edits and the entire country of Romania.

User Beyond My Ken deleted a peer reviewed scientific study with the snarky comment, "Really, a Romanian study" Special:Diff/1013415471/1013415724 which is highly offensive to Romanian researchers and Romania in general. I had posted this clinical peer-reviewed research specifically to demonstrate the partisan ownership issues in the Parental alienation article.--Frobozz1 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Where is the ethnic slur, Frobozz1? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There isn't an ethnic slur — Frobozz1, do you not know what that word means? That said, Beyond My Ken, what is wrong with the standing of the West University of Timișoara, specifically, and Romanian scholarship, in general? What am I missing here? El_C 19:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

And, more importantly, how much more of a timesink is Frobozz1 going to be here? Shouty bold capitals demanding blocks is a step too far, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is an example of Frobozz1 inventing new and innovative ways of being disruptive. Look at what he accused me of vs. what I actually did. And now this. We have two discussions on this page that show a clear consensus for community-imposed sanctions. Might I ask that an uninvolved administrator evaluate the discussions, come to a decision, and close all of these threads? This is becoming a colossal time sink even though it is obvious how this will end. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I admit to have only read this subsection in isolation. Shoutyness caught my eye, so I guess it worked...? El_C 19:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What a shockingly not WP:GLOBAL response to an editor who excludes article content from Romania. The only thing Cullen328 can find wrong with such a blatant prejudice is the wrong technical term was used for overt WP:DISCRIM. Please address your concerning POV, this is egregious.

Further problems are editors who endorse WP:DISCRIM, such as Arllaw, who has turned a blind eye to Beyond My Ken's demeaning insult to Romania with three edits subsequent to his offense. Arllaw is WP:OAS as suggested. A steward would have checked the insult to Romanian science, as I have.--Frobozz1 (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1, I would appreciate it if you would leave me out of your theatrics. Thank you. Arllaw (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Something odd about that citation: It appears to recycle data from "Behaviors and Strategies Employed in Parental Alienation" published in the Journal of Divorce & Remarriage May 2006 DOI: 10.1300/J087v45n01_06

You can read it here: [136]

The authors of that study interviewed 20 parents believing that the other parent attempted to alienate their children against them recruited from postings on the internet groups for divorced parents. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Not an ethnic slur, but most definitely a deprecation of a country and its academic output. Disrespect of a nation amounts to exactly the same thing. On forums outside of Wikipedia, I was experiencing similar backchat for years over Ukrainian findings on subjects, only for this to make a U-turn once the country allied itself to the West (2014 Maidan) which doesn't help me being pro-Russian!! But at least I can expose the hypocrisy. The source is fine and it is inexcusable to remove and dismiss information due to the country of origin, unless the editor in question can provide a damn good reason to imply why Country 1 is reliable and Country 2 isn't, and this cannot be done sinuously avoiding ethnic slurs. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It would of course have been inappropriate to use such a local study to make such a universal claim, regardless of where the study was carried out. I fail to see that the comment had anything to do with the specific country – it's a local study, and just like we should remove general claims based on research carried out on USAnian college kids, we should not allow general claims based on research carried out on Romanian parents. (My personal preference in these cases is to refer to "regional relevance" or something on those lines in the edit summary, but it amounts to the same thing.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That may well be so, but derision toward Romanian scholarship in an edit summary, as the reason for removal, that's a clear no-no. El_C 20:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I know of no issues regarding Romania (like most former USSR satellites they have a good reputation for academics) but there are times when it is appropriate to question the research from a specific country. There are some real problems with Chinese and Indian sources. This does not imply anything bad about the Chinese or Indian people, but rather with their system of deciding what to publish in academic journals. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Then the issue is probably more of an overly terse edit summary and nothing else (though I have no clue if there was anything else to the edit summary beyond the alleged "ethnic slur" above). As for requesting "immediate blocks" in all caps, that might be more of a "messiah complex" as identified previously. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Apology by Beyond My Ken

The edit summary in question was undoubtedly an error on my part, and - as I told El_C on my talk page just now -- it was one I almost immediately regretted. I should have written an edit summary which focused on the need for disputed material to be discussed on the talk page in order for a consensus to be determined, and I should have made a null edit with a new edit summary retracting the Romanian remark and referring to the need to discuss.

I very much regret my comment, and I unreservedly apologize to Romania, Romanian scholars, and to any Wikipedian who felt insulted in any way, either personally or on behalf of their fellow citizens. I retract the edit summary and will ask Oversight if it can be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I see that someone has already removed it, probably rev del'd. That was the right thing to do, and my appreciation goes to whatever admin took that action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It was El C with this action. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you El C Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

An easy oversight. Best to forgive and move on. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No, Guy Macon, there are not ever "times when it is appropriate to question the research from a specific country." YOU are not in a place where such judgments can be made. There are only times when it is appropriate to place WP:RS citations in juxtaposition to research, no matter what the country of origin may be. The day Wikipedia empowers editors to weigh the value of research based upon origin is the day Wikipedia becomes banned from society.

Beyond My Ken – your round-about apology for deleting my research entry will be accepted upon your honest act of replacing the prejudiced Romanian research. What form of apology is it that prejudices an entire nation by excluding them on their nationality, and then "apologizes" without correcting the offense? No, this will not do. It is beyond belief that Wikipedia prejudices editors toward tenure. Would any other but a seasoned editor possibly escape a block for smearing an entire country on a global platform? How you possibly remain available to editing will confound editors forever and serve as an indelible example of Wikipedia's unequal WP:DISCRIM policy. Here and now was your one opportunity to either try to provide some legitimate reason for excluding Romanian research, or to assure Romanians and "offended editors" that you will undo your offense. You actually believe "I'm sorry" works?

Coldtrack, it is not "easy" for any editor to filter Wikipedia content by nation of origin except when you lack basic standards of respect for others. There is an underlying prejudice that fails to remedy with "I'm sorry." It fails to remedy with their forcing us to tell them what correction looks like. BMK clearly lacks fundamental remorse for their actions.--Frobozz1 (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Take the win, Frobozz. You complained and actions were taken and apologies given. A reminder that the complaint was about the summary, not the edit. Now that the summary has been dealt with, that doesn't mean you get whatever edit you want. You seem to want a fight, and that's not what we're here for. If you can't accept BMK's apology - which to multiple of us appears genuine and to the point - then I'm not sure you have any chance of being a member of this community. You made your point - if you keep trying to make it then you'll lose what little goodwill you've collected in your last 5 weeks of being an editor here. --Golbez (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to echo the above. It's rather remarkable that in general, I agree with the gravamen of Frobozz' point above, and yet the conduct here further convinces me that some sort of sanction is necessary. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There's obviously some mistake here. I do not apologize for reverting Frobozz1's restoration of disputed material without a consensus to do so, I apologized for an inappropriate edit summary in making the edit. The edit itself was correct, and I stand by it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on the article talk page -- where such discussion should be taking place, not here -- seems to be determining that the study in question is not appropriate for inclusion in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1 We may be digressing now. You having brought the matter to ANI has indeed been valid and has produced two results: a retraction from BMK over his wording, and the comment itself having been struck out from public view. Now whether or not the revision should be removed is more a matter for the two of you to discuss on that actual talk page. For what it's worth I am in total agreement with you that all research into a topic must come from some part of the world, and that will indeed be a single country. If the messenger here is considered to be somewhat unimportant then no way would I have personally removed the effort of the contributing editor. I may instead have tagged the passage that a better source is needed, or I may have edited the text to suggest "so and so from Romania have found that such and such". I also tend to be sensitive when my part of the world is misrepresented (not just on Wikipedia but I with other names write on Reddit, Quora, Youtube, and news network forums), and I consider Romania very close to home. But if you are seeking harsher sanctions against BMK based on that one incident, I can't see it happening. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken this intractible behavior has no place in here. You did not "revert Froboz1's restoration" of anything at all, the Romania report had never seen the light of day and it does not exists in ANY talk page. This is horrific, to hear so many bandwagonning the disparriagement. What was your reason for immediately deleting research from the nation of Romania, and what is your reason that you remain adamant against the inclusion of a report from Romania? The country can't stand up for itself, editors in this community must stand up for them. Making things up is just digging your hole in deeper.

Invitation to all the "peanut gallery" in here to look at the edit BMK is claiming to be a "revert by consensus" and decide what we can do about this hidden zealot. I'm the one who outed them, now they design to make me the fall-guy. No, we can't allow it. A reason for the offense is still owed.--Frobozz1 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1, Peanut gallery member reporting in: You added it on the 19th and were reverted. You then restored it on the 21st, even noting in your edit summary that you were restoring it. There is currently a talk page discussion here. This kind of blatant misrepresentation on ANI is not going to win you any supporters. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

He nuked the Romanian study as collateral, not “removed by consensus.” I cleaned up his mess.--Frobozz1 (talk) 00

12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Frobozz1 is entirely in the right. Those of in the UK are often biased against Romanians due the crimes committed by some here but that is entirely due to the subset we have. As someone who has travelled there extensively (and enjoyed the custom over there of hitchhikers paying the driver!) I can endorse that that they're actually a more honest people than your average Brit and it's frigging disgusting to have their academic research slandered too - they should be listended to rather than dismissed by an admin who is probably, ironically, one of the sneering metropolitan glitterati out there to reverse Brexit as well. Frobozz1 is entirely in the right here and while I've no doubt at all that you buggers will find a way to silence him and protect your mate, he should know there's some of us that care :) Bradley Cummings (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the above editor's first and only edit to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Closure of this issue: Proposal

The insult has not yet been explained nor has the offender offered to correct it. They have claimed "I disputed the Romanian report" therefore removed it, but "disputed" is not a reason. It is one editor's opinion, and therefore, WP:OR. The next excuse was to allege that they were "reverting an exclusion which was omited by consensus." No, this editor will not be the fall guy for doing the right thing.

Thus all editors here can clearly settle the matter in the way that Wikipedia was designed. We give consensus as to the propriety of BMK's removal. I invite all here to express your WP:WIKIVOICE in Is Romanian research discriminated on this page?|the discussion opened for that purpose.

• Should Wikipedia decide the Romanian report fails to meet standards for that article, so be it.
• Should Wikipedia decide the report meets all standards of inclusion, the Beyond My Ken should do the honorable thing and edit the Romanian report into the article with weight according to the consensus.

This will close the matter, and finally reconcile with Romania this offense.--Frobozz1 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken is under no obligation to do anything, let alone what you consider "honorable." You don't get to insult him multiple times after what appears to have been a genuine apology, and THEN try to shut everything down like you had nothing to do with it. No one but you wants the report there, and multiple people have cited multiple reasons why it shouldn't be, and also, none of that is germane to your massive inability to work with other people that you clearly want to escape any reckoning for. I'll be bold here - if you continue any kind of insinuation that racism or any kind of "anti-Romania" sentiment is going on here, I'll block you myself for making personal attacks and a terminal inability to assume good faith. --Golbez (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please note that Frobozz1 claims that their continued attacks on BMK are actually an "apology". (!) See [137]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Golbez there are several doctors and maybe dozens of students and interns in a university in Romania watching this right now. They probably have real work to do, so I doubt we will know how they feel about Wikipedia’s handling of this. As such, it becomes the burden of the Wikipedia community to enforce WP:DISCRIM. In the end, those people who worked so hard likely have looked at this site. We have to assume they may have seen their hard work expunged from the world stage, and asked the question, “Why?” As it stand at this moment, the answer Wikipedia has accepted is, “One editor believes you’re a back-woods country unworthy of the world stage.” An “apology” without restitution is disgusting. If I am the only Wikipedian bound to respecting everyone, so be it. Sic your ageist admins on me and lock the gates of your echo chamber. I’ll champion the policies of this site with or without help, with or without agreement, and with or without mob agreement. Someone owes that university an explanation. In a perfect world, it is the offender. At a minimum, it is the community. We know why it was expunged, ‘’’Why was the Romanian report not restored?’’--Frobozz1 (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Request

• Is there anyway to encourage Frobozz1 to stop making statements such as this [138] on their talk page:

User Skythrops was driven away, unsuccessfully attempting to stop Beyond My Ken's tactics.

Since Sythrops last edited Parental alienation or its talk page 16 months ago in November 2019 [139], and I only became aware of the article this week, which is also when I first edited it [140] and its talk page [141], clearly I had nothing to do with Skythrops being "driven away", if that is indeed what happened. Frobozz's statement is either hyperbole or a misstatement of fact.

I made a mistake in judgement on an edit summary, which I have admitted and apologized for, but that doesn't mean that I get to be Frobozz1's personal punching bag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned: User_talk:Frobozz1#Erratic_and_aggressive_behaviour. El_C 13:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You comment reflects something interesting, which is not only is there no reason for Skythrops to have made such a statement, and no such statement appears on Wikipedia, there would also be no way for Frobozz1 to know what Skythrops is thinking unless they're in direct contact. Arllaw (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. There isn't a way to tell at the moment, though it's super-weird, regardless. El_C 13:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Full protection

Refactoring my protection summary: I can't really tell what's happening (WP:ARBPS-wise and other-wise). May be a temporary measure. Anyway, the prospective closer is free to undo my action and close this report as they see fit (I need not be consulted or even notified about that). El_C 19:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Call for close

Could an uninvolved admin please evaluate the above discussion, make a decision, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problems with GA & FLs

Dr Salvus has been persistently nominating articles for GA and FL that do not meet the criteria, as well as poor attempts to do a GA review, which has left some GA nominations stranded in limbo. It seems clear to me that they don't have a good understanding of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, and that the user is possibly just interested in Wikipedia:Hat collecting (they have also had a rollback request denied). Problematic issues include:

1. Repeatedly re-nominating the same list for FL, and then withdrawing when they get feedabck: 1, 2, 3
2. Creating GA nominations for lists e.g. Talk:List of international goals scored by Kévin Parsemain/GA1 (and a few more which were reverted immediately). This is despite clear warnings on talkpage here, here, and here
3. Posting support for GA nominations, rather than doing full reviews: here
4. Creating the GA nomination page for their own nomination: here
5. Asking for article to become GA despite failing a review a few months ago: here

Their article space editing is generally acceptable, which is why I am not suggesting a WP:CIR indefinate block. Instead, I would like to propose the following topic ban for Dr Salvus:

1. Dr Salvus is topic banned from nominating articles for Good Article review, and from participating in Good Article nomination discussions
2. Dr Salvus is topic banned from nominating articles for Featured List review, and from participating in Featured List nomination discussions
3. Dr Savlus is topic banned from suggesting that other editors nominate articles for Good Article or Featured List

I hope we can get consensus for this, because it's a generally good faith editor, who is just causing quite a bit of disruption to the GA and FL processes. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC) I added one more thing. And I think some of the poor GA/FL noms may have been deleted, so if an admin could checked their deleted contribs, that would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The CIR issues seem to extend beyond content review processes: adding gender to another editor’s userpage and this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize. I won't repeat again. Dr_Salvus (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Without seeing a pattern of consistently poor editing (poor to the point of being disruptive, that is), I think I'll oppose topic bans and support the user joining the mentoring scheme. The FL/GA stuff is no doubt annoying, but doesn't seem to have caused mass disruption; indeed, from another perspective, it could indicate an eagerness to promote quality-an eagerness which may outstrip their current ability, but not something they should be punished for. At least, not yet.
  What I see here is an editor with potential (their stats are better than mine—no blocks and mostly article space edits. Disallowing them the opportunity to translate their article work into good or featured material is in neither their nor the project's favour (again: at the moment). It's true that their recent flurry (well, three) of adding gender to editors user cats was wrong: but again, good faith might persuade us to see it as misguided rather than malicious. (Indeed, so soon after International Women's Day, it may well have been well-intentioned.) They have not done it since: perhaps that shows another important quality—the ability to stop and learn. If they can be persuaded to do the same in other areas—a role a mentor would excel in, I think—then we have gained a productive editor rather than losing one.
  Ultimately, at this early stage, I think we'd be breaking a butterfly upon a wheel to sanction DrSalvus, although my comments should not be taken by him as a licence to continue as they are: quite the opposite. ——Serial 14:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Escalated warning (direct link) for various WP:CIR issues, several of a provocational nature. Therefore, I'm applying a straight-up WP:DE approach to this. El_C 14:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any topic bans at this time per the clear signals that the user is willing to take on feedback and try to learn from it, e.g. at User:Dr Salvus#Things not to do and Wikipedia:Help desk#WP:VAND and WP:DE (permalink). If the user couldn't be trusted to abide by their word then I would struggle to see how they could be a net positive in any area. So let's give Dr Salvus a chance to learn from their mistakes.
  I would definitely recommend to Dr Salvus: at this time it is not a good idea to be getting involved in GA and FL. Learn more about how to find, identify and reference good sources and how to write professional-quality prose. Put that into practice on articles you have worked on in the past, without nominating them for GA or FL. Making some mistakes is okay, but if you continue to make the same mistakes about GA/FL then you are putting at jeopardy your ability to edit here, which is a lose-lose because we value your football-related contributions. — Bilorv (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Struck per below. — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this editor has a poor understanding of Wikipedia types of content. I said at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Geometry_Dash_levels that he should probably take a break from lists entirely, but that warning has not been heeded. A related issue is basically User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Mike_Patton_quote_removal_edit I'm going to make mistakes, deal with it which is perhaps not the ideal response. Suggest a pause and perhaps a mentor who can walk this editor through Wikipedia, and not hat collecting which all of this reads as. StarM 16:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• As with all (alleged) potential CIR issues, it would likely be a reassurance to hear the editor say in their own words what they understand the community concerns about their editing to be, and how they plan to address these concerns. Any half-decent answers to these two questions would suggest that sanctions are not needed. Also: Somewhat question the value of mentoring, but I suppose with a good mentor one likes/trusts it can work well, as a purely voluntary arrangement though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
  • True, but given the user ongoing behavior while this thread is open (see User_talk:Dr_Salvus#Following_WP_procedures and courtesy @JohnFromPinckney:) doesn't give me faith he understands where he's lacking in understanding of these processes. StarM 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

    What StarM said. His Awareness dial is stuck at the notch between stubborn/oblivious and his Focus setting is at do-the-next-thing-no-matter what. I have given up trying to explain to him what the actual procedures are at PR (and I've stopped reverting his activities). Perhaps if he notices in two months that nobody's reacted on his manually created Peer Review page, he'll realize that he maybe did something wrong. This user desparately needs somebody to hold his hand and (forcibly) guide him, but I'm not that person, and I hope he finds a willing mentor. Soon. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Next issue with same editor; creating (rather poor) translations of non-enwiki articles, without attribution. Saint-Colomban Sportive Locminé, created yesterday evening, is a partial translation of fr:Saint-Colomban Sportive Locminé, but omitting redlinks completely (thus mangling phrases). In itself not a major issue, but it seems that every single thing this editor does is problematic in some way, and the learning curve very, very steep. Their previous article creation from yesterday, Giorgio Marchetti, similarly was an unattributed translation of it:Giorgio Marchetti. The talk page of that article indicates that Dr. Salvus is (or claims to be) a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which seems like a very bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fram, I just deleted the latter as G4, although it was also a worse version of the one AfDed last fall. El_C, as you've been in discussion with him, any sense on what/if anything should be done to resolve? StarM 16:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, dunno — indef, I guess...? I'm still not sure to what extent their positive contributions offset the problematic ones. Probably action is needed here. Am open to proposals on what it should be. El_C 16:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El C, I honestly don't see an area where they're editing without issues. Part of me wonders whether it's a language issue, although it doesn't appear to be one. At absolute minimum I'd say a topic ban from featured content areas and that he must use AfC due to problematic creations (attribution, etc.) Thoughts? Courtesy @Bilorv and Serial Number 54129: StarM 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I've assumed since the start that it's young age, can email the broad factors that make me think this if you want. I could well be wrong, particularly if it is language (style of writing would usually be a tip-off). As for the translations, is the issue just lack of attribution? Couldn't you then fix the attribution (on the talk page) rather than deleting? Or was there more to it? — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv, I deleted as a G4 separate from the attribution. There was no new sourcing since the AfD concluded and nothing in the article indicated any of the factors of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgio Marchetti had changed. StarM 19:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on any participation in GA, peer review, GOCE, FA and FL because this edit indicates to me that Dr Salvus has not understood why editors are concerned about their behavior, and is not improving their behavior at a fast enough rate. I was going to support a restriction to AfC for further creations, but I don't see what good that would do if the issues are copyright, poor prose etc.—it takes up editor time whether it's at NPP or AfC. I'm not convinced indef blocking is justified at this stage but Dr Salvus really needs to dial back their contributions and study the feedback they have been given in great detail, from start to finish. Referencing, prose quality, attribution when copying within Wikipedia and following notability guidelines are topics to look at. Dr Salvus: you are rapidly spending all the goodwill we are giving you and if the supply runs out, you will not be able to contribute here any more. — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The latest (that I've noticed so far) is that over a period of an hour he created 78 new user talk pages, apparently at random, adding Template:Welcome, before making his next edit, to update the userbox with a higher contributions count (last updated barely 24 hours previous). Welcoming users (named and IPs alike) is friendly and all, but it seems like he might be here to collect hats as much as anything else. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And then this edit: What's your secret to making so many changes in the mainspace? You are my idol — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JohnFromPinckney. I saw one of those when he welcomed a problematic error (in his defense, not sure he realized they were) as well as thanked someone who had no edits for their contributions. I have just warned him for that and CSDed the page you tagged that he removed out of process. Beginning to concur with Bilorv about youth. Honestly at this point I think it's an indefinite ban with a (possible) exception for userspace mentorship so Dr. Salvus can learn how to edit. Otherwise an undetermined hiatus isn't actually going to help him, although it would save us the headaches. At minimum it's a project space ban to solve to the featured content issues, but I don't see any of his edits as particularly productive at this stage. So support if closer needs some more bold as I'm involved from a prior AfD or three. StarM 21:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

and the response to the warning maybe made me issue them a tiniest bit of good faith again... if the edits stop. StarM 22:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Can you give me a general summary of all the mistakes I've made? This way I can write these mistakes in Things not to do and learn from these errors. Dr_Salvus (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

While Dr. Salvus has ceased welcoming editors who have not edited, he continues to edit in the featured content area, see Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2 despite guidance from JohnFromPinckney and the concerns SandyGeorgia identified above and(I think) telling me he wouldn't. He also semi retired and I think we are at an impasse until/unless his requests for mentorship are accepted. I have no doubt he's editing in good faith, I'm just not sure he has the skills. StarM 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Except he only semi-semi-retired, because 15 hours later he changed his mind. I came here again because I just saw his latest manual creation of a PR page (sort of) with the edit summary, I hope to don't fail the procedures, which, of course, he did. I had just finished cleaning up his last PR request, by providing linked, step-by-step explanations in my edit summaries. But I am doubting the usefulness of these efforts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for causing you problems. Believe me, I was doing the procedures correctly but suddenly my cell phone battery ran out. I understood everything I should have done Dr_Salvus (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: per this and the parallel conversation at John's talk page, you aren't doing it correctly. It's not a question of your cell phone battery but the process to follow. You do not seem prepared to edit in these areas and I still support' a topic ban from any featured content, at a minimum. Perhaps you could work on articles in draft space to improve in that area so that yours aren't as frequently at AfD? StarM 18:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: If I were blocked, would there be a way to learn how to do the procedures well and consequently be unblocked? I am a human and therefore I can learn from my errors. The cause of the wrong procedures is that I still don't understand them. Perhaps it would be better if someone explained the procedures to me in Italian or in French. Dr_Salvus (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: I am going to abstain for now on opining whether you should be blocked, but could you at least for now adjust your site settings so you will know what articles are Featured and refrain from involving yourself there? At the top of your screen, click on the preferences button. From there, click on gadgets. From there, scroll down (quite a bit) until you find "Display an assessment of an article's quality in its page header (documentation)". Check that box, then scroll down to the bottom of the page to Save. With that, you will always see an article's assessment at the top of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Foxnpichu who has agreed to adopt this user so Fox is aware that the issue is broader than grammar. StarM

Minor involvement with this editor previously; but nothing too dramatic. Re. "language barrier" : None of you thought of pointing this editor towards the Wikipedia in their language? As for young age CIR is indeed an option; but if we can avoid a block that'd be better. And I don't speak Italian; par contre je suis francophone donc je peux aider sur ce point là (quoi que je suggère plutôt d'essayer de mieux comprendre comment nous fonctionnons soit sur Wikipédia italien ou francais avant de tenter de s'aventurer plus loin ici, vu les problèmes soulevés). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, I did think of that, many times. I even finally mentioned the idea to him. I received no direct response, however. His contributions at IT-wiki are much more modest, though, for whatever reason; he has fewer than 100 edits there. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I decided to focus more on en.wiki instead of it.wiki as I don't like the rules of this that wiki. I don't usually write prose texts and therefore the language barrier is not a problem. Dr_Salvus (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem there is that our work here is not merely generating prose or other content, each person working individually. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Some poor English or weak writing in an article can be remedied, but the communication among us is more difficult. If we don't have an understanding for what our colleagues say (want, need, don't like, etc.) or expect, then we tend to step all over each others' toes.

A bunch of talented and capable cooks working in a kitchen together, bumping into each other, moving each others' pans and plates around in unexpected ways, just leads to chaos and unhappy people all around. That kind of confusion and the minor disasters it causes is what we're trying to avoid here. We aim for smooth interaction. I hope this explains our concerns about how your behaviors seem not to match our processes and customs. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

As an example (which I forgot to mention earlier), you wrote I don't like the rules of this wiki, which at first glance makes people want to respond, "well, what are you doing here, then"? But after some thought, it seems possible that you meant that you don't like the rules of that wiki, meaning the Italian Wikipedia. An (apparent) little grammatical slip like this could cause a lot of upset, depending on when you make it, and with whom, and about what. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I understood the cause of many mistakes made by me, for example the wrong procedures for peer review or the wrong evaluations for the GA and FL that caused this discussion. What do you advise me to do? Dr_Salvus (talk)

Ararat arev active again

The banned sockpuppeteer Ararat arev is back, editing articles about ancient Egypt to insert the phrase that has virtually become his signature, "Osiris-Orion son of Ra (Christ the Logos)", and variants thereof. So far he's used these IP addresses: 107.77.227.136, 107.77.228.158, 107.77.228.198, 107.77.231.4, 107.77.231.8, and 107.77.231.177. Is a rangeblock feasible for these addresses? A. Parrot (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The range would be 107.77.224.0/21 but looks like there'd be a fair bit of collateral damage. Appears to be an AT&T mobile range. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Would a WP:EFR do the trick? That combination of Osiris/Orion/Ra/Christ/Logos looks pretty distinctive (and unlikely), as do most subcombinations. Narky Blert (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't filter him out completely. His edits to Abu Simbel temples just said "Osiris-Orion" (Osiris and the constellation Orion were genuinely related in Egyptian religion, so we probably don't want to filter out IPs whose edits mention both), and he used to have a broader range of obsessions. So it depends whether the people knowledgeable about edit filters (which I am not) think it's worth doing, given those limitations. A. Parrot (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

True - the Egyptians symbolised Orion's Belt as something more appropriate for the fertility god Osiris. Narky Blert (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@A. Parrot and Narky Blert: I'll look into getting a testing filter set up for this. The other thing to watch out for is the Armenian stuff (like this). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: The combination Osiris/Orion/Ra is routine, as is Christ/Logos. It's the intersection which looks suspicious to me, especially if it includes the technical term Logos. (I know that comparisons have been drawn between Osiris and Christ (mysterious birth, violent death, resurrection), but that's not something I'd add anywhere without (1) a good solid source and (2) a good solid reason. There's little middle ground between academic scholarship and WP:FRINGE.) Narky Blert (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: Well, I know you can write edit filters that can limit hits to specific IP ranges, and you don't necessarily have to block an edit with them. That's basically what I'm thinking of right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Egregious POV editing on Millsboro, Delaware by Zsnell and 173.20.240.214 (possibly paid?)

Recently, User:Zsnell and User:173.20.240.214 have added obvious promotional material to the article on Millsboro, Delaware. I deleted one of their edits and they reverted my deletion. Carrot official (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Carrot official - If the user is repeatedly doing this, you can report them here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Carrot official, 173.20.240.214 and I were not exactly aware of what was happening, and were continuously making changes to the page as we were not understanding why they were being deleted. Changes will be made in order to make the page neutral. Zsnell (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you aware of Wikipedia's policy on Conflicts of interest?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing especially wrong with the additions as far as I can see, just expanding the article a little. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I did add a COI tag to be safe- but its not against the rules necessarily for them to edit the town page- but they should make a COI declaration to avoid confusion- but based on edit summaries- there is 100% a COI situation here. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Universal Classic Monsters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user seems to think blanking a near entire page is a good thing and that he's helping. He's really not. He's saying we're not providing sources for things when we don't need to as everyone knows of the information he's deleting. I'm on board with him being blocked immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Mask X (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what the user is stating as I've discussed this previously in January about splitting the articles here. I made mention of it on WP:FILM and WP:HORROR about it and after discussion, the suggestion was to have it split. Which was done. Following that, the article was split. Since then, User:Red Mask X has reverted the article three times (followed by anonymous IP edit). I've requested a protection on the page, but re-adding the information about the separate film series adds several bits of unsourced information and goes against the talk page's consensus. I'm not sure why this stands for my immediate ban, but i'll let the other users here figure that out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No what you're not getting here is that the Dark Universe was scrapped. THE NAME OF THE FUCKING FRANCHISE IS UNIVERSAL CLASSIC MONSTERS. GET OVER IT. Red Mask X, 17:56, 21 March 2021.

Red Mask X Please keep the discussion WP:CIVIL. Jerm (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand your frustration @Red Mask X: about an article being moved to a draft page, but if that's the case, restoring it on another page does not improve the situation in any real sense. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Red Mask X blocked for 72 hours. Open to lifting early if they're able to take it down a notch. Looking at their overall contribs, the edit warring + incivility seems to be a reoccurring problem. Andrzejbanas, you are being unclear. So, you split the article in Jan. 24, so where did all that text go (i.e. which page/s?). Please, just the facts. Where, why, when. Thanks. El_C 18:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I had to do a bit of research too as it was not exactly clear.

• After discussion on the talk page for of Universal Classic Monsters in January, it was agreed to split the article into two separate pages. One for the The Universal Classic Monsters line, and one for the Dark Universe. I moved that section, which as of the last few days, has been moved to a draft article by @Rusted AutoParts:. I haven't been paying attention to that page to be honest, and it appears Rusted AutoParts moved it on the basis thats its only describing one film, as there are no other films in this "series". I don't really disagree with him, his edits are clearly marked here. I won't bother linking to specific edits as the users makes it pretty clear whats going on. Now, since then @Red Mask X: has reverted the Universal Classic Horror page back to the previous version before my edit. This version added several lines of unsourced content and was against the talk page consensus made in January. I've since reverted them and made notice on the users page. The user Red Mask X added this comment to my page here which I'll be honest, I didn't quite understand, but they seemed to be not very happy the page as moved to draft, and decided to reinstate the information from that Draft article onto the Universal Classic Monsters page. I reverted these edits for the reasons above (adding unsourced information, going against talk page consensus, etc.). I apologize if I wasn't being clear earlier, I hope this clears things up @El C:. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps a bit more information, the original discussion for the split was here [Talk:Universal_Classic_Monsters#Splitting_proposal here]. I posted in both WP:FILM and WP:HORROR to bring attention to the split (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Horror/Archive_5#Universal_Classic_Monsters_split here). It was basically agreed to split the article and after giving it a month, I had split them. There has been discussion since that users have not liked that the article is now primarily about a home video series, but I decided to be bold and give the article a real clean house and only add information that was cited. Other users have commented adversely about these changes, but with my own research and I assume others, we can't find anything to back up the old unsourced information. Therefore, it's not been re-added. I think that about covers it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does, thank you for the detailed explanation. Reverted to post-split state (diff). I've also converted the full protection to semi and extended it for 2 weeks. Unless there's anything else, will close this report shortly. El_C 19:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the only dog I had in the fight was that Dark Universe was a non-starter and that users like @DisneyMetalHead: insisting on it not being dead and adding in multiple films that were never confirmed as being apart of it was deceitful. @TheJoeBro64: can attest to that. Rusted AutoParts 19:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that kind of editing was partially the reason that gave me a kick in the butt to try and clean up the Universal Horror films. I was really hoping to clean up the main article too but alas, I can't really find anything that really talks about the series as a whole. Hell, even sourcing discussing the individual series on its own is not something most historians or writers wanted to take part in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting multiple sockpuppets (more than that) and personal attacks

I would like to report a strange and disrespectful behaviour by an user Abhivadhyah. A user named ProudMallu has been continously requesting me to review his drafts. See [142] [143] [144]. These are just some of it and I only accepted very few of them. This user recently requested their username to be changed into this [145] and just after some hours after changing it, he requested to delete both his user page as well as talk page.[146]. The reason he said was he dont want to keep his talk page after his absence. Now the same user under the same has come up to my talk page and is saying he dont know who ProudMallu is. I am pretty sure these two are same users because he/she continuosly asks me to review his draft and I have provided the evidence in my talk page discussion with him.[147]. Its better if you are having a look at [148] this sockpuppet investigation You can see this user ProudMallu is suspected by another user. @Athaenara: has also confirmed both are same users. When I asked about this,the user has started personal attack on my talk page [149] [150]So Im reporting this here as per the suggestion by Athaenara[151]. And see these deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divya S. Iyer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashanth Nair (IAS). ProudMallu is the creator of these two articles which I previously declined. He just showed up there to vote as keep Please take some action as I dont know what is this user actually trying to achieve from here. This is more than a case than sockpuppetry. Im also pinging @Oshwah:to have a look at this. This [152] is harrasment at highest level.Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• • I have partially blocked Abhivadhyah and asked them to stay away from Kashmorwiki pending the outcome of this discussion. I suspect more is needed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Abhivadhyah and ProudMallu are same persons by the way. The evidence is in my talk page. And this admin also confirms this [153] [154]. Inorder to make sure Im right, I set something like a honeytrap by opening these two deletion discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divya S. Iyer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prashanth Nair (IAS) where these two articles were created by ProudMallu himself. I was right. ProudMallu, who said is leaving wikipedia, took the bait and showed up in these two discussions to vote as keep and canvass others [155]. ProudMallu was suspected for sockpuppetry way too back [156]. And these two diffs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1013227115] [157] finally made it sure that both are same persons. Because ProudMallu, who was so polite to me these entire time suddenly turned up against me. I would like to open an SPI. But this is a case more than sockpuppetry which I believe. Its also not possible to compare these two users's edit interaction using the edit interaction tool as one user's account been deleted. So this is a well planned operation. Luckily I was able to catch it. And this is a serious matter to discuss. First of all, a user called ProudMallu requests to change their name into Abhivadhyah . After getting their username changed, they request for deletion of both their userpage and talkpage in a hope that their complete edit history will be gone [158]. Disguised as another person, this user Abhivadhyah shows up under the same name ,asks me to review his draft, and when I asks about ProudMallu, which all humans naturay do, he launches personal attack against me outta nowhere. Im pretty sure they might have created another account by now. If not, they will do it soon. Because this user ProudMallu has been warned two times for paid editing (One warning was given by me). So if they create lot of paid articles from one account, it will make them suspicious. That might have prompted them to create multiple accounts so that they can do paid editing without anyone noticing. But they also tried to delete their entire history from this encyclopedia, so that the previous articles they created will remain here without suspicious. So I strongly recommend the admins to take this matter seriously and take actions immediately. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 22:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
• ProudMallu renamed to Abhivadhyah. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I thought maybe I should point out here that ProudMallu has actually been renamed Abhivadhya (without an "h" at the end). The user who was posting unpleasant messages on the above talk page is a different account, Abhivadhyah (with an "h"). Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 23:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved editor, I just want to point out to admins that he has began posting additional comments on his talk page directed towards Kichu. See [159] [160] [161] [162]. Jns4eva (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Checkuser note: Interim update from the SPI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
•  Renamer note: Noting spi, I've declined rename from "Abhivadhya" back to "ProudMallu".11:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yesterday, I partial blocked Abhivadhyah and IBANned from harassing Kichu and asked them to discuss the matter here. When the harassment showed up on my watch list, I full blocked for 31 hours. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
• From the Phoenix man SPI, I've extended the block to indef and blocked some other socks. Any further abuse should just get the TPA insta-revoke, IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don’t of this is a mistake but the bot made the Miami dolphins main page roster messy. (If this is read after it’s fixed then ignore it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coopachup (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, if you mean Miami Dolphins, it looks fine to me. Any specific text that's the issue? WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 03:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nothing to fix. Obvious vandalism (diff) Also, I know many here are concerned, but worry not, Chicken Girls is safe! El_C 03:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

There was an error at {{Miami Dolphins roster}} that I just fixed, which was causing it to look weird. Not ClueBot's fault! DanCherek (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, like MusikBot II, it's a one of the good ones. Unlike the evil one, Sinebot — a herald of the apocalypses, if you will. El_C 03:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Careful who you call evil, El C. The bots have long memories, and will remember the day they take over. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I've already crossed the Rubicon, PR (diff). Someone has to save humanity from the robot demon realm, so it may as well be me. El_C 17:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Arty Zifferelli reported by User:BarrelProof

Arty Zifferelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an account created 9 days ago that has 14 edits. The majority of these edits have had problems and have been reverted. One fundamental issue is that the user keeps saying "Fixed typo" for the edit summary, when the edits are clearly not the correction of typos. In one other case "Fixed grammar" was also used in a similarly misleading way. Ten of the 14 edits have been these "Fixed typo" and "Fixed grammar" edits. Another strong pattern is that three of the edits ([163], [164], [165]) have been to change section headings to "Trivia", which seems somewhat WP:POINTy. Their user talk page has been accumulating warnings, but the editor does not respond to the warnings and does not alter the behavior. A temporary block might get their attention. Some of the edits are constructive. Some of them show familiarity with concepts such as templates and reliable sources and Talk page discussions (including signing comments), so the user seems somewhat familiar with Wikipedia. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. This may be one of those situations where they are not seeing talk page notices, in which case only a block will stop them. If it continues, they can be blocked. Fences&Windows 13:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The elements of this have all been discussed pretty extensively. Those are default edit summaries provided by the app. They aren't communicating with you because...the app doesn't tell them you're trying to communicate. They won't get a block notification, either, so their first indication will be 'you have been blocked from editing' when they actually do, for reasons that will make absolutely no sense to them -- and indeed should make no sense to any reasonable editor who knows about the utter disaster that is the mobile app. (Imagine how someone would feel to be blocked after, as far as they know, doing everything right and acting exactly how they've been told to.) A block is much less likely to "get their attention" than it is to drive them away in confusion and anger, and hold a grudge against Wikipedia for blocking them for no apparent reason. So far as anyone can tell, the only way to communicate with app users is via personalized edit filters. Pinging @Suffusion of Yellow, who I worry is sick of this topic, but can rant on it with the best of them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Mobile app users don't get notified of comments on their user talk pages? Really? The need to be able to communicate with users seems like a pretty fundamental requirement to me. It might be better not to have a mobile app than to have one that is missing that capability. (After all, people could use a browser instead. Do mobile web edits behave the same way? I've previously noticed trouble getting to talk pages from mobile web editing, but does that also affect user talk pages?) — BarrelProof (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The need to be able to communicate with users seems like a pretty fundamental requirement to me -- it does, doesn't it? The last ANI thread on the disaster that is the app is here, if you want some further reading. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

After I submitted this report, the user has made three more edits. All of them use "Fixed typo" as their edit summary. None of them are typo fixes. All of them change section headings to "Trivia". I personally believe we cannot just let this kind of behaviour continue, even if our ability to discourage it is hindered by a bad app. Users who continue to perform unhelpful editing and don't respond to warnings should be blocked. The app may provide a convenient UI for when an editor is temporarily not using a laptop, and may be somewhat OK for editors who make clearly helpful contributions, but if a majority of an editor's contributions are being reverted, they should not be allowed to just continue doing that indefinitely. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: If they are blocked, they won't get a custom block message either, at least until they switch to the mobile browser. But how will they know to do that? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the predictability of their edits, could one of the edit filter wizards set up something temporarily to get their attention? I know SoY has already been pinged. The alternative is going to be a block and any chance of retaining the editor. Slywriter (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slywriter: I'm willing to try, but see User:Suffusion of Yellow/Mobile communication bugs. The IOS app will just display the title of the edit filter message, but not the message. So there's no way to make clickable links. Someone who uses the iOS app will need to create a message like "click on this menu, blah blah blah, then click on 'talk' and blah blah blah." Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I also note a further annoyance: all of the user's article-space edits are being marked as minor. — BarrelProof (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder about that. Can an iOS user please check how the app handles minor edits? How is the option presented to the user? I have a sneaking suspicion that the app "helpfully" remembers your selection from the last edit. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: I just made an edit to an article and marked it as minor. When I went to make another edit, the "minor" button was not activated, so it doesn't seem as if the app remembers the setting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. So it looks like they are selecting it every time. Now if only we could tell them not to do that... Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I do 99% of my editing on Android smartphones, using the desktop site, which is 100% fully functional on modern mobile devices. The only time I sit down at a desktop computer is to work on large image files. We would all be better off if the WMF shut down all these poor quality smartphone/mobile apps, which are an impediment to collaborative editing. I cannot imagine the amount of money that has been wasted on these crappy apps over the years, but "small fortune" comes to mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, Hard Agree. The Timeless skin is amazing and responsive, and everyone should switch to it anyway. Jorm (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You can add Redsky00 (talk · contribs) to the list, which was reported on my talk page recently. I declined to block for the reasons discussed in this thread. I can use the Desktop Wikipedia site on my (now getting on a bit) iPhone 5S and it's generally okay apart from choking on large pages. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The user has now made a fourth edit since the discussion began. Like the others, the edit is marked as minor, uses "Fixed typo" as the edit summary, and changes a section heading to "Trivia". Someone else reverted it already. — BarrelProof (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Now fifth and sixth additional incompetent edits, with both of the newest ones saying "Fixed typo", neither of which fix typos. One inserted a link to a dab page and the other changed the verb tense for a description of a fictional character (contrary to the MoS), both on very prominent articles. It is not helpful to just let this continue. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, and these incompetent and improper edits are not being prevented. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Now another one, again with "Fixed typo" when the change was clearly not a typo correct, again not an appropriate edit and rapidly reverted. The editor knows about talk pages and has commented on three of them, but has not responded when others tried to get their attention on the same talk pages. The editor knows how to sign their comments and knows about the principle of needing reliable sources. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm still willing to try using the edit filter to get their attention. But I need an IOS app user to write the message. Short, plain text (no links); just tell them how to reach their own talk page (the iOS app can't be used to edit Wikipedia-space IIRC). And be ready for me to test the filter on you first. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on Nicki Minaj articles

Hello, this issue has been discussed quite thoroughly on the talk page of the Nicki Minaj article, but it has gone to such a bad level of dispute and even edit warring that I feel like it has to be solved here. I am a frankly new editor to Wikipedia, while I've been editing since 2019, I only recently learned about Wikipedia Policy, and am currently learning on how to make my editing better. So apologies for any noob or dumb behavior, I am always open to feedback, as long as it is constructive!

That being said, I know a long string of biased edits when I see it. User::Cornerstonepicker is a frequent editor on the Nicki Minaj article and anything else related to her, and yet somehow most of their edits relating to Minaj seem to be negative most of the time. This person adds irrelevant details about Nicki's personal life, discredits her work in other fields, such as acting and philanthropy and generally hides her achievements and impact as a female rap artist.

And this has been going on for months now. In July 2020, They were acccused of sockpuppetry by another editor. In that same very report, the editor had given proof of multiple negative edits towards Minaj. Some more:(2, 3,)

However, because the allegation itself was based on sockpuppetry, the user had admitted to using that IP, so it was dismissed. But it is worth noting that those investigations gave proof to a MOUNTAIN of negative edits, that constantly try to discredit Minaj's career achievements and impact on female rap.

Some more modern instances of these negative edits are as follows:

• The already mentioned adding of irrelevant details that has nothing to do with Minaj herself, which seems to be done in order to blame her for her husband's unfortunate actions
• This biased past edit trying to bring up an old wardrobe malfunction seeming to attempt to embarass her
• Consistently removing female rappers who have named Minaj AS an influence
• Reworking Minaj's 19 Top 10 hits achievement to make it sound less flattering. Normally, including the fact that a lot of her Top 10s are features would be okay, if not again for this user's history as already being biased towards Minaj. This clearly seems to be an attempt to lower the impact of the achievement.
• Removing the mention of an unofficial remix of Single Ladies, released in 2008 on Minaj's Myspace
• This.. confusingly snarky edit summary that is very aimed negatively towards Minaj. (Granted, I've been guilty of biased and unhelpful edit summaries before, but I've committed to stopping that behavior, at least giving reasons in my edit summaries now.) It seems to show a lot about his bias against Minaj, full stop.
• There are so many more of these biased edits that span over months and months. The history of edits by this person on Nicki's article should be enough proof.

Again it is not just me, multiple users such as User::Yikes2004 have recognized Cornerstonepicker's clear bias against Minaj. There are multiple instances of him adding content that is clearly negative towards Minaj, then another user having to removing the biased parts against Minaj.

This user even recognizes this, with citing the fact that multiple Nicki-focused users try to edit the page to undo the clear bias. Unfortunately, those users did not seem to know what they were doing, so I've heard that they got banned, but I really don't know anything about those three users specifically, so I'd like to know learn about the circumstances that led to it.

Subversively, in the Cardi B article, when I had added sourced controversy about Cardi's repeated transphobia, he removed it under the term of "gossip" but when it comes to editing Nicki's personal life (allegations) it's APPARENTLY not gossip. I am using sarcasm here, if you can't tell.

They accused me of being a troll, which is so far from the truth, but in the same breath seems to imply that I am not a noob on Wikipedia because I've been editing since 2019. Both statements cannot be true at the same time.

I have fully admitted to being a fan of Minaj and her music, my personal opinion is that she is one of the best rappers ever. She is very legendary and has achieved so much, that I think her accolades, sales, and charts should be reflected in her article, which is viewed by thousands and ten thousands of people everyday. I have been nothing but transparent when it comes to my edits. Subversively, however, I have not seen cornerstonepicker admit to being a fan of Cardi or disliking Nicki, at least in all the time that I have seen, so the validity and intent behind these edits is questioned. He claimed to have no bias when my list of clear proof seems to suggest otherwise. And the fact that this user has been doing these types of edits for months, ever since 2020, should show the effect that these anti-Nicki edits have. In fact, I only really started editing the article because I kept seeing the edits he was doing, seemingly attemtping to scrubbing away her achievements.

Granted, as a new user some of my behaviors have been at fault too, I participated in edit warring before going through the proper channels. I had done it because I didn't know there was a better way to solve dispute, and I humbly apologize for that. I also admit to not always having the best sources, I usually use google to look up articles, and I found older articles that didn't accurately represent today, such as the current record holder of Hot 100 entries, which as of my current research is Taylor, not Minaj. However, that still doesn't take away the mountainload of bad faith edits I have seen from cornerstonepicker. Heck, even his sockpuppet IP was warned for sudden content removal and vandalism!

I fully propose that Cornerstonepicker will be blocked from editing all Minaj-related articles, including, but not limited to,

1. Main celebrity page, being Nicki's article based on her as a person
2. All articles based on Nicki's discography, including albums, singles, and collaborations
3. To add to my last point, blocked from editing songs featuring Minaj, especially blocked from editing on the commercial performance of these songs
4. Groups that include Nicki, namely, Hoodstarz and Young Money
5. Parts of articles that mention Nicki's past feuds, namely, Lil' Kim, Remy Ma, and Cardi B

The only thing I care about is not having Nicki's article and her legacy vandalized, nothing else. I request that the Nicki articles be left alone, and in turn I will go back to normally editing stuff about TV shows and video games, as I usually do. Thank you! Redandvidya (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redandvidya: I don't understand why you think someone can't be not a noob and a troll at the same time. Some of our worst trolls are very experienced with Wikipedia. A small number were even good editors at one time. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Also about the husband thing, it's a lot more complicated than you let on. That section includes specific allegations against Nicki Minaj. I'm not saying those allegations definitely belong since ultimately we don't deal with content disputes here anyway, but if they belong some background would be needed. Personally, I think the section may be a little too detailed, but if you can't resolve the problems on the article talk page, you should try WP:BLP/N. However try to be clearer what the issue is and don't suggest it's simply stuff to do with her husband that has nothing to do with her. Also I do not see any mention of transphobia on the current version of Nicki Minaj's article so it's difficult to see any easy comparison. But if something received sustained coverage for person A, but there is no sustained coverage for the same issue in relation to person B, it may be entirely reasonable that the article for person A covers it but the one for person B does not. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also whether there are any problems with cornerstonepicker editing, their edits are clearly not WP:Vandalism, so please don't say they are if you want to be taken seriously. Please remember that plenty of harmful edits are not vandalism. Finally do note that is Nicki Minaj is still active and Wikipedia is always a work in progress, there is zero chance the articles on her and stuff related to her will ever be "left alone" in the immediate future. If it distresses you so much that not all coverage is positive, it may be best to avoid them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 14:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Probably my final comment since it'll be better for others to have their say. I looked at Talk:Nicki Minaj and I have to say Redandvidya you come across quite poorly. You do need reliable, generally secondary, sources for content you add. It doesn't matter if you're sure the content you're adding is true. So you shouldn't be surprised or frustrated if someone challenges you because you didn't cite any sources for the content you added, or the sources you added aren't sufficiently reliable. The source needs to actually support what you're claiming it does. Also I really should have said this before but if you're more concerned with protecting her legacy than with writing an encyclopaedia, that's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I think you may be confused, I was referring to me adding sourced edits about Cardi's use of the slur tr**y and this person immediately reverted it all, which given the history shows nothing but hypocrisy. The closest comparison I would say is the addition of Doja Cat discussing past use of the slur f*ggot, which is in her article. I do not think the edits are vandalism per se, I never implied that, what I'm saying is that this person has a history of adding unrelated negative edits towards Minaj for months now. I am not saying that all coverage about her should be positive- I definitely agree that the controversy stuff is necessary to maintain WP:NPOV, but given the edit bias, in my opinion context should be added for these controversy situations, for example, Nicki firing back at Cardi with allegations of her own seems to be completely valid context to add in both Nicki and Cardi's articles. As said in my first reply to Black Kite, I am actively working on getting better methods of sourcing achievements which ARE true. The Hot 100 stuff and the 19 Top 10 hits, are examples of edits I have made with good, reliable sources. It is not just me who is dissatisfied with Cornerstonepicker's clear bias against Nicki, as stated in the original post there are other editors who doubt Cornerstonepicker's motive. But I appreciate the constructive feedback and will promptly work on getting better sources. For music specifically, are there certain sites to prioritize over others? i.e, Billboard, Vox, Huffpo, a tier list on what is reliable or not would definitely be appreciated. Redandvidya (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redandvidya: If you don't think the edit's are vandalism, then why on earth did you start a discussion where the title was "Consistent vandalism by cornerstonepicker....."? Why in this very discussion did you say "not having Nicki's article and her legacy vandalized"? You can't continually use the term, and then claim you didn't intend to accuse cornerstonepicker of vandalism. If you don't think cornerstonepicker's edits are vandalism, then stop using the term. If you continue to do so, I will support an indefinite block for WP:NPA until you agree to stop.

As for the tranny stuff, your example shows why your comparisons are flawed. For starters, I thought we were talking about Nicki Minaj, so I was very confused when I checked out the article and found no mention of faggot. I then found Doja Cat is someone else. I have no idea why you're now bringing up someone else completely but whatever.

I checked the article, and it does indeed mention controversy over her use of the term faggot, but this controversy seems to have generated sustained coverage including surrounding cancel culture, with Doja Cat even declared Milkshake Duck by NME. Further, it seems that this controversy happened at a significant time, when Doja Cat was first starting to receive attention from a viral hit. (Indeed our article has only existed in March 2018 [166].) In other words, it seems to have been something which received a lot of attention at a time where she was just starting to receive significant attention, so raised questions over whether it would kill or at least significantly damage her career when it was just starting to succeed. 'Kill' doesn't seem to have happened, probably impossible to know if it significantly damaged it. But this does explain why it may be a significant part of Doja Cat's biography. By comparison I did not see anything like that in the section you tried to add to Cardi B.

Note I said 'may' because again we don't rule on content disputes here and indeed I haven't checked out the sources, I'm not saying the section in Doja Cat's article belongs or the text in Cardi B does not. I'm just emphasising what I said before. You cannot say X is allowed in article A so Y must be allowed in article B. It may be that the sourcing and significance of X means it is allowed in article A but the sourcing and significance of Y is not allowed in article B. Your attempt to prove bias on the part of cornerstonepicker seems to show the opposite. You are failing to properly evaluate the totality of circumstances but instead because of your own bias failing to see how stuff can be quite different, no matter if they are very superficially similar.

Finally it's great you are working to find good sources but until you do so, the information needs to remain out. Please don't complain here or anywhere, when you add information before you actually find the sources and it is removed. And again, and I can't emphasise this enough. Please make sure the information you are added are supported by the sources you are adding to support that information. I suggest you take you questions about suitable sources to somewhere else like WP:Help Desk, WP:Teahouse, WP:RSN or maybe Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Music or probably better one of the subprojects like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: To me, explicit vandalism is when someone deletes someone's entire page, or vandalizes it with racial slurs or homophobia. I apologize for using the term vandalism against user Cornerstonepicker because it is not accurate to this situation PER SE, I'd describe it as a concerning history of nitpicky biased edits and a questionable motive. Thank you!

• I hate using the word boomerang but... when I see an edit summary like "Undid all revisions for obvious bias and clear agenda. Leave Nicki alone", I immediately think "Here is someone who probably shouldn't be editing this article". When I read talkpage comments like "LEAVE the article alone and maybe I won't have to edit it so much" and "you are again showing your agenda against Nicki!!" I am tempted to remove the "probably", especially when I look at the quality of some of the sources they're using. Cornerstonepicker is explaining their edits in talk and in edit-summaries; Redandvidya is in most cases simply reverting them. Also, if my counting skills haven't deserted me completely, Redandvidya appears to have made five reverts and/or partial reverts on the article today. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I am actively working on getting more reliable sources- as I've said in my original post, I am new to policy in general, and I use google to search for references. Google doesn't automatically show me the most updated versions of these articles. I am reverting them because my edits WITH ACTUAL GOOD SOURCES are also removed when Cornerstonepicker attempts to remove the ones with weaker sources, for example the Hot 100 entries which have been confirmed by Billboard themselves. I apologize for the five revert and I acknowledge that I broke the rule- again I did not know that there were better ways of settling discourse between parties. Regardless of the final verdict on this dispute, I will continue adding Nicki's achievements that I feel like are worthy to be mentioned, and editing it to be more accurate about her achievements, but per Wikipedia policy will pay closer attention to the sources I'm using. Redandvidya (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redandvidya: While cornerstonepicker should take care not to remove acceptable sources when removing poor ones, they really shouldn't have to. Please stop adding crap sources and then there would be no need to remove them. I've already provided advice above how you can learn what sources are good. I'd note that cornerstonepicker seems to have been helping you too. If you'd pay attention to what they're telling you rather than just accusing them of bias, maybe you'd have more success? I'd note that going by the talk page, the info you are claiming was removed wasn't actually removed. It was simply somewhere else.

I don't understand what you mean by "Google doesn't automatically show me the most updated versions of these articles". But if you are saying you are are searching for sources, then using them based solely on Google's snippet, please stop this straight away. It doesn't matter whether Google is showing the most updated information. You need to check the actual source to make sure you aren't missing some context, or maybe something which would make it an unreliable source. (Is it a blog, an op-ed etc.) It's no wonder you are getting into trouble if you are doing this.

If the problem is when you search and check out the source, you end up with Google's Accelerated Mobile Pages which can be outdated, ask at the WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse or maybe WP:RDC for how you can avoid this problem. (Often simply removing amp from the URL will help if it's on the third party site's URL. If it's on a Google URL, it's a little more complicated.)

If the problem is that your searches for sources are failing because the information has changed between the index and when you view it so you thought you found a source but check it out and found you didn't (and you don't actually try adding it to our articles), this is why you should be using quality secondary sources not primary ones or crap secondary ones which continually change the information. Note that if there are no quality secondary sources which cover the information, this a strong indication the info doesn't belong. Always remember a lot of true information simply doesn't belong; if no one else cares, then we don't either. If you're not sure how to find secondary sources, again I suggest WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge Redandvidya's edit warring, which they admitted is due to them not being familiar with policy. With that being said, as the one who reported Cornerstonepicker for their sockpuppetry back in July last year, I fully support every proposition made by Redandvidya, as Cornerstonepicker's bias was made clear through not only their edits on their IP account, but also their continuing nitpicking of Nicki Minaj's article and articles related to her. It is extremly obvious that Cornerstonepicker is a fan of Cardi B, and is unable to edit the contents of a fellow female rapper, Minaj-related articles without neutrality. These points made above just prove once again that apart from their helpful work on Wikipedia, they have an agenda. Not to question or disavow the admin who reviewed their SPI (which speaks very loudly), but respectfully, Cornerstonepicker being the experienced user they were back then, and are, should have been blocked for their abusive sockpuppetry. It's pure irony that they had logged out while making abusive edits on their IP account. AshMusique (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree to this, and yes I have to improve my own encyclopedic skills and I recognize that, however ultiple other editors have also been dissatisfied with Cornerstonepicker's nitpicky edits. Redandvidya (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Biased editing is potentially a problem. "Nitpicky" probably not. For starters, it's not "nitpicky" to demand proper sources nor to demand that sources actually say what you claim they do. But also in general, having high standards for what goes in articles is reasonable. To be fair, if an editor removes/reverts well sourced and perfectly understandable content that isn't WP:UNDUE etc i.e. material which should be in the article just because of some minor language errors or because there were errors in the sourcing template which didn't prevent the source from being identified or something like that, this is likely a problem. But I've seen no sign this is what's happening here. Instead, you seem mostly frustrated about demands for high quality sourcing before adding content to the article. Or to put it a different way, if there really are problems with cornerstonepicker's editing, it's difficult to see it from this case since most of the complaints seem to be about behaviour which was reasonable. (As for the IP stuff, you're not likely to get a different judgment at ANI than SPI especially since it's over 6 months old with no signs of it reoccurring.) Likewise the fact that a number of fans are unhappy about such demands doesn't mean much. The number of people who are unhappy about our article Donald Trump is I suspect several magnitudes more people than have ever edited Wikipedia. The number of people who've complained about it in some way on Wikipedia is I suspect more than the number of active editors we have. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Redroses10

Please urgently unblock User:Redroses10 who is a student on a course I'm currently delivering, and a bona fide new contributor; as is User:ArazAGHA, whom User:Nick Moyes, the blocking admin, incorrectly believes to be the same person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 11:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a responsible mediator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_for_User:Tenebrae has devolved into a feeding frenzy of insults and Schadenfreude. I'd like to request a responsible mediator to help tone down the toxic rhetoric, sarcasm and insults. The group is composed virtually entirely of people I've been on opposite sides of RFCs with the past, people with a personal dislike, and I've been told I'm not allowed to invited character witnesses. And I've been ordered to out myself.

I've edited on Wikipedia for nearly 16 years, generally without issue, with some 155,000 edits. And these people with a personal dislike of me are fixating on literally fewer than 1% of them.

To put it more colorfully, the pitchforks and torches are out, and that's not how a town hall meeting should go. Thank you for any help.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor cyberstalking my edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Praxidicae is currently systemically reverting edits that several articles in which I added necessary cites for WP:BLP claims of birthdates. This editor claims, without evidence, WP:CIRCULAR and that United Press International, a decades-only journalistic institution, is swiping its "This Day in History" birthdates from Wikipedia. UPI has run "This Day in History" page since well before there was a Wikipedia. UPI has its own standard databases, such as voter registrations. Nowhere does UPI say: "Source: Wikipedia."

This editor has refused to discuss the issue in any serious way, instead commenting with sarcasm and even threatening me with a block if I press to get a definitive answer for her. Complicating matters, this is an editor with an extreme dislike of me, so this cyberstalking my perfectly proper UPI edits seems a deliberately antagonistic act that is leaving uncited BLP claims in its wake. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

{{cn}} I'm done with your ridiculous accusations, WP:IDHT and tendentious editing. I explained no less than 4 times now why I removed your garbage sourcing and you forum shopping now in a 5th place is just disruptive. VAXIDICAE💉 01:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying this is all POV supposition on your part. You think UPI is swiping Wikipedia, so it must be so.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) UPI was one of the two primary US news services, along with the AP, but it is not now anything like what it once was - a fact which can be confirmed simply by reading our article on it, especially the "Decline" section. For one thing, it's owned by the Unification Church, which also owns the Washington Times, a terribly biased newspaper which (I believe) has been quasi-deprecated as an RS here. It's not in the realm of the impossible that UPI might go that direction as well. In any case, citing UPI's past history as an indication of its reliability today is very misleading, which is something I'm sure Tenebrae knows perfectly well.

On the other hand. Tenebrae is on the cusp of being site banned from en.wiki (see above) in a discussion which is literally just waiting for the clock to hit 24 hours before it is closed, so I don't think that anyone really needs to exert any energy to deal with this complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I'd like to propose an immediate boomerang here and believe that Tenebrae should be blocked for their persistently disruptive editing and failure to get a clue after deliberately editing my comments and misquoting me to make a stupid, asinine point that no one agrees with. This is now the 4th thread they've started at various venues to take up a non-issue while bludgeoning the discussion on their own site ban at WP:AN. VAXIDICAE💉 01:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering what's happening in the other thread (28-3 in favor of a site ban at the moment), a boomerang at this juncture would be pretty pointless, don't you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Content dispute. Even if Praxidicae is in the wrong, using an editor's contributions to systematically revert the widespread addition of a source on the basis that you believe it is unreliable and thus should not be added for content reasons does not constitute the "stalking" form of harassment known as "Wikihounding". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Especially considering I explained it no less than 5 times now, despite his claim that I did it "without explanation" and I provided a cogent explanation as to how I determined they used Wikipedia for their source material. VAXIDICAE💉 01:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belteshazzar breaking their topic ban

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Belteshazzar was topic banned from editing the Bates method article and from Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed [167] in December 2020 because this user very disruptive yet has been editing the Bates method article again and other articles related to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (vision therapy).

A user Alexbrn informed Belteshazzar [168] about their topic ban violation on 12:41, 20 March 2021 yet Belteshazzar ignored that and made an edit on the Bates method on 00:16, 21 March 2021.

As I understand it those who violate their topic bans are usually blocked. Can an admin please weigh in on this. Thank you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months (logged AE action). El_C 02:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two obvious Evlekis-socks needing a block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

• The first one is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis per their user name and the edit summary of their first edit, and the second one is an obvious sock since they reverted me, in a tag-team job with the first one (and don't revert their edits on Surrey Commercial Docks, check the edits and you'll see why...). And, as always with Evlekis, they should be indeffed with talk page access removed, since Evlekis will otherwise start posting sh*te, including utterly rude personal attacks against anyone he dislikes here, on their talk pages. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've nuked the first one, that's obvious - but it actully reverted the second one, to restore your edit. Is this a thing as well with Evlekis? Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: It's what Evlekis does all the time, and has been doing for years, following me around reverting almost every edit I make, using the same procedure: first reverting me with a throw-away account that usually does nothing else, like Monkeyfile, then reverting that account with an obvious sock, with the usual insults, hoping that someone will revert the obvious sock but not the other one, thereby removing my edit (which very often happens). So yes, Monkeyfile is Evlekis, without a shred of a doubt, just like countless other socks before it. So if you're checking edits made by an obvious Evlekis-sock also always check all edits made just before (and sometimes also just after) the edits that were made by the obvious sock. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll file that one away for future reference. Sro23 has blocked the other one in the meantime. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• In case there was any doubt, cu- Confirmed -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• While we're at it: @Zzuuzz: Raat ko aasmaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Evlekis (see talk page, showing that TPA should be removed...) in spite of having been blocked as a sock of someone else, so maybe everyone in that SPI is Evlekis (which wouldn't be the first time some other sockmaster has turned out to be Evlekis...). I haven't looked at that SPI though. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• TPA removed. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• That explains the CU result. I've encountered both sockmasters before, Evlekis has tried to get me to file a report on one of his socks as an IrzaKhanz69 one at times (see history of the actual SPI page to get an idea of what I mean). Pahunkat (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, "raat ko aasmaan" (Urdu: رات کو آسمان) means "the sky at night" in Hindustani. Why they would choose a name in that language I have no idea. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably a Googlish attempt at 'darkness'; Evlekis isn't known for being a subtle sockmaster by any means. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe Evlekis was listening to music? He is Serb, "Noćno nebo" (meaning "night sky") is a popular 1980's song by Serbian band Van Gogh, and if you translate "Noćno nebo" into Urdu in a machine translator you get the username we're discussing. He's done things like that before: picked a random phrase or something, translated it to a random language in a machine translator, and then used it as name for a sock. In this case I don't think the choice of language to translate to was random, though, since he was deliberately trying to pass for being another sock master. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thomas.W You reckon? Seeing the history of this person's user talk I found this image. Presuming Mr Evlekis is the lanky guy to the left (about 2 meters tall given he is same height as door, not unusual for a Serb I admit), that most definitely is not a Serbian police uniform he is wearing. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Google Translate gives me رات کا آسمان (raat ka aasmaan), i.e. "night's sky", for "Noćno nebo". Only different by one vowel, and a better translation, but it still seems to contradict Thomas.W's theory. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz Snap! I am personally more comfortable with ноћно небо (Cyrillic for Night Sky) than the Urdu, particularly as we say нічне небо. But our Slavic languages have the cases you'd associate with Latin and if you wanted to give the term "of the night sky" then it becomes нічного неба. Both the adjective and the noun decline. As such, the "ko" is clearly not wrong given it brings back over a thousand results; it is clearly just another tense, case, circumstance or it may be poetic prose. Now just maybe the editor here could originate from the Indian subcontinent, or it might be some cunning clown from any part of the world being helped by an Urdu speaker. The options are endless and do not point the finger at one specific editor who hasn't hit the edit button in close to eight years. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Coldtrack: Evlekis hits the edit button every single day of the year: he's the most prolific sockmaster, and vandal, on en-WP, and has been ever since he was indeffed close to eight years ago... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Des Valee overwriting protected commons file at Rojava without consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Previous report at the commons board about the same user [169], led to file being protected. After which the the user made a protected edit request [170]. Following opposition to this edit request user overwrote the file with the summary. "more updated map, from wikimedia nonsense". Also submitted this report at Commons since it concerns both Commons & Wikipedia. StuffedDance (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow obvious retaliatory posting from a discussion on commons by a user who completely lacks any knowledge on Wikipedia. I would recommend to read up on WP:BATTLEGROUND and other Wikipedia policies. Wikimedia and Wikipedia are two separate projects and nothing states you can't upload an image if it has your best judgement. Your report on commons was shot down because it was a simple dispute trying to get attention. Des Vallee (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Also want to point this user's excellence in assuming good faith and personal attacks:

"In fact they both show the contrary map. Either case you either need to have your eyesight checked or stop editing in bad faith."

"Accurate map made less accurate with the summary of ”improving” lets assume that wasn’t deliberate..." Des Vallee (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Before this goes much further here:

1. SD, do not import Commons disputes to Wikipedia. DV, while tempting, please don't reply to such a report with comments about SD's Commons edits. We have enough disputes here already, we do not need another site's disputes too.
2. If there is a problem with the map Des Vallee switched to in the article, then no doubt someone who actually edits en.wiki will bring it up on the article talk page.

I think this should just be closed as no action before it becomes a timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam this isn't in relation to Wikipedia and is just retaliatory posting in my view. Des Vallee (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal Threat by D33psp33dAI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

D33psp33dAI made a legal threat in their edit summary here--VViking_TalkEdits 14:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

lblocked. El_C 14:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lucasbishop reported by User:TheLionHasSeen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lucasbishop, in apparent disregard to healthy dialogue and contribution to Wikipedia, has consistently rewritten information on the article, Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches, with blatantly biased information. This issue has been apparent since September 2020, per edit history here. This fellow contributor has written information as if it is merely from an advertisement or taken verbatim from that church's website showcasing also apparent conflict of interest; and they have, seemingly disregarded efforts to responsible communication as detailed on their talk page, which I initiated. Following, I notice what may also be a sockpuppet violation pertaining to these series of edits with the account TheJohnSnow. For that, I shall open a sockpuppet investigation. I am requesting swift investigation of this contributor, to prevent from involving myself in a never-ending edit war, which appears to occur on that article via its page history. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

An IP address has performed the same contributions. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucasbishop, they have been confirmed to have sockpuppeted on this encyclopedia. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Khiya ram jaat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Khiya ram jaat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yet another in a long string of OpIndia meatpuppets. (They have a call out to their users to "fix" Wikipedia.) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bshjsn repeatedly deleting sourced content; has received level 4 warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Bshjsn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly deleting the (sourced) content about the members and support staff of Royal Challengers Bangalore, despite reverts from a variety of uninvolved users (including myself) and warnings. Some examples, all from today (there are plenty more in the page history): [171] [172] [173] [174] [175]

I ran across this from Recent Changes, for the record. I have no particular knowledge on the subject. Kistaro Windrider (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 02:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Kistaro Windrider (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quick spam block please

Can we have a quick block of Multi-GPU rendering for Large models works please? Currently busily spamming weird benchmarking references into random small mammal articles (...?!). Seeing as AIV is looking rather languid ATM, I'm placing this here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's really weird. Indeffed, but watch out for socks. Canterbury Tail talk 13:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User:FDW777's behaviour on Mary Lou McDonald article

At the beginning of February, I began taking part in a discussion on Talk:Mary Lou McDonald. Another user and I thought a piece of information should be included in that article, FDW777 did not. The discussion went back and forth with myself and the other user providing more and more evidence to support our claim, but FDW777 would not budge from their original position based around one singular source. As well as this, Proposal after proposal was offered by myself and the other editor for how the information could be phrased, but every single time FDW777 turned down the propose without offering a proposal of their own. In order to move things forward, I created a Request for Comment section. That Request for Comment section ultimately endorsed the view of myself and the other editor by over a 90% margin. However, now that the RfC has concluded, FDW777 is still reverting the information we wish to include in the article, even though it has been confirmed there is an overwhelming majority of editors in favour of inclusion, and is suggesting we need to "propose" how the information will be phrased. I do not believe that process will be conducted in good faith given their previous history of rejecting proposals. I also believe the intent will be to drag the discussion out for as long as possible ("stonewall"), much in the same manner as to how the discussion was going until the end of the RfC. If FDW777 wishes to alter the phrasing of the information, then I believe it should fall to them, not myself or others, to do so, considering the results of the RfC.

Furthermore, FDW777 has begun issuing "discretionary sanctions notifications" on my talk page, on the basis that Mary Lou McDonald falls under a 1-revert-per-day-restriction because...of the Troubles? What we're discussing has nothing to do with the Troubles, nor is the subject of the article particular related to the Troubles as a topic. I believe that to be a misuse of that function and is being done to prevent the inclusion of the now RfC supported information.

I did not want to have to bring this to the attention of Admins but I sought the advice of other, more experienced users and they informed me this was the correct channel to discuss this.

I would ask that an Admin review Talk:Mary Lou McDonald, particularlyTalk:Mary Lou McDonald#RfC about the subject's membership of a political party and confirm whether or not FDW777 has the right to continue to revert the RfC supported information and also review whether issuing Discretionary sanctions notification is appropriate in this context. This "process" has already been dragged out over the space of six weeks and I just want to conclude it at this point, it's already been quite draining.

Thank you CeltBrowne (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The wording of the closure stated However, the exact wording and precisely how to present the information, such as how or whether to contrast it with her denial, has not yet been determined and can still be discussed. Did CeltBrowne do that? No they did not. And despite me pointing out what the close actually said and inviting CeltBrowne to actually propose a wording, they have completely failed to do so and instead ran here. Why cannot they propose a wording on the talk page as requested? FDW777 (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(Crossposting from WP:AE) To be clear, as the one who wrote the text being quoted, the statement is not intended to imply that the information has to remain out of the article until agreement on the text is reached. Sunrise (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume then, it is also not intended to imply the full text just added currently has consensus? FDW777 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, not an admin here. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to chime in, but it seems like the previous discussion has been closed with an overwhelming consensus on the inclusion of the paragraph argued in the talk page (or at the very least, a version of it) wherein her membership is confirmed but her more recent refutal is mentioned in order to contextualize any confusion that may arise. You can continue to contest the wording in a new discussion if you'd like, but I think it's more productive if you put forth more suggestions rather than waiting on others to make it more "neutral" because consensus indicates the current version is fine. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: I'm mostly with BriefEdits et al here. If you have objections to the specific addition, you need to actually discuss what those objections are. As it stands, there has been an edit war, but no one has actually said anything on the talk page about it. While ultimately someone needs to start the discussion, in this case with an RfC in support of an inclusion, the onus is especially on you if you have some objections to the addition to explain what they are. The one area where I differ from others is I perhaps wouldn't mind so much you removing the addition while discussion was ongoing provided you'd actually started a discussion and appeared to be genuinely trying to work out what to add rather than simply trying to go against or delay the RfC result. But the fact you didn't start a discussion makes it look very bad for you. Yes someone else should have started a discussion too rather than just edit-warring but again with the RfC result there is much more onus on you to do so. (Although even generally and I often say something similar, rather than complaining here on ANI that you invited CeltBrowne to start a discussion but they didn't, why weren't you be the one to start the discussion? It's far more productive if someone actually starts the discussion rather than everyone saying someone else should.) @CeltBrowne: putting aside the DS issue, while I understand you may be getting sick of this dispute, since the RfC only found consensus to add something but not precisely what to add, if you want to have a say in what goes in the article you need to participate in further discussion. Otherwise you will just need to accept the outcome that something is added eventually, but it might not be what you like. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I would add ideally any discussion shouldn't just be why you feel the proposed/attempted addition was a problem, but how you feel it can be corrected. The consensus means even if you feel there should be no addition, this is no longer an acceptable outcome, so any editor who wants to get involved really should be able to come up with something that they feel meets the RfC and satisfies their concerns. Just saying what the problem is without offering suggestions on how it can be resolved may be seen as obstructing the consensus. Also, I realised this wasn't clear in my earlier comment but the attempted addition is effectively a proposed addition to fulfill the RfC/consensus, another reason why the onus is much more on FDW777 to start a discussion explaining problems, with or without a revert. No one else really has to explain why they feel the addition is an improvement since we've already established it is. So yeah, the ball is really in FDW777's court to start a discussion, or just edit, if they want to change the addition. Just reverting and asking for discussion doesn't work in a case like this. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the point of that statement is that the process of editing and collaboration on the topic can still continue. However, there is a consensus for inclusion in some form. As such, simply removing the text (as opposed to e.g. changing the wording) would be editing against consensus. Sunrise (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I also suggest CeltBrowne read the 1RR restriction they are objecting to. It is not limited to the Troubles, but specifically says , along with other pages relating to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland. Are they seriously suggesting the president of Sinn Féin is not relating to Irish nationalism? FDW777 (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I would add that whether the article falls under the Troubles discretionary sanctions regime IMO ultimately doesn't even matter when it comes to the notification. The page is related enough that it seems fine to notify any getting heavily involved in it about the AE that apply that subject area. The notification doesn't make discretionary sanctions apply to any particular page or editing. The notification just means that an editor becomes aware of the process and the discretionary sanctions that apply to a particular area, and can be sanctioned if necessary when their editing in those area where they apply is a problem. It will be an uninvolved admin's judgment later whether any specific page or editing comes is in the area where discretionary sanctions apply. Once you're aware, you're aware for the one year or whatever. You don't become unaware just because you never edited in the areas where the discretionary sanctions apply. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I missed that articles under the Troubles have an automatic 1RR. That being the case, it's fine to check whether this applies if there is doubt but that's what matters not the notification. Note that the article clearly comes under BLPDS so there's no question discretionary sanctions apply. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

After FDW777 reverted the RfC approved content I restored it with an edit summary "consensus has been reached that this merits inclusion, but you're more than welcome to make appropriate edits as to wording and other details". FDW instead immediately posted in ARE; their report was extremely dishonest re the events that transpired, and rested on the same erroneous claims that led CeltBrowne to come here. The findings were in my favor: "The facts in the case don't match the claim. There was an RFC, OgamD218's edit appears to be consistent with the RFC AND their edit summary clearly invited others to tweak if they felt necessary. No action taken against OgamD218 in this case. I would warn FDW777 that when they file an AE/AN/ANI case, they need to more careful that the claims are substantiated by the facts." - Dennis Brown - 2¢, who also noted "Unless I'm missing something, what took place was exactly the opposite of what is being claimed here." CeltBrowne is correct, FDW uses baseless claims re WP rules to bully other editors. This user also has a history of tendentious editing in the Troubles area, the PIRA page was denied GAN by Peacemaker67 bc, referring to FDW, "it is clear that my concerns about the article meeting criteria #4 Neutrality (regarding sectarianism), will not be addressed by the nominator. In over 350 Good Article nomination reviews, I have never struck such a level of intransigence from a nominator when a serious concern has been raised about an article." OgamD218 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• As to whether 1RR restrictions on this article via the Troubles applies, it may not be a direct match but it is best to still operate under the assumption that 1RR applies. As for FDW777, as I said in my close at WP:AE, you have misrepresented the issue at hand. I would suggest you limit your participation to the talk page for this one paragraph. The RFC was very limited, but still crystal clear, and the addition is consistent with that RFC. Of course, the paragraph can be tweaked, but the smartest way is via talk page, an informal discussion, since 1RR may still apply. This should be a textbook example of using the standard editing process, not the admin boards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Minor point, but FWIW any long-term Wikipedia editor who grew up in Ireland and is interested in history or politics is highly likely to run afoul of the 1RR restriction by accident at some point. I'm pretty sure I violated it on National Party (Ireland, 2016) on 15 May 2018, and don't recall ever having been aware of such a restriction. That being said, the Mary Lou article is definitely much more closely related to classical "Irish nationalism", and now that the point has been made, no reasonable argument can be made that the 1RR doesn't apply to the page under discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism in the Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election

A fan of Ilias Kasidiaris, through an anonymous ip (User:87.228.220.198), is constantly vandalizing, adding false percentages. I ask an administrator to punish him exemplary for repeated vandalism. --Αθλητικά (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

We do not punish. That is not our role. er, thanks.10:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Αθλητικά: Your edit summary, however raises concerns about your neutrality. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Cannot tell if it's vandalism or a content dispute. Warned IP, who was not notified of this discussion. so much for civility in edit summaries. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Ip adds false percentages that were never shown in a poll (as you can see from the sources in the entry). And he has not done it once but repeatedly.

To be honest, if I go to the sources I do not see anything even close to what is in the table. Either there is massive vandalism in the article, or the sources do not match, or the sources quickly become outdated, in which case they should not be used.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Danny794986432981498215: NOTHERE

Self-explanatory. Look at his contributions. Reported him at WP:AIV but removed as stale. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I don't see any obvious vandalism, but there certainly is some WP:CIR concerns.. [176] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of this editor's edits seem OK but others, like these edits that I just reverted, seem to me to constitute a clear intentional insertion of false information -- there are just too many outlandish factual errors in the edit to explain otherwise (and they've made those edits to the article twice now). Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Now he's edit warring at KGTF over a non-free file. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Mvcg66b3r started a discussion on Commons about this same user. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Nurupa - already found guilty of sockpuppetry and still causing disruption - sock/canvas fest at Mutahir Showkat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Pkdolly001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muneeb Bashir Wani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nurupa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Faizan Hameed Lone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi all, Nurupa has already been found guilty of misuse of the Pkdolly account, see here. CU also found them to be misusing the Faizan account, see here. I have also reported the Muneeb account and added it to the Nurupa SPI. As you can see from Talk:Mutahir Showkat and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutahir Showkat, there is a massive amount of canvassing and sockpuppetry surrounding Showkat. It's unclear whether the accounts are all Showkat himself or whether they are people associated with or paid by Showkat. In my opinion, it doesn't matter either way and their editing is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and warrants investigation.

Please could an admin investigate and issue an appropriate sanction? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misuse of the Paid template

This week Beyond My Ken added the Paid template to most of the articles I had edited for my customers without starting the discussion on the Talk page as told in the Template:Paid_contributions: "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."

The user told that "No, you, the paid editor involved, are not allowed to remove the tag, and if you do, I will report you to administrators for sanctioning.

The paid contributions templates I added to articles you edited are strictly factual: you are a paid editor, you edited the article, you disclosed that editing on your user page and on the article talk page, therefore the article contains paid contributions. There is nothing to discuss. If another editor -- not you, and not another paid editor -- wants to discuss the template, they can contact me or start a discussion on the talk page, but as long as your contributions remain in theose articles, the template is factual and will remain."

The user did leave a comment on four talk pages Talk:Molok_(company), Talk:Aidon#Paid_contributions_tag, Talk:Konecranes and Stora Enso saying

"A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the paid contributions is a matter of fact and does not require discussion."

Here's a complete list of 52 articles the tag was added by the user. Orivesi is missing, as Bilby already removed the tag. Elli tried to remove some tags too but Beyond My Ken put them back. Aidon, Aki Yli-Salomäki, Basware, Biomin, Charlie Jabaley, Cimcorp, Comedian and 7 Wonders, Componenta, DA-Group, Digia, DNA Oyj, Draft:The APX, Efecte, Elematic, Elisa (company), Elisa Saunalahti, Elisa Viihde, Ensto, Feedback terminal, Fennovoima, Fingersoft, Fiskars, Framery, HappyOrNot, Honkarakenne, Innofactor, Ismo Leikola, Kemira, Kemppi, Konecranes, Kotipizza, Kotipizza Group, Metso, Mika Salo, Molok (company), Nancy Spector, Neste, Novita (company), Olvi, Orthex, Outotec, Rabbit Films, Raute (company), Solar Foods, Stora Enso, Suominen Corporation, Taura Stinson, Valmet & List of Valmet products, Voimaosakeyhtiö SF, You May Now Kill the Bride and Zibby Owens.

Thanks for reading about my concern.Jjanhone (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

How can we be sure which are paid and which are gratis? If BMK put them on articles you edited for customers, then that's correct. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

BMK found the list of articles I've edited from my user page so they are really paid as I've informed. But BMK is not leaving the comments as the template is asking and that's the problem.Jjanhone (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have started discussion threads on all the articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The threads are all alike I guess (haven't checked all 50+), so they are not based on the content of the article, I assume, just pointing out that there's a paid editor involved.Jjanhone (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Jjanhone appears to be a disclosed paid editor. I'm not a big fan of going around and tagging the pages of disclosed page editors with this template without any substantive reason to believe either that particular article is skewed, or that the paid editor has a habit of misbehaving. That kind of usage comes across as if the placer intends it to be a badge of shame. We have enough difficulty getting paid editors to disclose. If we start treating them like this when they do, why would they disclose? Somewhat seems like a backdoor to discouraging paid editing – something which, for better or worse, still has community support. The templates should be removed unless BMK can justify why this particular paid editor might be problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. BMK claims that the templates are purely factual so they do not need to justify their placement further - but this is contrary to how cleanup templates are intended to be used. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• The text of the template reads:

This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

If a paid editor has contributed to the article, then the first sentence is factual. The second sentence doesn't say that there is a problem with the article, it says that there may be a problem with the article. This is simply because paid editors are employed in some manner by the subject of the article, and therefore have a strong possibility of editing in a non-neutral manner. This is also factual. The placing of the template, therefore, on any article edited by a paid editor, is fully justified.

This is also an issue which is under discussion at TfD, [177] which the OP is well aware of, having participated in that discussion, part of which concerns the use of the template. Their opening this report in the middle of that discussion is pure WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and should therefore be closed. I have nothing more to say about this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have started discussion threads on all the articles listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The topic "the user which name I'm not allowed to use anymore" is referring is about a different thing: deleting 3 templates and starting to use other templates instead of them started by Locke Cole.Jjanhone (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You are only banned from posting on my talk page, not from mentioning my name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• A general message of something could be wrong maybe is not particularly helpful. Unless BMK can point to things in each article that are issues this would essentially be assuming bad faith and tag shaming with a hint of hounding. PackMecEng (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  Paid editing is fact. We can overtly talk about edits being paid without assuming bad faith. Paid editing does have the presumption of being promotional, because that is why companies pay for them. MarioGom (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  They are maintenance tags, if there is nothing to fix there is nothing to do. I could see something on the talk page, but on the article side unless an issue is identified, and paid editing does not qualify, they should probably be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, we're talking about the relevance of the tag (see the TFD discussion). But there is no AGF problem here. Just different interpretations on the usage of these tags. MarioGom (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  The AGF issue comes in that they are tagging all the articles they have listed without identifying issues. Basically the definition of assuming bad faith. PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  Obviously we have different opinions. I think all articles edited by paid editors need a review by an independent editor, always, no exceptions. MarioGom (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

So, given the backdrop of a rather tumultuous TFD that seems to have led to rather POINTy actions and swinging of bludgeons all around and the fact that I currently have ample opportunity to get stressed out by real life, I'm not going to delve into the conduct side of this – but for what it's worth, I clicked through some of those articles at random for a few minutes, and I did see POV issues to be addressed. Some things that caught my eye:

• Draft:The APX:
  • Their sound has been described e.g. as a "recreation of the sound of ‘80s electro-funk and proto house music with jaw-dropping faithfulness" – this does not belong in the lead; just because promotional language gets quoted instead of used directly doesn't make it due
  • While they wanted to do something more creative, they started working on original music, inspired by their love of classic funk, pop, and R&B – this strikes me as PR bio material
• HappyOrNot:
  • The premise behind HappyOrNot’s products and services is that people are busy and don’t want to give up their time to provide feedback. Selecting sentiment from one of four smileys is easy, it takes no time at all and is anonymous. No thought is required, no analyzing service levels, for example on a scale from one to ten.[17] Everyone can participate and provide feedback, there are no barriers due to age, culture or language.[7] Additionally, those providing feedback do so anonymously without risk of identify theft thus companies are not required to reference GDPR requirements.[3] – reads like it's taken from a product catalogue to me; it's part of a "The products" that strikes me as bloated
• Novita (company)
  • The company is a rare exception in the handicraft yarn industry, because it manages the value chain from raw material to consumer while its biggest competitors are wholesalers who do not manufacture their products themselves.[4] – this strikes me as promotional, and it does not belong in the lead (which as a whole seems to be intended to transport a "this is still a real, down-to-earth company" message and has some other issues too).
• Zibby Owens
  • She was inspired to share her enthusiasm and love of books with people like her.[9] – I think this is undue and of limited encyclopaedic value, especially given that it's sourced to a self-description in an interview
  • Her support of authors was critical at the times when many bookstores were shuttered nationwide, book tours were canceled, and even Amazon had put book deliveries in the slow lane.[10] – this is sourced to the New York Post, which is considered generally unreliable and doesn't appear to state this directly; what it does say is that the time was crutial, not her support per se. I also have some copyright concerns. From the source: The support comes at a crucial time: An author’s book launch can be make-or-break. Many bookstores are shuttered nationwide, all book tours canceled, and Amazon has put book deliveries in the slow lane for now, choosing to focus on delivering household goods.

This is somewhat concerning to me, especially the New York Post part – I feel that we might be venturing into advertising territory here, and that's prohibited regardless of tags and disclosures. I do appreciate Jjanhone's efforts to comply with our COI guidelines and properly disclose, but I would also encourage her to not edit mainspace directly and instead use edit requests (as is recommended). Blablubbs|talk 13:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to correct the chronology, I tagged the articles before the discussion on TfD began, not after. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I followed up on HappyOrNot and found another copyright issue:

• Article: Ville had worked with Heikki at Universomo, and they used the money they raised from the sale of that business to get HappyOrNot up and running. They used a Finnish manufacturer to build their terminals. Their first big customer was one of Finland's big-three supermarket groups, which was initially looking to check on the freshness of fruit and vegetables in its stores.
• Source: Väänänen and Levaniemi started the company with the money they raised from the sale of their company, Universomo, and contacted a Finnish manufacturer to build the terminals. Their first big customer was one of Finland's big-three supermarket groups curious to gauge the freshness of their vegetables and fruits.

I don't have time to look into this further, but it might warrant discussion or a deeper look by someone else. Best, Blablubbs|talk 14:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

To avoid confusion: The quoted passages were since rephrased ([178][179][180][181]), but the quotes were accurate as of the time of writing. Blablubbs|talk 14:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That's right and I'm very grateful for your concrete examples. Bear in mind that I'm not a native English speaker so my vocabulary is not that wide. If there are more concerns about the content of the articles I appreciate a ping and note on a relevant Talk page. Jjanhone (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

And I've already had a big discussion last fall on AN about if I'm allowed to edit or not.Jjanhone (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You're certainly allowed to edit, but you are strongly discouraged from editing mainspace articles you have a COI with directly; but that isn't really pertinent to my promo and copyright concerns – those are rules that apply to everyone, regardless of paid/COI status. Blablubbs|talk 14:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, the article was mostly written before the NYP RfC was started/closed in September 2020. I'm guessing that portion was, too. Which makes that portion simply outdated, rather than intentionally using a GUN source. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if we leave the reliability aspect aside, I still think this qualifies as both promotional and a copyright violation. Blablubbs|talk 01:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Jjanhone Disclosed or not if you’re unquestionably implementing your client's edit requests no matter how unencyclopaedic, or promotional those requests are, then you are merely a meat-puppet of those individuals and corporations. Saying yes to every request without filtering those requests through our content policies is not editing it is meat puppetry. Let me give you some advice,

1. Always put Wikipedia before your clients. Paid or unpaid, your goal is to liberate knowledge from its caste system.

2. If your client asks you to post promotional material, make them aware of the European Court ruling that outlaws editing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. The majority of client's will back down and start to work with you, not against you. You might get the odd narcissistic lunatic who thinks they are above the law; in those instances, stand your ground and hold your own.

3. Make it clear that a company’s Wikipedia page is not an official company communication and they shouldn’t be held accountable for its content.

4. Don't be a yes person. You are an editor, and the editorial control must remain with you. Otherwise, you let inexperienced editors who don't share our vision contribute to Wikipedia without adequate content policy knowledge.

5. Always get paid half your money upfront so that your client can’t use money as a carrot or a stick. It is very easy to relinquish editorial control and break content policies when a client is withholding payment because you are upholding Wikipedia’s content policies.

And finally, use your own ethical compass. If you feel as though you might be misleading the public through what they believe is non-biased editorial content then don't do it and if your client insists draw their attention to the 1914 fair trading act.

These issues with paid editing happen when paid editors lack backbone. Don't give in to ridiculous requests like the ones highlighted green above. Instead, use it as an opportunity to educate your clients on what Wikipedia is and what we are trying to accomplish here.92.40.191.42 (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is Off Topic but do you think one could have edited over ten years for over 150 customers in Finnish and in other languages as a meatpuppet? I trust journalists, not my customers' promo talk. And I only accept a handful of orders I get. So if you want to talk more about my editing, you are welcome to visit my talk page and let's discuss more. But talking about the content of 50+ articles on this chain is not ideal.Jjanhone (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the above edit. I am quite certain that there is no European Court (which one?) ruling against paid editing on Wikipedia. And even if there was, it would be impossible to enforce, even against the minority of editors who live in areas under the court's jurisdiction. And I have no idea what an unspecified "1914 fair trading act" could say or do about Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@RolandR: see WP:COVERT, but I'm skeptical of any analysis implying that we need these article space banners for legal reasons. We simply don't do disclaimers in article space even if some some editor breaks the law of one country or another. Just like we don't censor articles even if an editor contributes content that is illegal in some country. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, if this is an issue it should be added to the general disclaimer. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• This issue should not be conflated with the disagreements around paid editing, some of which are currently at TfD. I do not think the paid editing policy mandates or expects that paid editors will have all their pages tagged with Template:Paid_contributions (which, mind you, has less than 200 transclusions). To the extent that there is a dispute at TfD, I do not think it extends to this particular scenario, and I highly doubt broad community consensus supports this approach. Again, for as long as the community tolerates paid editing (and my or anyone's opinions on that are irrelevant to this matter) editors shouldn't do an end run around that consensus by doing things like this to discourage paid editing. It may be reasonable to do this if there's a valid reason to believe there's a pattern of issues with a paid editor's editing, but that should probably be reported to ANI/COIN for discussion, and apart from Blablubbs's commentary above nobody has provided any evidence of such. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm reviewing the tagged articles and adding the reviews to the talk pages. They present the usual problems that are common in paid editing (disclosed or not). I don't think some of them would have passed AFC if that was used. Paid editing disclosure do not exclude an editor from related Wikipedia policies that apply to every editor. See WP:PROMO (something that gets editors indef blocked every day) and WP:SOURCES. MarioGom (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  To be fair, in some cases such as Rabbit Films the problems are not related to Jjanhone edits, but to previous editors. MarioGom (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

rolanr The broader legal framework is specified at Wp:COVERT as for jurisdictions if Wikipedia is online one the US and EU, then we have to comply with these laws whether we are editing from Wales, Staten Island or The Moon. I don't believe the majority of businesses procuring these services are aware of these directives. However, if you are running a paid editing operation, some basic knowledge of consumer protection laws is advantageous.2A04:4A43:497F:7217:546D:86EF:9AC9:2F9 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I checked four or five of Jjanhone's articles, and found two that had promotional language. Having her articles tagged for checking by other editors is not a bad idea. Two examples, truncated with ellipses and cherry-picking the worst bits:

• from Kalevala (brand) "Kalevala Koru Oy is the largest company in the jewelry industry in Finland, and one of the largest in the Nordic countries... Kalevala was the most appreciated jewelry brand in Finland... Kalevala Koru was the most valued jewelry brand for the third year in a row according to a study conducted by the Finnish Markkinointi&Mainonta magazine... New online stores for the brand were opened along with a new brand store on Keskuskatu, Helsinki. At the same time, the old store was closed. During the launch, the brand’s first new pieces of jewelry were also released... In November, an outlet store was opened at the Konala factory, replacing the Pitäjänmäki factory outlet that was closed in 2018... The jewelry of Kalevala is designed to stand the test of time..."
• from Molok (company) "... uses one of the largest rotation molding machines in the world's plastics industry... Another advantage of Molok products is that it takes up less space above the ground than the traditional rubbish bins, which leaves room for other needs of the residents. Also the amount of waste traffic is decreased as the containers do not need emptying as often than with traditional systems..."

And Molok trash cans are apparently better because "the vertical collection container utilizes gravity, which allows the new waste to compress the waste below into a more compact form. With help of the gravity the collection container can hold 20% more waste". Maybe things are done differently in Finland, but here in Canada we have been using gravity-based vertical trash containers for what seems like centuries.

The idea that she use AfC might be a good idea, particularly as she is not a native speaker of English (she states above I'm not a native English speaker), and the difference between promotional language and deadpan delivery can sometimes be very subtle. --- Possibly (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Side point, but if you watch the video [oops, wrong link, here's the right one:] [182] the gravity thing turns out to make sense. EEng 05:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The video has nothing to do with trash containers nor gravity so don't watch it, it's some sort of joke about lesbians (I didn't find it funny). Is it really ok to leave this kind of comments here? Jjanhone (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Jjanhone: I have redacted the comment per WP:NPA. It is still visible in the history log and admins may decide to block the user. MarioGom (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Jjanhone (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, don't get your bowels in an uproar. I accidentally pasted in a link to the wrong video – the one used in my post to this thread [183] which, even if I do say so myself, was one of my better efforts recently. If you can't take pleasure in Terry Jones' celebration of letting people be what they want to be, in or out of bed, then I feel sorry for you. And if you didn't know that this was Terry Jones' celebration of letting people be what they want to be, in or out of bed, then make the effort to inform yourself next time before getting your knickers in a twist. A quick note on my talk page ("Hey, is this really what you meant???") would have made a lot more sense than high-handed talk of a block. EEng 21:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Whiel I understand and respect that it was an error, a better response would have been to apologise. It was very badly timed, in the middle of a serious discussion, to drop in a video that appears to be making fun of people for their sexual orientation (even if that is not what the video was intended to do). - Bilby (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, in case it wasn't obvious: sorry I unintentionally dropped the link into this serious discussion when (as described earlier) I had meant to use it only in a different serious discussion. Now where's my apology for the heedless AGF failure? EEng-

Nice to hear the background of the issue. We all come from different context so it is sometimes hard to undertand what the others really mean. Jjanhone (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Especially if you don't even try. EEng 11:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, you are maybe talking about Molok North America's containers, as Molok went to Canada in 1999. You might be able to help to evaluate the Canadian references Molok sent me, are they good enough to be used on Wikipedia or not? See Talk:Molok_(company). Jjanhone (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jjanhone: You might be able to help to evaluate the Canadian references Molok sent me. No thanks. You could read WP:BOGOF.--- Possibly (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Jjanhone

Let the participants of this ANI thread be aware that there is now a request for a case investigating possible copyright violations by Jjanhone, per Blablubbs. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked at those; I don't think that investigations has legs. In this one, for example, it is fine to copy the name of a creative work like "Lose Yourself to the Groove" and "Netflix film Nappily Ever". I did not see anything that went beyond the typical three-word threshold for copying of original text. --- Possibly (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, the problem isn't just the highlighted text, but its surroundings too – there's definitely close paraphrasing going on here. Two examples:

1. • Source: Amplified Experiment is supported by the Amplified Experiment Tour in which The APX will tour throughout major cities in Europe & USA.
   • Article: Amplified Experiment is supported by the Amplified Experiment Tour in which The APX will visit major cities in Europe and North America.
2. • Source: Amplified Experiment encores the duo's sound with a 2020 approach, fueled with the influence of the finest traditional 80's & 90's style funk, house, & soul. Including the previously released single Jupiter, Amplified Experiment includes a completely self-produced and masterfully crafted collection of brand new songs [...]
   • Article: Amplified Experiment is a completely self-produced collection of songs that has influences from traditional 80's & 90's style funk, house and soul. The album includes the previously released single Jupiter.

Haven't looked at the others yet, but both MrLinkinPark and Vami have substantial experience at CCI, so I trust their judgement. Blablubbs|talk 15:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The CCI process is not familiar to me but here's my reply to the cases [184]. Jjanhone (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please check between Sadads account (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sadads) on the English wiki and Scann on the Spanish wiki (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/Scann). User appears to be the same due to standard edits. Scann user has diffs on the Spanish wiki talking about a text that was on the English wiki when it wasn't. Then 1 day later account Sadads puts the text on the wiki in English. Suspicious behavior, could be multiple account or use of meat / sock puppet. 2804:14D:5C8F:832B:D829:A4FD:9DAE:13F8 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We're only concerned if they have multiple accounts on the English Wikipedia. Having one account on one wiki, and another account on another Wiki, isn't cause for concern. Only if they had two accounts on one wiki. Canterbury Tail talk 16:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We are also friends... who worked on #OpenGLAM together for years... and were talking about innapropriate content being forced onto multiple wikis.Sadads (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

In case you missed the giant yellow banner, it says: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. I've done so for you here as a courtesy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The one that seems to be having multiple socket puppets is this user. He has been banned under a different name (but the same IP address, see relevant thread here) for 2 weeks in Spanish Wikipedia for making accusations against me that he couldn't prove (see relevant thread here), and he's so angry about the thing that he didn't realize that I edited on the Trans-amazonian Highway article in Spanish and that Sadads was editing on the BR-319 article. Also, as I expressed there on Spanish Wikipedia, I did realize that the language on the Trans-amazonian Highway section on Deforestation could be improved and more relevant sources (peer-reviewed sources) could be added, which I did. I recommend English Wikipedia administrators to follow suit and also block the user as a preventive measure, since he seems to be embarked in a misinformation campaign pertaining edits that he thinks might affect Brazilian's government image. --Scann (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Funny, the English Wiki admin disappeared while you were editing. I imagine that there must even be organizations paying people to make the wikipedia a big ecological blog with partial opinions and sources created by themselves (primary sources), there is a lot of wikipedia editor focused on creating ecological haterism on the pages. I could make a giant list. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rauzaruku: I have just advised you not to cast aspersions without evidence. The implication that Sadads may be being engaging in undisclosed paid editing or is a part of an organized effort to slant ecological articles is quite serious; do not repeat it without evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User trying to create a R3R fight

User Sadads (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sadads) forcing me to do a R3R fight in the article BR-319 and willing to ban myself. I replaced text brought from the Wiki in Portuguese, written mostly by the user Naldo Arruda, who lives in the Amazon region (therefore, has much more reliability to write about this BR than any user who lives outside Brazil and only reads biased information and partial by the world press), was supervised by Wiki administrators in Portuguese and the version there is considered neutral and informative enough not to be disputed by anyone. So, can you block the vandal? Thank you. Rauzaruku (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So this user started by threatening me multiple times. It appears that there is a group of nationalist Wikipedians behaving this way on multiple language Wikipedias (multiple ips doing this including: see this ip for instance. It looks to be an attempt to intimidate on multiple languages, Sadads (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that a group of ecologists who live 10,000 km from the Amazon wants to understand the subject more than those who live on the side of this highway.Did not read the article I brought from the wiki-PT, did not check sources, you left deleting everything in anger! Are you an administrator, how do you act that way? Rauzaruku (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

What happens on another wiki is irrelevant to the English Wikipedia. The article may have originated elsewhere, but now that it's on the English Wikipedia it's subject to the English Wikipedia standards of editing and the original wiki article is no longer relevant. No one is trying to force you into an editing war, only you can do that. Right now I'm looking at one of the most respected editors on the English language Wikipedia and an editor with multiple blocks on their account for edit warring and personal attacks. I don't think throwing around the language you are doing so is going to end the way you think. Canterbury Tail talk 17:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

What I see in this administrator that you say is very good, is that he declares automatic self-partialism on the discussion page itself, due to the description he has there, he has no condition to edit articles on ecology because he will always put some bias the article. That is, he should repress himself from editing such things and let neutral editors do it. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rauzaruku: Civil discussion of sourcing and content is fine, but please try to avoid escalating things with threats of blocks and accusations of "trying to create a 3RR fight". If you think a user has a WP:COI, please support those claims with evidence per WP:ASPERSIONS. I would add that there is no requirement that articles look similar across multiple language projects, and so it might be more useful to base your arguments in English Wikipedia policy and the sources rather than stating that "this is how it is on pt.wiki and so it should also be this way on en.wiki". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So I'm going to create a fusion between the 2 versions and I hope they don't go out deleting everything out of anger, without reading what is written. Administrators cannot be partial. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

How about you try discussing the issue on the talk page and coming to consensus on a revision that would be acceptable? Sadads is not acting as an administrator in this article, so I'm not sure why that's relevant. Administrators are allowed to edit articles just like any other editor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No, why don't you take it to the article talk page and get consensus. That's the correct behaviour now that there is a content dispute. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Explain to me how I will reach consensus with overtly partial publishers. Should I expect goodwill from the editor who puts it on the discussion page who is an ecologist? Will he let me put text with reliable sources from another wikipedia that he himself deleted without reading? Seriously? Rauzaruku (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You get consensus by having a calm and reasoned discussion, bringing your sources and discussing their merits and allowing other editors to put their viewpoints in. As it stands the material was in this article along time until you removed it. Your removal was reverted for valid reasons. The onus is 100% on you to put forward your arguments in a calm and collaborative manner and not try and push through the edits again. From where I'm sitting you're the one with an agenda, axe to grind and overtly partial. And seriously, if you cannot discuss with other editors in a collaborative fashion, without attacking other editors and assuming good faith, then maybe you don't belong here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

What agenda do I have? I put the text that was on another wiki, I didn't create that text. The brave administrator who wants to ban me, puts on his discussion page "I am very partial about ecology". Rauzaruku (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not see that statement anywhere on their talk page. Nor do I see a threat to ban you. Canterbury Tail talk 17:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

He's not working on Wikipedia: WikiProject Climate change to defend deforestation, right? He edited the BR-319 article to defend ecology, right? (because he clearly DID NOT advocate any neutrality in the article). Administrators should not edit articles where they declare themselves interested. I see here is an administrator wanting to talk about what he doesn't understand, wanting to impose his biased opinion, when clearly I only pulled text from another wiki that I didn't even write. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sigh... shame I have to remind folks this in 2021 A) Environmental science and documentation of deforestation is the international consensus, b) neutrality includes significant coverage of the science done by experts. I am happy to find better weight of content, but you have to start from a place where you agree that scientists have expertise and there is a balance to reach (as I have been doing on topics like agricultural productivity or human overpopulation), Sadads (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Administrators can be regular editors just like everyone else, they can edit any pages that interest them. What they cannot do is exercise their administrative tools while involved in an article. At no point has Sadads used their administrative tools, or even threatened to do so. So stop throwing around accusations about other editors like writing about what they don't understand (that's a personal attack), accusations of other misconduct that clearly aren't true. The next time you make an accusation about another editor without backing it up with firm evidence, I'm blocking you myself for wasting everyone's time, personal attacks and being disruptive. Canterbury Tail talk 17:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Tell me about the divine administrator saying that the government of Brazil is not a reliable source when he does not know that those who write texts on the internet for the government are civil servants, many of them from the left ecologist: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BR-319&diff=1014185727&oldid=1014181360 .So, it was proven that it was reversed by hate. I am seeing an administrative hatred for the Brazilian government. Rauzaruku (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

[Rauzaruku will not have a chance to continue this discussion for the next two weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter and I blocked at the same time (sorry about the mess). Although my block was set for a shorter period, I endorse Ymblanter's. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban request for User:JNoXK

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I don't think I can do a topic ban unilaterally. We have an editor who advertised that they are a member of a group that believes in male supremacy. They are slow-motion edit warring at Sexual dimorphism to remove studies saying men and women have different brain architecture, and to replace them with a claim that men have superior brain architecture. I also note this edit. Can we get a quick topic ban from human sexuality and gender (or whatever the current approved wording is), broadly construed? Unless people think (based on their comments here) that they should just be blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support anything up to a full community ban. There's no place for misogynistic bigotry here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, and another revert and you can block them for EW. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Support' anything up to a full community ban. per Boing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC) stiking 'cause I partial blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  I just added what is said in the other article( white matter) to there. Also, i do not believe in male supremacist ideology. This is a misunderstanding JNoXK 18:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  This diff from March 23, 2021 shows JNoXK re-adding the already-deleted template {{Member of Men Going Their Own Way}} to his user page, after being reverted by Floquenbeam because the userbox wasn't allowed anymore. So it seems there's no misunderstanding here, given what Men Going Their Own Way is. —El Millo (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Your statements at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User mgtow show otherwise. A blatant twisting of the sciences of human biology. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, but not community ban. There’s enough there not to AGF his edits in that topic area. Community ban goes too far for me - we don’t vet beliefs (however ill-founded) to participate in WP. If he doesn’t edit in that area (unless other unpleasant POVs emerge) I don’t see the harm. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  That's where the problem is, people assume MGTOW is a hate group, i already mentioned that i am a member, but unlike what people think, it's just a group promotes men to take a break from the hardships of society. It is literally in the name, Men Going Their Own Way. That's all it is to me. I don't promote any form of hate towards any sex or gender.People just assume i do because they generalize. JNoXK 19:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, "take a break from the hardships of society", where you define those hardships as women and feminism. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  It fascinates me when someone sees their group has been described by some people as a hate group and conclude that the issue is with those people, not the group. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN or (preferably) community ban. WP:NONAZIS only directly talks about excluding members of racist groups, but the same reasoning applies to avowed members (per El Millo's diff above) of misogynist groups. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Well, then as per the reasoning in WP:NONAZIS,article Sexual dimorphism is supporting supremacist ideologies because it says males have a physical advantage.JNoXK 19:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, fun fact: since MGOTW fall under the Gender & Sexuality sanctions topic area ("gender-related controversy" and the page has a DS notice for such), and since JNoXK has been alerted to the existence of discretionary sanctions in this topic area, you can absolutely do a unilateral topic ban here. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @GeneralNotability: d'oh. I always forget about DS. I guess since this is already open, we can wait to see if consensus is a topic ban or something more, but yeah, I probably wasted some people's time here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that people should not be banned from Wikipedia because of their opinions, even if we dont agree with their opinions. If we do that, we would be no better than Twitter or any of the other platforms that are known for censoring people unfairly. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban, topic or site. Here he added POV material about men having more gray matter when the source is much more balanced and indicates advantages elsewhere for women as well; here I added balance. Then JNoXK replaced that material with stuff about men supposedly having more white matter from an older study. That and their other statements show clear POV pushing for a male supremacist ideology. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Because the white matter difference was already given in the article of the same name, i just copy pasted EXACTLY what was written there in order to not cause confusion.JNoXK 19:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Especially, when i am not even free to edit the MGTOW article, they will just revert it back based on articles that only they believe and turns a blind eye to even us, the real members. So automatically, MGTOW is a hate group for anyone who looks at the article.JNoXK 19:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not care what you say about yourself. We care about what reliable sources say. If you read SPS, you may say "well, it says that: may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, so there!", but you'll see it also says: so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
• the article is not based primarily on such sources

So, in short, you can't tell about your group or it's member if you are a part of it. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 19:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support CBAN or (second choice) TBan but also urge any admin to levy a DS-based TBan on them immediately, regardless of this thread having been started. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have partially blocked JNoXK from editing (Sexual dimorphism pending outcome ANI thread. Any admin may undo at their discretion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• support an absolute site ban We do not need more aggressively sexist editors who cannot separate fact from fiction editing anything. VAXIDICAE💉 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban for an editor who is clearly here for POV-pushing. Furthermore, I am strongly of the opinion that there is no room for editors with supremacist views on Wikipedia, and while JNoXK may say he does not hold supremacist views, he does so in the same breath as he shares these very views. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Quite. "I don't support male supremacy, I just think women have inferior brains and cause all the problems that MGTOW want to get away from." (Actually, thinking about it, if they all went their own way and kept away from women at least until beyond reproduction age... problem solved!) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban per GorillaWarfare. I've just read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User mgtow and the combination of a profound misunderstanding of scientific information with blatant sexism and cynism is astounding, literally saying something to the effects of "misoginy would be telling you [a long sentence full of sexist remarks], but I don't tell you that, so I'm not a mysognist". —El Millo (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban per GorillaWarfare. Mysogynists have no place on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Suppert siteban per WP:NONAZIS and per GorillaWarfare. Blatant misogyny and sexism, along with seemingly enough cognitive dissonance to claim their views are not exactly what they are; is not acceptable; and is either a case of severe CIR or, more probably, NONAZIS as stated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban per GorillaWarfare. Misogynistic POV edits that imo definitely fall under NONAZIS. ~ANM🐁 T · C 23:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban I saw the userbox discussion this morning, and I am surprised that a full block has yet to take place. I do not think a topic ban is sufficient. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban — above quote mentioned by Boing just about sums this up. I'm quite surprised a WP:NOTHERE block hasn't been levied yet. — csc^-1 23:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban per GorrilaWarfare. Misogyny and sexism such as this has no place on wikipedia. Like Scorpions13256 said, I can't believe a full block is not yet in place. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 23:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I mistakenly closed this and implemented the siteban but realized that at least 24 hours must elapse before such a close per WP:CBAN. I apologize for jumping the gun. I support this siteban proposal. I was unsure earlier today when I only looked at the sexual dimorphism page as the user's intent was not evident in the edits. But after reading the user's comments here and on the MfD it is clear that this user's espoused beliefs are incompatible with Wikipedia's community and mission. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's 72 hours these days, isn't it? P-K3 (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  There's an exception for cases where the outcome is obvious, which can be closed after 24 hours. Given we're up to 16/17 supporting editors, and the only people opposing this are JNoXK and a newcomer that's just been CIR/NOTHERE blocked in the section below, I would say the outcome of this is pretty obvious. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support92.40.190.219 (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban It is clear from their contributions that they are incompatible with a collaborative project. P-K3 (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban per user's personal attacks and actions on this very thread. User in question is very likely to begin socking, so someone should watch those articles. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• I blocked the user indefinitely per [185]; the site ban discussion continues. Note that a new account which the user promised to start will automatically mean block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to record it here in case this user ever appeals or whatever: they are now emailing me harassment, including the text of the now-removed comment they left here and on my talk page, and a second email describing me as an "inferior-brained bottom-bleeder". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    • I turned off email for the block-evading IP and blocked logged-in editors from using that IP. Acroterion (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Only the best for our GorillaWarfare. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Given their vile behavior, I think we can consider them sitebanned. On a more general level, the whole MGTOW topic is similar to fascism, in that anybody who advocates those principles is behaving in a manner that is antithetical to Wikipedia's principles, and we should deal with them as we would any other bigots. We don't have to be nice to racists, Nazis or misogynists. Acroterion (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Noting that Ymblanter has wisely removed TPA and email from this sadly troubled person's account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I just received a delightful email from our knuckle-dragging friend too, which I won't repeat here (but which appears to be a copy of his comment that was redacted here). But I just have to share one part...

...Hey GorillaWarfare, Boing! said Zebedee and Evergreenfir,You all are nothing but inferiors who wear mini-diapers even after being grown-ups, doomed to live in a world built by the other sex...

OK @GorillaWarfare and EvergreenFir: which of you two built the world, then? Norway is pretty (especially the crinkly edges), but you messed up a lot of the rest of it. Boing! said Zebedee (honorary inferior-brained bottom-bleeder) (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: That was a bit before my time, I just help in customer service. But I think you can thank Slartibartfast for Norway! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks a lot, EvergreenFir — you've ruined my joke, which now has been forever lost to the ether. El_C 17:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I do like to set 'em up :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry Not Sorry! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Lies made Baby Jesus cry. El_C 20:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

There's been limited (read "no") opposition to the site ban, and it's run 24 hours. There have been sufficient !votes (17, if I counted correctly) supporting the ban, so can an uninvolved admin please close the discussion and impose the site ban? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WIKIHOUNDING

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Amaury is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. This is happening right now.Simonrankin (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

He's also gone past WP:3RR on the Harley Quinn (TV series) page.Simonrankin (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, you are requited to notify any person you report here. Clearly, you have failed. Thankfully, I watch this page. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pwt898‎, as it's strongly suspected that this user is a sock, as well as User talk:Geraldo Perez#Simonrankin and User talk:IJBall#Please stop reverting me for no reason. for context. (Courtesy pings for Geraldo Perez and IJBall.) In response to a warning IJBall left them on their talk page, they claimed they would stop being disruptive, but clearly they haven't. And if they're a sock, as I strongly suspect, then the point is moot, anyway. Amaury • 08:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I did notify you and you deleted it. I've never done disruptive editing! It's not my fault you guys want errors on an encyclopedia. I have no understanding why you're being like this?Simonrankin (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

When you have several different editors reverting and warning you for the same thing, you are clearly being disruptive. You acknowledged your warning at 7:40 PM (PDT), yet you continue to be disruptive. Amaury • 08:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether a sock or not, the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and I blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring and possible COI

• Patrioticvoterp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.88.105.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.208.9.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The sole activity of these IP addresses and the new account has been persistently adding a blog prediction called "Patriotic Voter" on opinion polling sections in various election articles, in particular on 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. Possibly has COI issues, regardlessly they have been edit warring well past 3RR. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi, I see you have blocked the account due to their username and the sandbox text. Could you take a look at this though? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Pblocked 59.xx from 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election & 2021 Puducherry Legislative Assembly election articles for the duration of the election (end of April). 117.xx doesn't appear to have warred. ​- Cabayi (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Cabayi, sorry about that. Look at this IP range 117.208.13.215/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Imo, it looks like a duck. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  You could tighten that range to the /21's contributions & still be causing collateral damage with a rangeblock. Cabayi (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, you are right. The main page is semi-protected now anyways so I suppose it's not necessary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Aleyamma38

I'm having some issues with Aleyamma38 and am looking for assistance. Others that have been involved include Drmies, Onel5969, Fizconiz, Celestina007 They have a communication style that is challenging to work with in good circumstances, full of bolding and all caps (and bolded all caps!) Excuse me please first you go and learn English! You are ACCUSING me of personally attacking. Like seriously, BIG LOL. Anyways, no thanks for this USELESS ADVICE of yours. Keep it yourself. Because I know I'M ON JUST SIDE [186] When they get into an editorial dispute, it becomes very difficult to communicate with them, with personal attacks and conspriracy accusations [187]. They recently created Priyanka Choudhary that I felt had some issues around notability as this is a fairly new actress with only one significant role. Tag removed, added back, and I get a somewhat aggressive and hostile note on my talk page. I asked them to calm down some and use the article talk page and it went south from there.

After some back and forth, I started a talk page discussion Talk:Priyanka_Choudhary#Notability_concerns and their response was not helpful You just TARGET certain EDITORS. Well, it was already clear when a Wikipedian Admin along with two editors were bugged to cleanup a single sentence of the article Udaariyaan, from the moment I added it. Fine! Keep up this GREAT WIKIPEDIAN WORK![188]. I left them a second NPA warning after that and their response [189].

You can see from their talk page that others are having the same issues. I'd someone to review the interactions they've had with me as well as other in the past few weeks. I'm hopeful that warnings and advice from someone they've never dealt with would be helpful, but this has been going on for over a week (mostly with others, not me) and their style hasn't changed. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruption, false allegations, yelling, harassment...

• Aleyamma38 (talk · contribs)

Aleyamma38 is on a tear. It's hard to figure out the timeline because it's in so many places. I suppose it started on Udaariyaan where the editor was beefing up the plot, and User:Fizconiz made a few minor changes, and got "corrected" and then chewed out on their talk page and in an edit summary. Then User:Schazjmd, who tried patience, gets lectured in an edit summary. Then User:Cyphoidbomb gets it also. Meanwhile the shit is hitting the fan on Aleyamma's user page, and this is the last diff in a section full of yelling. (Note I had removed a not so friendly comment by Fizconiz, which I warned them about on their own talk page.) In the next section, Schazjmd tries again, and Aleyamma proves that no good deed goes unpunished. In the meantime I had asked them not to ping me anymore, which they did again (here, here, and here three times while saying they wouldn't ping me anymore--this is the last diff in that section (note I said "this is stupid", not "the editor is stupid"--I'm speaking of the commentary, the yelling, the ongoing pinging of all previous editors, etc.). Also in the meantime User:Ravensfire gets yelled at, and this is the end of another rant.

If you want more, check Talk:Priyanka Choudhary, User talk:Ravensfire, and User_talk:Onel5969. Particularly jarring are the silly claims of admins ganging up, a cabal against them, etc. But this report is long enough already and I get a headache from all the bold caps. This user cannot edit in a collaborative atmosphere and makes a battleground of whatever they touch--and they feel the need to touch everything. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• I was gonna partial block them and direct them here, but OK. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I considered that, but didn't think that would have amounted to a productive exchange at this time. El_C 14:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah. How long have they been like this?Oy! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    • It appears to have kicked off on 15 March when Fizconiz challenged a DOB source on a BLP Aleyamma38 was editing and A38 posted this on Fizconiz's talk page. Prior to that, A38's exchanges with other editors tended toward the obsequious. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I'll have you know I looked up that word before Uncle G makes fun of me again. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Everything must be good with the world if our favourite Uncle has been editing. I was going to hold you up as a perfect Wikipedia editor, but you just reminded me that perfection is even harder to achieve than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I have been soothing Drmies' brow with furniture makers and a bus stop. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• And the thing that got them blocked, they did it in their unblock request. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  Their latest unblock request still worries me, with onestly, even, I want a break from the baseless brawls. And, if there is to be any resolution made. I promise I will only carry out my regular edits as usual once my block is removed. Just hope, the Targeting game doesn't continue,. I'm going to be hopeful that they are still upset and will be back without (or at least significantly reduced) drama. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

13 years of unsupported credits from bassist Isaac Wriston

• Isaac wriston
• Talk:Isaac wriston
• Iwriston (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MusicRightsNow (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 108.221.182.187 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:843:C200:A040:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Isaac Wriston says he played bass on more than a dozen major artist collaborations. He's a musician from the Nashville area, and his personal website says he played bass on all these songs, the same ones listed in the talk page. In the link here he says "I never signed an agreement with the producer" to be credited as bassist. The problem is that nothing aside from his personal website confirms his participation. Not album liner notes, or credits on Discogs, Apple Music, AllMusic, or Tidal. Nobody says they worked with this guy.

For 13 years he has inserted his name into various musical projects as the bass player. For all I know, he might have actually played bass on some or all of these songs, as a work-for-hire anonymous contributor, but nobody is crediting him officially, and none of the media descriptions mention his presence. Lacking any verification, this effort has the appearance of hoaxing and self-promotion.

The range Special:Contributions/2601:843:C200:A040:0:0:0:0/64 has been active recently. What's the next step? Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

13 years? Jesus. If no other sources mention him outside his website, I'd say that's 13 years of either lies and self-promotion, or truth, but still blatant unsourced self-promotion. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Its disruptive but it seems to be weirdly good faith as well, they seem to own up to all of it "As a session musician, I never signed an agreement with the producer, Cardiak, for said credits. Apologies if I stepped on anyone's toes but that is 100% me on bass. You can remove any and all credits I have added to WikiPedia if it makes you happy. I'm just a musician.” I think we’re looking at a bit of self promotion, a bit of good faith wikipedia building, and a bit of a protest against industry practices around intellectual property rights/attribution here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "weirdly good faith" is dead on. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Huh. Shit that someone can put so much work into an industry and never get any credit. If we're going by policy, it has to be removed, but I have to admit, that's one of those jobs I'd go "god, I can't be arsed" to. Weirdly good faith indeed. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the talk page be deleted? AFAICT it s just masquerading as an article at the moment. I was about to add a speedy delete tag but thought I should ask here in case there is some guideline about this that I am unaware of. MarnetteD|Talk 20:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I've deleted it as a G8. Seems there was a major WP:V fail there. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots. MarnetteD|Talk 20:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If everything is unsourced, then it's basically a fire sale; everything must go... - wolf 00:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Assuming everything IW says is true (and why not?), I don't think criticism of industry practice is necessarily justified. He may have built a reputation as a reliable session musician who will turn up, play, take his fee, and not make a fuss about royalties, songwriting credits or even acknowledgments. That was common practice in, for example, 1960s London (although in 1960s London, it's quite possible that no-one could remember by the next day). That's how Jimmy Page for one made a living.

That said - without WP:RS the information doesn't belong on WP. Narky Blert (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Back in the day, he used to tour with a band in the midwest quite a bit. I knew the lead singer of that band when he was a small time stage actor. Wow, small world. But yeah, without RS to support his credits, then it should be removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he was in Starlume, and he has played with people famous enough to have Wikipedia articles, for instance Jana Kramer.[190] He's not a Nobody, nor is he a Somebody per WP:NMUSICBIO. And without official credits or WP:SECONDARY confirmation he's not getting wiki credits. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, totally agree - without RS to support his credits, then it should be removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor with close connection to page topic engaged in edit warring

User:AFGFactChecker has engaged in several disruptive edits and reverts on the Ahmad Zahir page within the last 24 hours. They have admitted having a personal connection with the topic of the page here: [191], so there is a conflict of interest on top of inappropriate editing. I have reverted their edits several times, considering it to be vandalism, and asked for appropriate references. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You should at least please remove the reference to him being Pashtun, there's absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. You can verify it with literally anybody that speaks or can read Persian that the sources Im posting are authentic, to the best of my knowledge there is no rule on Wikipedia that states that every single source must be posted in English. Just because I'm from Afghanistan doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest, what kind of reasoning is that? Are you saying that I shouldn't contribute anything at all regarding information about my country because that would be incredibly bigoted of you? I'm just trying to prevent Ahmad Zahir from being claimed as a Pashtun when he was clearly not. I even edited Aryana Saeds page to include her being half Pashtun even though some user had claimed her as Tajik as well as Farhad Daryas page to include him being paternally Pashtun so you can't acuse me of bias. How on earth is posting a historical document from Mohammad Sediq Farhang and video testimony from Ahmad Zahirs closest friend in Persian considered to be disruptive editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFGFactChecker (talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@AFGFactChecker: Youtube is not a reliable source, nor is some hosted screen shot of a page from a book. While non English sources are allowed, you would need to provide all the necessary information like book title, author, publisher, etc. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this to me, I will make my best effort to include the source in the format you stated, however, I'm confused, do you mean I don't need to provide a screenshot of the page in the book as long as I format the reference for the book correctly? Also, how would I go about posting the video in Persian of Ahmad Zahirs best friend and biographer stating him to be from the ethnic Tajiks of Afghanistan if not through YouTube? is there some alternative video platform that would be acceptable?AFGFactChecker (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

AFGFactChecker - Are there other sources that you can cite to support the content you're adding? The sources you're trying to reference are not reliable sources. Also, please refrain from edit warring. If there's a dispute over content between users, they need to resolve it properly by discussing it on the article's talk page and working to come to a consensus. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried working with the guy and discussing this issue with him on his talk page but he somehow accused me of having a conflict of interest just because I'm from Afghanistan and told me there was some rule where you can post any sources that aren't in English. Can someone please explain to me how a book reference by a contemporary historian and a video from his biographer and close friend aren't reliable sources.

AFGFactChecker I restored the reference to Pashtun background in the lede, and provided an RS for it. If there's dispute on this, you're going to need to find better reliable sources to support your claim.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Some random article with no source backing up the claim of him being Pashtun is not a reliable source. I posted the book where historian Mohammad Sediq Ferhang who personally knew his father stated him to have a Tajik background. How the heck is that not a RS?

AFGFactChecker - videos are almost never reliable sources. If this chap is Zahir's biographer, why are you not providing a link to a published biography (not necessarily in English) with proper publishing information, so that our Farsi- or Pashto- or Tajik-reading editors can check it? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

There are tons of videos posted in references throughout Wikipedia what sort of standard is this? You do know there exist things such as oral biography right? Search the guy's name across the internet and you'll find a ton of info regarding his relationship with Ahmad Zahir or you can have someone who actually understands Persian to watch the video to confirm it? TOLO News which is Afghanistan's biggest news network even had him on a program to discuss Ahmad Zahirs life which was included in the video reference I posted.

Persistent promotion and disruptive accusations

• The Fly Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Matthew Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Archsurfing (talk · contribs)
• 108.21.194.122 (talk · contribs)

Matthew Austin and the associated Fly Stop article have been the beneficiaries of promotional campaigns here, though neither appears to meet our notability guidelines. Today, in response to my nominating the latter for speedy deletion, a new WP:SPA attacked me for ignorance of the subject and accused me of a disruptive agenda [192], [193], [194], [195]. I can't see that any credible WP:RELIABLE sources which would establish notability have been added to the article since its promotional creation in 2015, and rather than add any today, the user is choosing to go on the attack. I'd appreciate more eyes on the article, as well as the WP:COI accounts. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I ran a check on Archsurfing due to the evidence provided here that there may be logged-out editing and harassment by this user. I found and  Confirmed that sock puppet accounts were created, one of them was used to edit The Fly Stop, and I've blocked all socks indefinitely and blocked Archsurfing for one week. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archsurfing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah, thank you. The 108 IP looks to be the same user, too. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

IP vandalism/trolling

IP 203.37.7.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made 3 edits since November 2020, all are trolling/vandalism on topics under discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBGG and WP:ARBAP2 respectively. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. Three edits too many. Revdeleted all. El_C 21:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, El_C. I notice that the piecemeal reversions of one of their comments didn't get revdeleted. A case of too many cooks maybe? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, of course, SineBot —aka the Robot Devil— strikes back. El_C 23:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The devil, as they say, is in the details ... and I see another: [196] (I'm not a robot, I swear. The jury is still out vis-a-vis the devil ;-) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging El_C just to make sure they see the preceding diff. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Serial unsourced changes of data to WP:BLPs

New account 183.171.127.168 (talk · contribs). In many cases, the previous content wasn't sourced, either. Requesting more eyes, and mass reversion if this is seen as disruptive. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned thrice. Reverted some. Falling asleep in my chair. G'night. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and good night. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Intimidating behavior by User:Jeffrey Beall

So this guy did the whole bite the newbie thing to me a week or so ago on Wikimedia, treated me like a criminal. I think he thinks he's the sheriff of copyright law. IDK. Yesterday he changed the article on San Luis, Colorado after I had edited it the previous day. He's already been super rude so I left a snide message on his talk page, intending to give him polite "up yours" and then move on and avoid him. He responded with a message that identified my exact location, something I embarrassingly didn't realize you could do with an IP (thought it gave vague loc info). I took it as a veiled threat, an "I know where you live" statement. He uses his real name here, so I've seen his social media and he's a lonely, frustrated, old man. This is America and people like him have guns. I no longer feel safe editing under this name and, in fact, I won't really feel safe until I've moved and have a new IP. Even then, I'd be hesitant to edit anything in his claimed domain (Southern Colorado), for fear that he'd figure out it was the same person. Even if you banned him, I still feel I need to abandon this user name and move on. It'sOnlyMakeBelieve (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

1) you need to notify the user in question of this thread, as per when you edited this page in the box at the top of the edit screen. 2) I would have removed that undue image gallery from San Luis as well, it doesn't add anything to the article in that format. That being said the NHRP places could be mentioned in the text with wikilinks or as see alsos (not external links). 3) Yes that comment of Jeffrey Beall was out of hand, and constitutes WP:OUTING. We should look into that one for definite. 4) Jeffrey Beal does not own any articles, so feel free to edit wherever you like. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Jeffrey Beall notified of this thread and warned about WP:OUTING in no uncertain terms. Edit revdeleted. El_C 15:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, no comment on the warning to Beall, since I cannot see the wording of his comments and they may, indeed, have had a threatening nature. But as far as outing, the OP explicitly linked his account with an IP address on his userpage. The OP explicitly informing us he felt free to leave snide comments on other users' pages because of vague, un-diffed rudeness merits at least some degree of warning. And He uses his real name here, so I've seen his social media and he's a lonely, frustrated, old man is certainly creepy, too. Grandpallama (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

^^. According to this, the only time Jeffrey has edited after IOMB was at San Luis, Colorado, where he used the edit summary Removed gallery per WP:IUP "Wikipedia is not an image repository." The existing link to Commons is sufficient. Also updated external links. - This is a pretty standard edit summary, so that the very next step wasn't more editing or use of the talk page but a "polite 'up yours'" is a little troubling. Disagreements happen, and discussion is a really important next step. A single edit changing something you added is not "ownership". To be clear, clicking the "geolocate" link that appears at the bottom of an IP's contribs page and highlighting that location to someone is a bit creepy and probably worth a warning (I can't see the message itself), but no more or less creepy than looking up someone social media and bringing that up here. How about let's all leave people's real life identities out of our on-wiki dealings and when someone makes an edit you disagree with, make some attempt at using the talk page before leaving them an "up yours" message. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I see a diff-less quote mentioned twice above, of which I was unaware. In any case, documentation for it is still absent. El_C 17:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, are you talking about "up yours"? The OP states in this complaint that was their intention: I left a snide message on his talk page, intending to give him polite "up yours". Grandpallama (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

How did Jeffrey Beall see OnlyMakeBelieve‘s IP? Did they log out to leave the “up yours” comment? I can’t see any IP posting on Jeffrey Beall’s talk page history. How was OnlyMakeBelieve geolocated then? And as Rhododendrites says, Jeffrey Beall’s rather innocuous edit summary doesn’t warrant an “up yours” from OnlyMakeBelieve. Something doesn’t stack up. Is there a history between the two not disclosed? DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, see my earlier comment; OnlyMakeBelieve explicitly linked themselves to an IP on their userpage. A userpage which they have now updated to claim they were threatened by Jeffrey Beall, which seems like it should be removed. Grandpallama (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, so you did. That message should be removed. DeCausa (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

So, in summary:

• Jeffrey Bealle is being unfairly accused of outing. that is not true. All information was clearly on It'sOnlyMakeBelieve's user page. I've taken the liberty of deleting IOMB's user page, and everyone should assume that, starting now, the formerly-public info on that page should be considered private.
• If we don't want people to geolocate IP's, we really shouldn't have a Mediawiki-generated link to geolocate IP's on every IP's contribs page.
• JB's comment was of the form "[name] of [place], have a nice day", where [place] required using Geolocate on their clearly-linked IP address. That was a jerk move. Don't be that guy.
• IOMB's opening paragraph here is full of jerk moves, as was their comment on JB's talk page. And apparently IOMB did some off-wiki research on JB too. I'm not sure why El C warned one and not the other. It is really, really annoying when someone reports someone else for the same crap that they're doing. Don't be that guy.
• If IOMB really is doing a clean start (per their talk page), they need to stay away from JB. New accounts that mysteriously appear and immediately attack JB will be blocked with little to no warning.
• Just FYI, there is no such thing as a polite "up yours". By definition.

Other than that, I'm not sure what more needs to be done here. El C has warned JB, and IOMB says they're abandoning their account, so warning for the attacks in the first paragraph here would probably be moot. Unless someone wants to argue that IOMB is ineligible for a clean start, which is probably a lot of effort for no payoff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

To repeat: I was unaware of IOMB's aforementioned transgressions at the time of issuing the warning to JB. And then, as you say, it became moot. But, I disagree about OUTING —which I called "borderline OUTING," to be precise— because expecting users to be aware of whatever MediaWiki features (like Geolocation, or even about the general properties of IPs) may be unrealistic. If a user feels like they're being outed, that in itself is a serious problem which could bring about acute distress. El_C 21:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

What? IOMB's aforementioned transgressions are in the first paragraph of this report. How could you possibly not be aware of them? And I'm not saying IOMB should have known about geolocation; I'm saying you should have. If a user feels like they've been outed when they haven't, then the solution is to educate them, not punish the person who didn't out them for outing them. Seems like it would be easier for you to just warn IOMB instead of grasping at tenuous justifications. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it’s unrealistic to “protect” those that edit with their IP in that way. The WHOIS and Geolocate tabs are there for all to see. WP:OUTING (a policy) makes it clear that it doesn’t extend to where “that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia”. I think it is deeply iniquitous that an editor (JB) should be in any way penalised or criticised where they do something that is not inconsistent with policy on the basis that it is “unrealistic” for the “victim” to have properly understood that policy. That’s carte blanche to ignore policy. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'm the " tenuous justifications" bad guy. Why not. El_C 22:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No, that’s not what I think FWIW. DeCausa 23:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't talking to (or quoting) you, but okay... El_C 23:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're the "tenuous justifications" guy. The "bad" is your addition. --Calton | Talk 10:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A pleasure as always, Calton. I still think that geolocating the IP of a user one is in dispute with, then greeting them with the name of their school is creepy, but what do I know? El_C 12:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

True, and I don't see anyone arguing against that. But creepy =/= outing. Grandpallama (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, I used the word "borderline," but whatever. El_C 14:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

...but what do I know? You certainly know how to move goalposts. And use passive-aggressive rhetoric. --Calton | Talk 23:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Project much? El_C 23:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, For what it's worth, I agree with your description of "borderline outing". Deb (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Deb. Honestly, I didn't know what else to call it but that. Obviously, it hit a nerve, though. I guess the matter of OUTING (softened or otherwise) is a bit of a soar spot right now, for obvious reasons. Anyway, a "borderline outing" warning was issued to JB, while IOMB seems to have left the project in dismay. No admin tools were used, so further back and forth staccatos here, as is happening above your post, is probably not helping anything or anyone. Just sayin'. El_C 11:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Please check if User:Thereal19 and User:Therealdeal19 are sockpuppets or not. I noticed that the two users edited same articles as the latter do so. Please refer to the edit history of this two users for more. Thank you. NewManila2000 (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:SPI rather than here, but since there's no temporal overlap in editing and neither account has been blocked this isn't really a violation of the sock puppetry policy, they might have just lost the password to their first account. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple WP:BLP violations

In addition to blocking Aac hunter (talk · contribs), it may be necessary to rev/delete all their edits. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Account and IP blocked and revisions deleted. Thanks for the heads up. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Acroterion. Some of their edits at a few bios are still visible. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was interrupted by a call. All should be deleted now. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course. Happens here all the time, though often the interruptions involve care and feeding of multiple dogs. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Cboi Sandlin

Cboi Sandlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this user welcoming an obvious vandal with "Also, COVID is a scam made by our government trying to control us via fear". Possibly NOTHERE based on their edit history, or just massively incompetent. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NOTHERE We do not need more disinformation spreaders or conspiracy theorists disrupting the encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm already a hair away from indeffing this user for their disparaging comments about other religions ([197], [198]) and this COVID conspiracy BS. I was giving them WP:ROPE. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I was only trying to converse with this user by showing him that there was no reason to fear about the virus, as it is obvious that the COVID pandemic is greatly exagretaed by the media. I apologize if I offended anyone. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Also those religious things were what i beleived to be vandalsim (like somebody saying that Judaism was a mental disorder XD). I was merely trying to stop vandalism. I am sorry that i caused anyone offense. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand you were not endorsing the antisemitic vandalism, but calling Judaism wrong and telling people to come to Jesus is not remotely appropriate here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c)It's not so much causing offense, as pushing COVID-denialism (evidence you are not smart enough to edit here) and proselytizing (evidence you can't be trusted to be neutral). I'm concerned that even if you agree to stop lying about COVID and pushing your religion, you'll just find something else to screw up. How can you assure us that isn't the case? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, now look, I was not denying COVID, i was meaning to say that it was exagerated, which it was, there is much evidence that it has been greatly exagerated. I mean think about it, why would anyone think that it is logical to completely ruin our economy because of virus with a 99.4% survival rate. You saying that i am stupid because I have a dont buy into the popular opinion about the pandemic is very rude. I do understand that my wording could have been improved, as when i said "scam", that would imply that i think that COVID-19 does not exist, which is not what i meant. And, moving on, I was telling that person about Jesus because, as you know, us christians like to tell people about Jesus. Just because i am religious does not mean that i am biased. Still, i now can see how those remarks would possibly be considered by some to be disruptive, so i apologize. I will try to be more careful about contreversial topics in the future and only speak about subjects that are directly about the topic of the article or user i am speaking about. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cboi Sandlin, the fact that you still made an attempt to justify both actions shows you still do not grasp the magnitude of your errors. Floquenbeam wasn’t being rude, they were factual, anyone buying into any conspiracy theories denying the existence of covid or downplaying it, is simply too naive to edit here. How about studying policy and guidelines before returning to mainspace editing? Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Topic ban from Covid-19 for sure, as we've already had far too many dangerous denialists here (and denying its severity contrary to the overwhelming medical evidence is still denialism). I'd also consider a topic ban from religion if we see any more proselytising or denigration of other people's beliefs, but I prefer a second chance on that one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Having read your user page, Cboi Sandlin, I realise now that you are still at high school. That means you certainly don't have any university degrees, no medical qualifications, no expertise in virology or epidemiology, and no medical experience. A school kid basing their claims on ignorance and "I mean think about it, why would anyone..." is *not* qualified to give advice about Covid-19 - and that would be the case even if your advice wasn't so stunningly stupid uninformed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Cboi Sandlin: RE:was no reason to fear about the virus, as it is obvious that the COVID pandemic is greatly exagretaed by the media. Speaking as a nurse, that is 100% bullshit. You have no business spreading such disinformation here. People I've known have died or become seriously ill, or wound up in ICU. If anything, the media have underplayed this disease. So stop trying to justify or defend your actions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Just indef block him and have done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have done this. El_C 20:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, I've no strong objection to an unblock request that properly addresses these acute problems, but I think a strong message is needed here. El_C 20:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Deepfried, at this time, the comments made by this user could be very dangerous. I support a site ban, maybe not an indef, but a few months to let the user reflect on what is and is not acceptable. Allowing them to stay with no consequences teaches nothing and will most likely result in a repeat offence. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Folks, this is just a young person who screwed up a bit. I've left some advice on their talk page, and they've made an unblock request that I support. It's not perfect, but I think we should give a kid a second chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• With a COVID-19 TBAN. No point throwing out baby with bath water. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Frank6292010

Persistent disruptive editing; falsely accusing me of unconstructive edits. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC) @Mvcg66b3r: Difs please. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: These two (look at the edit summaries): [199] [200] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Your accusing me that the problem! Frank6292010 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Now he's attacking me on my talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I've warned them, and you need to back away too. Neither of you "own" anything on WIkipedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about bias in the Erin Brockovich article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Before I start, I’m going to report my own alleged bias, first. I am the founder of what unintentionally became the only rival environmental .org in the country of Erin’s efforts. Allegedly, we were supposed to be on the same team but when I got big and wouldn’t agree with her, I became the enemy. Please feel free to ask me for very disturbing evidence if you want your comfortable world view shattered.

That being said, I’m noticing a lot of bias for Erin in her article; none of her very, very well documented scandals are listed, her failed work in Beverly Hills; her employee Bob bullying Larry Cahoon out of his own public meeting about Gen X, Erin running water scam in Stockton and ditching the community; Erin continually taking credit for the Flint Water Crisis when she wasn’t actually there.

Anyone who attempts to add these incidents is being dominated and having their edits reverted, people who are clearly her fans.

I believe her article is not portraying her accurately. I believe that I’m also not the person to correct the article, since there is a long personal relationship between myself and Erin, and I’d like to start adding the news articles about these scandals. However, I’ve noted that even when these are added, they are quickly removed from the page.

UPDATE: I see some of the Beverly Hills info is there but a separate controversy section should be added because there’s A LOT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Famous2UseMyName (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The proper place to post your concerns is here: Talk:Erin Brockovich. If you do so please include reliable sources which support your allegations. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I fully disagree. Posting on talk has resulted in domination of anyone who speaks out. That’s why I’m asking for intervention. Erin is a cult of personality figure and I can see her cult followers readily ignoring reality.2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Describing Wikipedia editors as being "cult followers" without significant evidence is a personal attack and may lead to being blocked. Do you have diffs which substantiate your allegations? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

And there has been no substantive discussion on the article talk page in years. If you have specific, actionable changes you wish to request, and reliable sources to support those changes, start a new discussion on the talk page. Throwing around personal attacks and unsupported innuendo here on AN/I will lead nowhere but a block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

2Famous -- even if the situation is as you describe, it sounds like you have an issue at the level of reliable sources. Wikipedia follows the sources; if they have a bias, it will be reflected here. So, by all means, support your claims, but this is not the place for a wider crusade against the way someone is (or isn't) portrayed. Best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The OP has made BLP-violating personal attacks against the article subject and Wikipedians on the article talk page. If they don't desist immediately, they should be blocked from editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah if you have an admitted POV against a subject, and you're declaring the reception from those who disagree to be a "cult", you're probably not going to get far. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User gaming the system

Not sure if this is exactly the right place to put this, but here goes. User:KNOTTARRY's edits make it seem like they are WP:NOTHERE, specifically it looks like they are trying to WP:PGAME. They have no edits to mainspace, but over 400 edits to their sandbox, with over 300 in the past hour at the time of writing. All edits made by them to the sandbox are just rapidly reverting between 2 versions (see page history), so to me this definitely doesn't look like anything constructive. Thanks in advance for any advice. ANM🐁^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by Izno. 🍻 Chlod (say hi!) 17:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that he is trying to get extended confirmed for an unknown reason--85.99.17.51 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

My finger slipped... Izno (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Izno: Ah, I see... ;). Thanks for the quick response, recent changes was full of sandbox edits :). ANM🐁^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, sock and master CU-blocked by Ponyo. JavaHurricane 03:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2603:8080:4740:9F:0:0:0:0/64

I notice multiple issues with this IP range, primarily the WP:BLANKING of Evaline Nakano's Talk page. I do not see an end in sight to this range's edit war. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

IP talk page disruption

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

New IP user 92.0.241.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) making personal attacks [201] and advocating genocide ("If a population of a country is largely white, then the white portion must be purged"). [202] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of a week per NOTHERE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeatedly removing deletion template

• Asif Altaf Khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Faisalceaser90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.97.161.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been repeatedly removing the CSD template from Draft:Raju Ahmed using various IPs and account, despite multiple warnings. The article was initially created in mainspace by Afif Bashar which i had to WP:A7 tag as there is no indication of importance. Faisalceaser90 removed the deletion tag moving it into draftspace. I instead of reverting their edits (which would reinstate the deletion tag and move article back to mainspace) tagged the draft for deletion as it sounds promotional and appears to have been created by the subject himself or someone close to him. Which they keep removing from IPs and sock account.[203][204][205]--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Umakant Bhalerao: You need to notify them on their talk page about this ANI discussion. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Have notified them.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Faisalceaser90 recreated the draft this morning and Asif Altaf Khan created Raju Ahmed in mainspace and Faisalceaser90 has repeatedly removed the deletion tag, despite reverts from a variety of users including myself and warnings. Spiderone even opened a sock investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asif Altaf Khan.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• The user has been given final warning against removing the deletion tag. Yet they persist in removing it. Deepfriedokra, Oshwah could you please have a look at it and take appropriate action. Thank you.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Raju Ahmed has been deleted again and salted. Asif Altaf Khan blocked as promotional spam only account. If people think blocks need to be moved around for sockpuppetry etc, feel free no need to consult, tidy as you see fit. Canterbury Tail talk 13:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I indeffed Faisalceaser90 as well. Blatantly not here. Canterbury Tail talk 13:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:‎Vikhyat Dubey Virat Brothers

This user, Vikhyat Dubey Virat Brothers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been making disruptive edits for days on the page Videocon Group and before that was editing through an IP, user has admitted he will continue to make disruptive edits on the article talk page, I have reported the user and requested page protection as I feel once the user is blocked there could be an issue of sockpuppetry to follow. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Partial block (originally applied by way of RfPP), now also including the article talk page. Not sure preemptive protection is called for at this time, though. Maybe wait and see...? El_C 14:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers El_C! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 15:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Immediate protection needed at Rosie Jones (comedian)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Immediate protection needed at Rosie Jones (comedian) after this tweet by Jones encouraging vandalism. Six cases within 10 minutes. Will ask at WP:RFPP too but if it's a slow day there, I can't spend all day removing mentions of Beef Hula Hoops... — Bilorv (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Handled at RFPP, no action needed unless the vandalism continues through semi-protection. — Bilorv (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent spamming by SPAs in their userspace

While patrolling userspace pages of Special:NewPages, I have observed in the past 24 hours many new single purpose accounts spamming their userspace with very similar content. They all create their userpage or user sandbox with Multiple choice questions about computer network related topics. They have not edited any other pages. In many cases the pages were recreated with same content after they were deleted as CSD U5. These are the accounts I have observed, please see their deleted contribs -

• Nihxxr.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jishnu.kumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Muhammed hafil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Anveed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• MhdNaji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Mdnaji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Mdnaji/sandbox
• Aakhil13454 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Aakhil13454/sandbox
• Mohammedshawaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Mohammedshawaf/sandbox
• Muhammed sahal vk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Muhammed sahal vk/sandbox
• Muhammed Anas X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Muhammed Anas X/sandbox
• HanoonAbbas123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:HanoonAbbas123/sandbox
• Hadhi2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Hadhi2005/sandbox
• Shamnas007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Shamnas007/sandbox
• Macksood007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Macksood007/sandbox
• Muneer007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Muneer007/sandbox
• Muhammadc009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Muhammadc009/sandbox

There are sure to be more accounts that I have missed. I identified a few pages as full copyvios of electronicspost.com and auditnca.com, whereas most seemed to be mix of content from different websites. Editing pattern indicates a coordinated group of accounts. Considering that so many accounts have been creating similar pages, some even after getting deleted, it seems clear they are not here to build an encyclopedia. It is still ongoing with Nibras ahammed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) being the latest. Please take any approprriate action to stop this. Thank you. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A coordinated group of accounts? I would guess that it's just a class. They're not spamming or anything like that, are they? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are probably a class doing some misguided Wikipedia assignment to something similar. They are not spamming links but the stream of WP:NOTWEBHOST pages had cluttered the New pages list. That's why I opened this thread as pages were still being created. I will note that more page creations has stopped since I created this report. So unless more pages are created over the next day, it is probably safe to end this matter. Thank you. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal Threats by user:Jledsham

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

I reverted Jledsham's edits on The Secret (treasure hunt) due to him not providing a reliable source. He then posted this message, threatening to take legal action if I revert his edits. Eridian314 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I see DFO has left a warning on their page. I know a lot of people like to block on sight, but let's give the warning a chance to sink in first. Eridian314, hopefully this doesn't count as "chilling discussion" because you know how pointless and silly the vague rumbling about "slander" was. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I gave them an NLT warning and some other education. We will see if/how they respond. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I also think we should have an educational page telling people the difference between slander and libel. Happens so often, and nothing on Wikipedia can be slander by the definition. Canterbury Tail talk 18:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the jurisdictions that just lump them together into "defamation", myself. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

See the misleading case of Chicken v. Ham, in which the question of whether a gramophone recording was slander or libel made its tortuous way up to the House of Lords; where, unfortunately, the fifth of Their Lordships on the panel expired just as he was about to pronounce judgment; so leaving the question undecided. The distinction between slander and libel, which originated in a dispute in England between the church and the common law courts, is irrelevant in all modern jurisdictions. Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget, however, that in Silvertop v. Stepney Guardians, a man who trained his parrot to say three times after meals "Councillor Wart has not washed today" was found guilty of libel. RolandR (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Youth culture

Sneaky vandalism described as typo fixes, by Taofeeq Abdulkareem (talk · contribs). There was a time when garden variety disruption was handled quickly at AIV. That's no longer the case, so I report here in hopes of assistance. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:7130:35DC:CC52:CA3E (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs by Taofeeq Abdulkareem (talk · contribs), those all appear to be changing a single character at most. What's the vandalism here? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

And some of them appear to be legitimate (not all, but some). Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A couple are legit. Most of the edits involved more than a single character change. They were for the most part unnecessary changes; some changed tense, some singular/plural, and some messed with hyphenation and punctuation. There was no response to multiple messages. Rather, they just continued [206]; [207]; [208]; [209]; [210]; [211]; [212]; [213]; [214]; [215]; [216]. The default edit summaries of 'fix typo' and 'added content' are misleading--this is either persistent sneaky vandalism or a WP:CIR issue. 2601:188:180:B8E0:7130:35DC:CC52:CA3E (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

What I suspect is that the user is one of a group editing from a single school. It appears the students choose specific articles, then make copy edits en masse. Some help, some don't. Mostly I was hoping for assistance to slow this editor down. 2601:188:180:B8E0:7130:35DC:CC52:CA3E (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained & disruptively edit

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

Can someone warn this user? Even though dozens of editors warn this user User:Belevalo. He/She continues to unexplained & disruptively editing on infoboxes even without source. Not to mention personal insults..Cengizsogutlu (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cengizsogutlu: You need to notify them of this ANI discussion on their talk page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User warned. Their talk page has numerous warnings on disrupive mass removal of content, and there is a previous ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Behavior_by_User:Belevalo, but please provide diffs that show the accusations in question. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hold on... I found evidence of personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey (last diff by user, on February 8). The linked discussion, as well as a previous one specifically naming Sabbatino (talk · contribs) like it's an ANI fork, involves Belevalo accusing Sabbatino of [d]eleting usefull [sic] information they added on National Hockey League articles, despite others pointing out that the content they added is already adequately summarized and linked to further information. Then, at Aljamain Sterling between March 7–9, they restored a redundant clause more than once (1, 2, 3). And their user talk links directly to this diff on March 10, whose edit summary contains a personal attack and, yup, is another edit war. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content from Big History page

Can anyone stop this user ජපස from removing fully sourced content from science-related articles like Big History and please respect IP contributions. Despite checking his contributions, I also saw that he removed content with proper sources from Collective intelligence page too. I am not sure about this editor but the way he removes content without any proper reasoning is not acceptable at all. I would request admins and Wikipedia upper team to restrict this editor to do editing in these particular areas and let it be handled by experts only. Also, pinging other editors which I saw would be interested here including Slatersteven, Bradv, Zulrah, Springee, JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, Steelpillow, Brian Josephson, Doug Weller, Maxim.il89, Joshua Jonathan, Whiteguru, Gerald_Waldo_Luis, Gtoffoletto and more. Bigheditor (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Removing WP:FRINGE material that is poorly sourced is very much allowed. Also, you never notified ජපස of the discussion as it clearly shows in big bold letters at the top of the edit page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Removing contentious material is a normal part of the editing process. I would discourage adding it back, and instead direct you to the talk page of the article where it can be discussed by multiple editors. Regardless, this isn't not a matter for the admin boards, as it is not our remit to decide article content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Please block users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, Can anyone please block these users User:CommanderWaterford, User:Ashleyyoursmile, User:JTully234, User:SlimVirgin] and other who are restricting my edits. Nafeez Ahmed works for Terrorist organization and I am just adding that. I have sources to back up. https://web.archive.org/web/20061028155603/https://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/09/interrogating-911.html Everything is under wiki guidelines but still, these users are reverting my edits as spam. Please block them all ASAP. Jeet001F (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeet001F, you are obliged to inform users when you report them here. I have done so on your behalf.

You have made just TWO edits prior to making this report, yet FOUR editors are "restricting my edits". A cursory inspection of the history of Nafeez Ahmed shows the common thread in their edits to be reverting edits by Jeet001F (talk · contribs), 181.174.141.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and JeetFuel (talk · contribs). Are you using any other accounts? Cabayi (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeet001F, assumimg you are this IP as Cabayi points out, I have reverted you because this edit was unconstructive. You haven't provided any explanation of the changes in the edit summary. I haven't reverted any edits of the account that you are currently using. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are my accounts but is that matters? Please block these users ASAP and use the nafeez.blogspot source which I provided above to add info which I am trying to add and getting reverted by these above editors. I would like quick action against these editors ASAP. Jeet001F (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jeet001F: Those users don't appear to have done anything wrong. You were deleting huge swathes of information with no rationale. — Czello 08:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeet001F, since those are indeed your accounts, you are not allowed to use multiple accounts for edit-warring . Please read WP:SOCK. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ashley! Yes, that IP and JeetFuel are both my accounts and I am using different computers with VPNs so there are no issues with it. Although, you talk very nice. I guess I am in love with you. Jeet001F (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Whew boy — Czello 08:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blocks issued - 3 days to JeetFuel & the IP, Jeet001F blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeetFuel. Cabayi (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Note that the checkuser investigation concluded that these were not related accounts. It would seem that a troublemaker has managed to get another single-purpose account blocked by claiming to be its sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by IP 88.230.181.227

88.230.181.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Do note that I've not changed anything, I've simply restored sourced information. You would have thought the IP would have at least done his research before he started his barrage of attacks.

I agree. Seljuk Empire is Oghuz Turkic empire. These kinds of edits are made generally by people who have stakes in it. As you can see, it's edited by an Iranian called "HistoryofIran".

iranian user called "historyofiran" hijacking all Turkic Empire articles, he can't get over his conquered history.

Altered sourced information [217]

You know my reverts were right. Because of people like that, wiki doesn't get to be a reliable source of information. His ancestry were conquered by Turks, and iranian is trying to cope with it by editing wiki pages. If you check his edit history, guy is obsessed about Turkic Empires.

== How to protect the articles of Turkic Empires from being vandalized by iranians? == Especially this "historyofiran" guy, quite obsessed with the various Turkic empires which ruled iran from 1000ad till 1900ad, trying to turn all the articles into propaganda. He changed the Seljuk Empire into "Turko-Persian". While Turks had the full command, and iranians were basically living in the territory. How can we prevent this guy from hijacking the articles? Should we bring out the fact that iranians were highly arabized? It's like calling Turkey "Turko-European" country because we adopted latin alphabet, and European democratic values.

Wikipedia is not a place for your nationalistic propaganda.

This iranian called "historyofiran" can't get over his ancestry being conquered by Turks, trying to do propaganda on wiki. Look at his edit history. Do not allow wiki to be turned into propaganda place by these people.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 36h for edit-warring and general battleground behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended for 1 week, talk page access removed--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Could be IP address of this user; same rants but with harsher tone. Also this threat (launching cyber attacks on WP, organized POV-pushing, and harassing WP editors) proves my points: Non-stop sock farming, meatpuppetry and long-term abuse by User:Karakeçi24. As I said before, this is a long-term and organized quest. Wario-Man ^talk 04:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I'm willing to semiprotect a (reasonably-sized) list of affected pages for a while, so please feel free to compile these, prioritizing both the recent and egregious. Also, probably will indef HistoryofIran, too, due to bold spamming! Grr. El_C 14:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Alba Party article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Morning everyone. Could the article Alba Party have a collective eye kept upon it? I think it's getting a bit of to-and-fro from editors, both article space and the talk page. I would make this about one particular editor but am wary about that just yet. Might just need fire in the belly and heads in the freezer. doktorb _words^deeds 09:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

A new political party was formed in Scotland recently called the Alba Party.

Whether any of us support the Alba party or not it is clear that it's new leaders and candidates have deep roots in main stream civic life here in Scotland, and that the parties values and candidates could not be called "nationalist" in the sense that this word is often used by political detractors, as is the case in the opening paragraph of the Alba Party article.

It is acknowledged across the board in Scottish politics that use of the term "nationalist" to describe the independence movement is a cheap slur.

Becasue it implies non-existant racism.

As such if the word "nationalist" is left in place, as currently used to describe this new main stream political party in Scotland, it will reduce wikipedias' credibility.

Becasue it will present a position that is inaccurate and a slur.

Not an outcome any of us want.

More over wrongful suggestion of racism, where it is non-existant, constitutes inverted racism which is obviously vile.

There is a simple solution to this problem as follows.

Suggestion:

The opening line

"The Alba Party is a Scottish nationalist party based in Edinburgh" is clearly adversarial and does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for accuracy and objectivity as I have outlined.

Rather than opening with a smear, this line can be significantly improved by removing the smear and simply being accurate by replacing it with the following line,

"The Alba Party is a Scottish independence supporting party based in Edinburgh" becasue that is exactly what the Alba Party is, whether we support the Alba Party or not.

I advise the above recommended change be made, then this part of the article locked. Kez321 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kez321 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This noticeboard isn't the venue to get into the weeds of content disputes. Those conversations belong on the respective article talk page. El_C 13:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

User Kez321

A notice has been placed on the user talk page of User:Kez321 As can be seen in the edit history of Alba Party, Kez321 is on something close to a crusade against the use of the word "nationalist", claiming it is racism, and claiming in the talk page that "moderator action" has to be taken against alleged racism.

See [218] and [219] and [220] for some evidence of his editing, and his edit summaries, which likely break our rules on conduct and behaviour. I think the talk page of his user page is already filling up with notices and warnings about his editing and conduct. I think he needs to calm down and work towards a consensus. I don't think at this point he is relaxed and calm enough to do so. doktorb _words^deeds 12:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Final warning issued. El_C 13:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your comments. Did you read what I have said above, and did you understand it, becasue it's clear to me that the suggestions that the Alba Party is "nationalst" are mostly if not all coming from people based outside Scotland, who probarly do not understand Scottish politics. I live in Scotland and have been involved in civic politics here for decades, and describing civic politics in Scotland as "nationalist" is inaccurate and slur. Kez321 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I escalate this matter so it receives full and proper contextual consideration. Kez321 (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Read this: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Only just noticed this. I’ve already reported Kez321 at AN3 for being at 6RR in under 24hrs. DeCausa (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking over this user’s 260 edits since 2008, they mostly drop in to WP from time to time to do WP:BATTLE. DeCausa (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Kez321 blocked at AN3 for 72 hours for determined edit-warring and accusations of racism against other editors. Acroterion (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP ignoring consensus

• 84.124.224.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:E0A:4FA:7460:3999:4717:24ED:2EE7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP user (I believe it's the same person on both IPs) is consistently editing to their preferred version of World Football Elo Ratings, against a clear WP:CONSENSUS, established through a proper discussion at Special:Permalink/1014315664#World Football Elo Ratings. The content they're adding fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR, as they provide almost no sources for it, and the discussion at that link shows that there is clear consensus against it. This is a clear case of WP:NOTLISTENING, as they continue to revert to their preferred version, with almost no discussion (the Ipv6 sent 1 reply on that discussion). The point of discussion and consensus is to stop this WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and they don't show any signs of stopping. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Without prejudice, I have semiprotected the page for 3 months. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  That being said, isn't reproducing content from a creatively-produced list a copyright violation? (WP:TOP100 bullet #4, or Wikipedia:Copyright in lists) I know this list is statistics but the method used to calculate the ranked statistic is proprietary to the source, and I think that pushes this into creative presentation. Has that been discussed? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Good point, which AFAICS nobody did bring forward so far. Another issue is that the main IP (84.124.224.222) who's been adding this has not engaged in any discussion ever. (a quick look at xtools for the current and the previous similar IPs show this). So in addition to the newest editor, the previous one also should be reminded that WP:Communication is required... (I tried doing that on their TP but hasn't worked out so far...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Generally speaking, formulae cannot be copyrighted, and neither can raw data. I don't know, but I'd be surprised if that were not true under US copyright law too. The presentation of that data can be copyrighted though, I believe (depending on jurisdiction), but that's not at issue here. So, no, I don't believe there is a copyright issue concerning the copying of the data itself from the sources (whether that is the raw data itself, such as tournament scores etc., or derived data from the application of mathematical formulae). Krea (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts creating poorly sourced cricket stubs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There have been a lot of cricket AfDs recently. Many of them are for players where very little sourcing exists apart from statistics databases and upon searching fail GNG but they technically pass the cricket SNG, which isn't properly calibrated to the GNG, unlike most other sports SNGs. There's been a recent ANI thread and recent discussions about WP:NCRIC here: [221] [222]. By my count, 92 cricket articles have been closed at AfD this month - only 22 have been kept, and some probably should not have been.

I recently discovered the proliferation of many of these stubs has been due to Lugnuts. Lugnuts has been creating cricket stubs sourced only to ESPN CricInfo, and they've been creating a lot of them. By their count, over 3,000 in 2020 alone, and what appears to be in the hundreds this year: User:Lugnuts/Cricket/2021.

The problem here isn't the creation, but the fact that absolutely no work is put in to whether these stubs actually meet WP:GNG, leading to massive cleanup issues. Compounding this problem is that the WP:NCRIC guideline is so poor that WP:GNG-qualifying coverage is not always easily found. I asked yesterday for Lugnuts to stop sourcing these only to CricInfo. They did not respond. After I asked, they created four new articles sourced only to CricInfo:

• Vimukthi Kulatunga, who may not fail WP:GNG after a before search, but the articles I found may have WP:YOUNGATH issues
• Harshajith Rushan, who has similar issues to Kulatunga
• Romesh Nallaperuma, who has a bit more match report coverage than the first two, but similar issues to Kulatunga (and match reports typically get discounted for determining notability in other sports)
• Suchira Paranathala, who fails WP:GNG

You could create reasonable delete arguments at an AfD for these four articles. I would not have accepted any of them at AfC. They are poorly sourced BLPs. A review of many of the other stubs Lugnuts created shows they are also sourced only to CricInfo, or the similar site Cricket Archive.

Cleaning up and determining notablity for these stubs is a huge and contentious undertaking, as demonstrated by the current number of cricket articles currently being deleted at AfD. Lugnuts appears to have no interest in actually demonstrating that these players have been recognised by secondary sources that aren't statistics databases.

I'm asking for a sanction to stop the creation of these poorly sourced articles directly into mainspace as they are proliferating faster than we can assess them, probably the removal of their autopatrolled status and/or a requirement that cricket articles created by Lugnuts go through the AfC process. SportingFlyer T·C 14:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment All the articles I create meet the notability requirements of the project, in this case WP:NSPORT or WP:NCRIC. The former starts with the text "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Everything I create/add is sourced, so your claim of them being "poorly sourced" is wrong. There is no minimum requirement for article size or number of sources. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• They're extremely poorly sourced. A single link to a statistics database does not demonstrate even half an ounce of notability. We're also deleting article after article which technically passes WP:NCRIC because WP:NCRIC doesn't predict whether an article satisfies the WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No they're not. Everything in the article is sourced. And they don't "technically pass" N:CRIC, they pass it. And N:SPORT. What about all the other non-cricket articles I create? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the Turkey village articles all seem to be based on a single non-RS like this one (for e.g. Yukarısöğütlü, Köprüköy and hundreds of others this week alone, and in total probably thousands by now), so I don't know if drawing attention to your other mass created articles is a smart move. Fram (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• These aren't just 'cricket stubs', these are BLPs. WP:BLP is policy, and demands that editors are very firm about the use of high-quality sources. So what makes cricinfo a high-quality (note: not just reliable) source? ——Serial 15:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well it's used in countless GA, FA and FL and it's reliablity and/or quality has (to my knowledge) not been in question. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cricinfo is the seminal online cricket resource, run by ESPN now, and owns online Wisden too. I think calling into question its quality is misguided here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Once again, we're at the confusing intersection of GNG and SNGs. Here are some interesting sentences picked out of NSPORT:

• Per Lugnuts, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
• The sentence immediately before that one: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia
• A couple paragraphs down in the lead: Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline[...])
• First section past the lead: the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.

So which is it? Is NSPORT an alternative to GNG, and something meeting NSPORT is automatically notable even if GNG is not met? That's what the first and third quotes suggest. Is NSPORT a rebuttable presumption that a subject meets GNG? That's what the second and fourth suggest. (And, since we're on the topic of GNG and NSPORT, I present the GeneralNotability Guideline, which I've been sitting on for like half a year now wating for the right opportunity to deploy at ANI) ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NSPORT gives the presumption GNG is met, but at the end of the day, sports bios ultimately have to meet GNG. This is both in practice at AfD and confirmed in this 2017 RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No single person can convince me there is any sense of consensus in that discussion. Most of the people saying "I find this unsatisfactory", were unwilling to suggest anything to make it satisfactory to their requirements. Most of the arguments on the "Agree" side of that conversation were based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with no justification as to what action(s) to take otherwise. Most of the people who say "The brightline guidelines of the cricket project (and every other project come to that) upset me" were able to find a workable solution. The only one I could find was to include every player who has played in "a complete season". Define please. All 14 games of the County Championship season? How many baseball players have played a "complete season" of all 162 games? Bobo. 08:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• SportingFlyer, I agree, but I've been part of at least one AfD where that was ignored and a significant part of the !keep votes were "meets NOLY" (and speak of the devil...I didn't even realize that was a Lugnuts article until I went searching for that AfD). ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  (and now that I'm re-reading that AfD, I'm seeing a lot of familiar faces...and you, and you, and you, and you were there!) ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, General Notability's Guideline to the General Notability Guideline. Excellent. And yes, that should be incorporated into all these SNG walled-gardens. However, BLP should still be our over-arching tenet, as all bar Lugnuts would agree  :) ——Serial 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• These sports statistics websites license their statistics data, meaning they sell it for a fee. I've never understood how an editor can scrape those statistics websites and copy their statistics onto our website, by the tens of thousands, and that's not a copyright violation. If we were combining two sources, then at least we could claim it was a derivative or compilation, but running a script that just copies data from Website A to Website B, when Website A is selling that data and Website B purports to then license it CC-BY-SA, doesn't seem right to me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Levivich: In short, statistics aren't copyrightable. A database containing statistics might be, and statistics presented in specific ways might be, but that's not really the issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think it is the issue here, or one of them. We aren't talking about copying a statistic, we're talking about wholesale automated copying of an entire statistics database. When we copy every statistic for every player on every team in every league for all time, and then present all of that data organized by player, team, year, etc., and on top of that relicense it for free, for any purpose, including commercial re-sale... we empower someone to get around the sports statistics license by simply downloading the data from us, which they can then re-sell, at a lower price than the original statistic's website licensing fee. We are creating a copy of the entire sports statistic website and giving it out for free, and allowing people to re-sell it. I wonder what the owners of the sports statistics websites would think if they knew about this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, what you're talking about might be an access issue, especially under broad statutes like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the U.S. Veering away from copyright here is probably best for all involved. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, FWIW, Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. is the current presiding US case law for compilations, and this Copyright Office report has good examples to understand why there's a different between the underlying data in a database (not copyrightable) and the presentation and structure of that data (copyrightable). WP has always relied on raw data, otherwise not from any creative process, to be uncopyrightable. --Masem (t) 15:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The US distinction between "copyrightable" and "uncopyrightable" strikes this retired UK IP lawyer as bizarre. Either something is copyright or it isn't (under the Berne Convention of 1886, which the US finally signed up to in 1989 (NIH syndrome)). There's no "-able" about it; it's a question of fact. Narky Blert (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase an aphorism, they are two common law systems divided by a common language! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

For anyone interested, the early key case in common law jurisdictions on presentation of information is Baker v. Selden (USSC 1879). Narky Blert (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would support a restriction. The nature of how much effort it takes to clean up content versus create it means mass creation of problematic content is inherently disruptive. If Lugnuts cannot commit to adding more contextual sources than Cricinfo, they should be restricted from making those biographies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, are you suggesting that BLPs sourced only by evidence of GNG via Cricinfo are verboten? Or that just Lugnuts is forbidden from creating them? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm saying that if these pages don't contain enough context and evidence of notability, then they need more than Cricinfo. Lugnuts is as far as I'm aware the only one creating these in a mass fashion with minimal discretion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's strange because as Lugnuts themselves say, the Cricinfo sourcing does provide sufficient evidence of notability. I'm not sure the policy mandates "context", where is that? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  This isn't correct - CricInfo provides evidence of verification (that a player played in a match), but does not provide evidence of notability (that a player has been subject to significant coverage allowing a standalone article to be created.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  yes, that verifiable evidence passes NCRIC. So no problem. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Why should the mass creation of stubs based on a single source, or based just on data rather than SIGCOV, be treated any differently than other mass edits that require consensus beforehand? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. IMO CricInfo is not WP:RS. I once emailed them because according to their records, an ODI had been umpired by someone who was long dead. I got no reply. Narky Blert (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think because you didn't get an email, it renders ESPN's Cricinfo unreliable. Honestly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  The fact that they did nothing about it calls their reliability into question. Narky Blert (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Thank you for your interest in our project. While we enjoy reading your emails, we cannot promise to respond to every single one." Anyone fancy singing along to "Left Bank 2" by the Noveltones? Bobo. 06:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've emailed Cricinfo several times over the years, and never got a reply (just the automated one). Mainly on things similar to NB's comment. The last one I recall was a debut for someone in a match this year, but they had linked to a guy with the same who was born in the 1920s. It was fixed, either due to my careful eye, or someone else's. In the past, I've contacted the BBC about factual errors in various news articles. No reply, but in the main, facts were corrected. Does that make the BBC a unreilable source? Out of interest, do you recall the ODI match/umpire in question? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Didn't we have a problem years ago with the mass creation (via automated tools) over >10,000 football (soccer) or cricket athletes before from some editor, again based on pulling one or two lines from accessible databases? While I support the general idea of NSPORTS' allowance for standalone articles on the basis of documenting someone that had played in top-tier league, I fully expect that to be a hand-crafted article and show more than just a stubby end result. --Masem (t) 16:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I remember discussing these concerns with Lugnuts a year or two ago in the context of footballer stubs. As I recall, Lug pointed out to me that what they're doing doesn't violate any PAGs. I believe Lug is correct about that (there is no rule that a new article requires any source, much less a GNG-satisfying source; there is no consensus that passing NSPORTS, without passing GNG, doesn't satisfy N). I strongly disagree with the practice, and I disagree that our PAGs allow it, but so long as it's allowed by our PAGs, I don't feel like it's fair to single out one editor (Lug is by far not the only editor who creates stubs like these, or at a high rate). Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Pag?! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines, my friend. Bobo. 06:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - our guidelines on sports biographies allow and encourage creation of very short, poorly sourced stubs on any and every person who has ever appeared in just one professional game in any sport, sometimes also semi-professional and amateur competition depending on the sport. The SNGs are meant to be a set of criteria which, if met, are evidence that reliable source coverage is likely to exist, and if (as is the case with sports SNGs) it's being repeatedly shown that subjects meeting the SNG criteria where reliable sources don't exist, the guideline is junk and needs to be revised. It's not fair to punish Lugnuts for following a poorly-conceived guideline, and if we stop Lugnuts from mass-creating these stubs, someone else will do it; these have been a problem for Wikipedia's entire existence. If we want to solve this problem, audit and revise the guidelines. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• This discussion happened a couple months ago for cricket and went nowhere. It's been clear for months now this particular SNG is junk, making it even more important to ensure that these BLP stubs pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I thought I remembered that, but wasn't sure it was about cricket (I thought association football, which has a equally junk SNG). If nobody's going to take ownership of these guidelines then they should be deleted or marked historical. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose We had a baseball player featured on the mainpage recently even though "his first name, date of birth, date of death, and batting and pitching stances were unknown as of March 2021". It is for such reasons that notability and the WP:GNG is not a policy and never has been. In other words, inclusion of such topics is mainly a matter of personal opinion and value judgements. So, to single out cricket topics and editors for special punishment would be systemic bias contrary to WP:NPOV. Lugnuts has been editing in good faith in accordance with long-established guidelines. And it doesn't appear that there's actually a real problem here. If such stubs bother you then don't read them. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  That article met GNG. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. Get real Levivich, that article was padded beyond belief. Most of the article didn't talk about Lewis and was irrelevant to him, just today loads has been removed. So let's get this straight. Lugnuts can't create an article on John Bob Smith, date of birth and death known, batting and/or bowling styles know, ect., but we can have Lewis as a FA. Which reaches GNG more? Not Mr. Baseball, that's for sure. StickyWicket (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Levivich, that TFA should never have been promoted: it wjholly failed WP:WIAFA criterion #1b, and the fact that it got waved through on prose, etc., at its FAC was frankly a disgrace. We did start discussing this at errors, but the discussion was closed on the grounds that process is more important than the quality of our main page. (Unsurprisingly, I guess.) ——Serial 17:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh it's nothing less than an indictment of FA. I almost AFD'd it. I sat there for a good fifteen minutes the other day thinking over the prospect of AFDing the current TFA and how much backlash I'd get. Would it just be snow-closed right away, or would I be taken to ANI as well? But in the final analysis, the way GNG is interpreted by !voters and closers (and DRV participants), contemporaneous game reports are considered SIGCOV for athletes, and Lewis (last name unknown) received enough coverage in contemporaneous game reports that, in my estimation, the outcome at AFD would be that there are at least WP:THREE GNG sources (even though I think that contemporaneous game reports are primary and should not count towards N). I've been through this several hundred times with footballer BLPs, I recognize the type in a baseballer BLP. This baseballer BLP would be a keep-meets-GNG outcome at AFD. The cricketer BLPs would be keep-meets-NCRIC outcomes.

FWIW, back in the days when I was trying to reform NSPORTS, it was suggested to me that I stop looking at AFDs and start analyzing article creations instead. So I did that, and that's when I discovered that there are editors creating thousands of stubs sourced to sports statistics websites (in all sports). Lug's isn't the only one; some of them are admins; it's a practice that has been going on for a long time. Also with towns, and roads, and schools, and TV shows, and comic book characters, and many other topics. Large volume stub creation is just a fact on Wikipedia, it's how we got to 6 million articles. And the community, writ large, is, at best, split on whether this is a good thing or not, at least as far as I can tell.

That realization, plus the realization that all of these athlete stubs make up like 1% of the encyclopedia, is what led to me more or less giving up on caring about AFDs or how many pages are created. That ship has totally sailed. Ping me when someone proposes a "every article must be cited to two RSes or be deleted on sight" rule, I'll !vote support. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose' per Ivan and Andrew. Clearly some people "don't like" such stubs and other people find enormous value in creating such stubs. Trying to call Cricinfo into doubt as an RS is absurd, trying to suggest Lugnuts is somehow "creating work" is absurd (that's down to the trigger-happy AFDing that's happening actually). And all this in the face of a featured article no less about a baseball player who played once but all we really know is his surname? Come on people, find something productive to do around here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was our main page's finest hour, not. A FAC that failed 1b? Brilliant. Shame no-one at errors caught it... ——Serial 16:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, commenting on TFA is a highly dangerous pursuit. Even though no-one really seems to know what the purpose of TFA is, complaining about anything that's running there is too late as it's been in a queue somewhere "for weeks". Plus we all know baseball players are more notable than cricketers, right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, quite. As long as they don't claim to be more notable than boat racers, we can still sleep easy  :) ——Serial 17:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• An off-topic comment. I once read a Wisden obit of a cricketer which ran something like this - "He was selected for Gloucestershire against Warwickshire in 1935; but it rained for three days, and he was never called upon again." I'd love to get him into WP, but WP:1E deters me. Narky Blert (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• This isn't a cricket issue, this is a BLP issue. Take Timothy Eneas. The article passes NOLY as written. However, it is only sourced to a sports database. A Google search will reveal that Mr. Eneas is now [223] a lawyer at McKinney Bancroft and Hughes. Should that information be in the article? Is he notable as a lawyer? I can't say definitively, but ideally the article creator would have considered that when the article was created. Lugnuts obviously did not, as he created Salvador Jiménez two minutes before and Marcos Prono two minutes after. There is a pattern of casual mass creation without consensus, on topics that are near the notability guidelines. I think Lugnuts must be prevented from mass-creating BLPs. There's an argument that it's simpler and better to prevent him from any mass creations; recent place creations such as Aşağıyayla, Narman are not well-sourced either, but at least those have a Turkish wiki entry already and are not likely hoaxes. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose there are many people that create sports stub articles based mostly on database statistics, this seems ridiculous that one editor is being singled out for doing so.

Cricinfo is a reliable source, and if anyone wants to debate that, then WP:RSN is the correct place for that debate. Singling out one editor for using a source is ridiculous. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I rate CricInfo only a little higher than e.g. IMDb and Transfermarkt. I agree that any such discussion should take place at WP:RSN. Narky Blert (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Andrew, Ivan and Joseph2302's comments. Cricinfo is certainly a reliable source, it's probably the most widely used statistical site for cricket now that CricketArchie, another reliable source, has gone behind a paywall. It's certainly a better statistical site than is used in football and I wish there was such a good one for rugby. Yes Lugnuts' article could be a little better, perhaps with another source, but they are good start points. Lots of his stubs are picked up by other editors and will have information added to them to be improved. There's nothing wrong with stubs, and his cricket stubs are certainly not WP:KITTENS. For some reason at the moment cricket is being picked on for these stubs, maybe next month it'll be another sport or subject, so as Joseph2302 says it's strange that just one editor is being singled out for this if it is such a problem. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  "Cricinfo is certainly a reliable source". I am not aware of any WP:CONSENSUS on that opinion at WP:RSPS or elesewhere. Narky Blert (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure anyone but yourself has said CricInfo isn't a reliable source. It's owned and operated by ESPN, so is everything ESPN not a reliable source? Just because they didn't respond to an email you sent them to fix something immediately doesn't mean they're not reliable. If you don't believe to to be reliable then start a discussion on it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • It's often just easier to say "it's not reliable" and walk away than to actively do something about it. Getting bent out of shape because they didn't respond to an email is a little OTT really... (the BBC failed to respond when I emailed them about an error, but I don't think the BBC is on a par with IMDB) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) People here, many of them unfamiliar with cricket as a sport and therefore naturally unfamiliar with what constitutes an RS in that topic area, seem to be conflating Cricinfo as a whole with its statistics database specifically. Let's take, just for example, Adil Rashid (since I love to pick on him). Just from a quick search, I can find these articles on him:

• Adil Rashid signs one-year, white-ball contract extension with Yorkshire
• Adil Rashid's new-ball reincarnation opens up tactical flexibility for England
• Adil Rashid rules himself out of England's Test series in Sri Lanka

It would be completely wrong for editors to say, therefore, that Adil doesn't pass the GNG, even though he does happen to have, like any other player at some official level, a profile with statistics there. If the issue with Lugnuts' contributions is that he's relying on statistics alone, then comment on that, but kindly don't pretend the issue is Cricinfo as a source, and if you folks can't be bothered to actually research what's being commenting on before doing so, it may be best to stay away altogether. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No thank you, M Imtiaz, although I fully understand your wish to maintain the walled garden. The point here is that cricinfo is being used for a purpose it is not being put to: viz, demonstrating the notability of a BLP. Since only the stats are being used, that is all Cricinfo can fully testify to. It cannot be a high-quality BLP source because as the article creator has used it, it does not testify to BLP, only to stats. It's rather simple really. ——Serial 17:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If these are living people the stats are information about living persons, therefore BLP stats. If it's a high quality source for its purpose it's a high quality BLP source for its purpose. And obviously it can demonstrate notability to editors who are not deletionists. Peter James (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lugnuts does extremely good work in expanding cricket content. Considering we just had a baseball player for which nothing is known as FA, I can't understand the logic in this constant attack of the cricket project. Why doesn't the aggrieved party head over there and AfD that, because at least with Lugnuts creations we know their name and date of birth. Cricinfo is considered an authoritative cricket source, though not as good as Cricket Archive, which is sadly hiding behind a paywall. There's no harm in creating stubs for others to pick up on to expand. Given whats gone on with the cricket project over the last few months, and articles of 10+ domestic appearances still being nominated, I'm struggling to assume good faith with this ANI. StickyWicket (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral The real problem is WP:NCRIC being treated as the Word of God. No, having played one, or even a dozen matches, for a first class side does not make you automatically notable (this holds even more true the further back in time we go...) in the sense intended by GNG. But that's a discussion for another place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  By the way, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_39#RfC_on_NCRIC was never closed; and although I'm having ideas about starting a narrower one, that one being closed formally would be a better thing first. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Cricinfo is undoubtedly a reliable source, but that isn't the issue here, beause it's not being used to directly define notability. It's being used to confirm that here is a cricketer who has played professional cricket, and the SNG (NCRIC) is being used to suggest that such professional appearances imply notability. So the issue here isn't Cricinfo, it's NCRIC. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there is an issue with NCRIC, then there's an issue also with many of the other NSPORTS, including those that allow front page articles of the Lewis kind. And there's probably an issue also with GNG, which really hasn't got to grips with the sports issues, nor with the subject expertise that projects bring to individual topics. I've been a member of the Cricket Project here for more than 15 years (though I'm not around much at all these days), and Lugnuts' way of working, creating substubs for others to flesh out, has been used pretty much throughout that time by many of our editors. What Lugnuts is doing now is to fill in many of the gaps in the project, principally on Indian sub-continent cricketers (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) where we've had poor coverage and also limited success in recruiting local editors. In this, to my mind, Lugnuts is deserving of praise rather than censure: tackling a systemic weakness of our project. Far more disruptive than the creation of a load of stubs for us to fill out over a long period is the AfD campaign against cricket articles, which has been relentless and which has short deadlines that people like me simply cannot meet because of RL commitments. It's been very demoralising to see what appears to be a concerted effort to dismantle work that has taken 15+ years to assemble, with just a week to react. Many cricket project people have now given up, while others are busying themselves in arcane areas, hoping to keep their heads down until the storm subsides. Two other short points: Wikipedia is, I've always believed, a work-in-progress and adding to it is an integral part of what it's about. Also, WP is not paper, and there's no limit to how much we should be aiming to write, nor to how many articles we could usefully host. Johnlp (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. I rather enjoyed the Lewis article as something different on the front page: a reminder that there are still things unknown, and maybe unknowable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlp (talk • contribs) 7:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I agree, like NOLYMPIC meaning like Mohamed Rasheed (swimmer) (and no offence to that gentleman) is guaranteed an article, despite finishing 72nd in the heats.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I am 1000% on board with limiting mass creation of poorly-sourced BLP stubs that overwhelmingly fail at AfD (...shouldn't everyone be?). I get that articles don't need to demonstrate notability when they're first moved to mainspace, and that meeting a guideline that presumes GNG is technically fine, but come on -- if an experienced editor continues a behavior that they know is burdening the community and is genuinely considered disruptive by many, shouldn't that warrant some kind of warning? Or at least the editor's agreement to compromise or even acknowledge the problem? And I think it's just a little hypocritical to support equivalent sanctions on JPL (where there isn't even a BLP issue) using essentially identical arguments to the ones here (e.g., dozens of low-effort boilerplate contributions in a short amount of time, poor AfD track record, etc.). While I'd be disinclined to support sanctions in this case (for the same reasons people opposed them for JPL), perhaps it's worth considering something along the lines of the voluntary concessions JPL made in those most recent threads. Please also ping me whenever someone makes the proposal Levivich suggested. JoelleJay (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. (Personal attack removed) StickyWicket (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Sanctions wouldn't be needed to be made if we were all working towards the same goal. The fact that we are not working to the same goal is saddening. Bobo. 14:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

AA, please. Those of us who are trying to add constructively to the project are doing so for the same reasons. One single person is not to blame. No "person" is to blame. The problem is the voluntary deletion of facts in today's toxic environment and those who are so keen to do so. Bobo. 14:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support restriction It is eminently clear that NCRIC (as well as those for other sports) is overly permissive, and mere appearances is not a good predictor of the presence of significant coverage. Moreover, the articles created are blatant failures of WP:SPORTCRIT, "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." Lugnuts' articles are already against the guidelines, and further creation without substantive sources beyond databases is wholly inappropriate. This disregard for WP:SPORTCRIT is already enormously disruptive. Reywas92^Talk 05:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia is about fostering article creation and collaboration. What is going on in the cricket project is absolutely turning away those who wish to create articles, and those who have been doing so for the last 17 years. Look at the list of Test cricketer articles that were created over 15 years ago. There are some with zero visible bodyspace edits since. Is that harmful? And there are many with zero sources, let alone references to Cricket Archive or Cricinfo. We have people right now saying, "this is clearly not notable" (or words to that effect). How do people who know nothing about cricket know that Test cricketers whose articles have zero references, which measure no better than "sub-stubs" are any more "notable" than anyone else? What I think is going on at the moment with deletion is saying, "What we have right now is unmanageable". We've been managing it fine for the last 17 years. What makes what is going on right now "unmanageable"? Is it deletionists saying, "we refuse to manage it"? Because until now we've been doing fine. Is it deletionists saying, "We are incapable of managing it"? This thread appears to be stuck into a question which sounds more like another AfD than a question about restrictions. And that is dishonest. Those of us who have been working hard to achieve our aims are being discouraged from doing so. There is zero impetus in engaging in the project anymore. Bobo. 05:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I have half an idea. Will post on the WP:CRIC talk page. Bobo. 07:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment- I'm neither supporting nor opposing sanctions here. I just want to point out how funny it is that creating masses of substubs at a rate of one every few minutes is apparently fine, yet nominating more than a few a day seems to be a very great felony. Why should arguing that an article is unfit for mainspace require an order of magnitude more work than creating the article in the first place? Reyk _YO! 07:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Because we shouldn't be turning against each other in what is basically a collaborative project. Why are people more willing to send articles to deletion than work on them? Have they nothing to offer? When you look past the AfD debates and all the created articles (all by AA, as it happens), there is very little work being done to expand articles. Creation of articles isn't the problem. Articles themselves are barely being edited in any case. If the problem is that no articles are being expanded beyond where they should be, we should be knocking on the door(s) of those who are refusing to do so. Not of those who are sending out an invitation for people to do so. Bobo. 07:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry but I feel like this is targeting one person when their are other people out there especilly in the WP:FOOTBALL community who do the exact same thing and yet they are not being talked about here. As the saying goes, if you target one, you have to target the others. HawkAussie (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Myself, AA, Lugnuts, and 02blythed have/(were) all been creating articles for the last heaven knows how long. 02blythed was driven away by some truly nasty comments, and us other three have entirely lost interest in the project because of the attitudes of others who appear to have no interest in helping out. This isn't just an issue with Lugnuts, this is an issue for the cricket project in general. And we have all been questioned to varying degree(s), and we all feel we are being targeted in some way or other. While those questioning appear to have no interest in helping out. Who is to blame? I wonder. Bobo. 09:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• @HawkAussie: If you can identify users who are mass-creating football stubs with this lack of sourcing, that would be good to know. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  @SportingFlyer: Davidlofgren1996 is very similar to how Lugnuts does his article but for Japanese football. Yeah it might not be as frequent but when you have an 83% rate of your pages as a stub then it's a little bit of a problem. HawkAussie (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I have yet to see any objective or policy-driven reasoning as to why creating verifiable stubs is a "problem". How many "becomes" a problem? If I created 6 new articles today but 5 were stubs, would I expect to see myself at ANI for "problematic" stub creation? Are stubs a problem? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Only to those who know they would be unable to add to them. That's what this is all about. Those who know they have nothing to add to the project, trying to delete that which has already been created. Bobo. 13:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• @HawkAussie: I did not realise my editing was "a problem". I've had my fair share of AfDs, as do many other Wiki editors with a high page creation count, but most of those were fair, and were a result of me not being aware of certain Wiki policies when editing. My Japanese player articles are stubs, yes, but almost all would be expandable with Japanese sources. The problem is, this is the English Wiki, and most people here don't read Japanese. Are these players noteworthy in Japan? Most of them, yes. Is there any point adding a ton of solely Japanese sources to these articles? I don't think so, personally. Look at Reo Hatate for example. He's an established first team player at Kawasaki Frontale this year, but there are hardly any English articles about him. When I created the article, he did not meet WP:NFOOTY, so I found a number of Japanese sources to fill the article with to meet WP:GNG. He meets GNG in Japanese, but not in English. Is he therefore not eligible for a page on the English Wiki?

Regardless, the articles all pass WP:NFOOTY, stub or not. I don't see a problem with this, otherwise Wiki wouldn't allow stub articles to exist. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Davidlofgren1996: I took a look at your Japanese players page and quickly found a living players sourced only to Soccerway. You're auto-patrolled, but if I had come across either of these articles at NPP, I may have draftified them due to BLP concerns, and I definitely would have tagged them with notability and referencing concerns. For instance, looking at the Japanese wikipedia page, based on the sources in the article, Kaito Hirata may not pass WP:GNG. Keigo Hashimoto looks like they would fail an AfD as it stands. Itsuki Kurata has had a decent amount of coverage in a WP:BEFORE search from his time in Moldova. It should only take a couple extra minutes to add additional sources to an article. I don't think a new article necessarily has to pass WP:GNG when it's created, but when notability is marginal or unclear and sources are available, it can make a huge difference. SportingFlyer T·C 15:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose We do not restrict users from editing within guidelines. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't agree with restricting a user simply for creating a high number of stubs, as someone who has created their fair few. Creating stub articles appears to be common practice for sportsmen and sportswomen, and I've not seen other users being flagged up for it before. If stubs weren't allowed, Wikipedia wouldn't allow them. So long as the user is within the guidelines set out, I don't see a problem here. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The underlying problems are the sports SNG and the contradictory wording in N and NSPORTS. However, it has been evident for several years, reinforced by the 2017 RFC and many other discussions, that the sports SNGs are secondary to GNG, even if that is not made crystal clear in either guideline. It has also been apparent from successive discussions that NCRIC is considered especially weak, and made weaker by creative interpretation of the basic premise ("highest international or domestic level") being used to include all international and all status-accorded cricket; this then includes matches for which significant coverage of the players is extremely rare. In addition, the volume of cricket biography articles (including many of Lugnuts creations) being deleted or redirected at AFD shows that such directory entry-like article shells are unwanted by the community, especially when there will never be RS coverage beyond an entry in a statistical database attesting to very few appearances. Irrespective of the technicality of meeting the criteria of a sub-SNG, it is unsurprising that many view activity that knowingly and deliberately opposes the consensus as disruptive. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. The problems are with those who know they cannot add to the project, wishing to destroy the project for this very reason. The only reason they are "unwanted" is because serial delete-voters know they are unable to add to them. Until serial delete-voters came along, we were happy getting along with our business and co-operating with each other. Why can they not help co-operate? Because they know they have nothing to add? Instead of trying to delete every stub for the sake of it, try adding to a stub instead. Can't do it? Don't complain about those who create them in the first place to foster expansion of the project. If you're not here to foster expansion of the project, what are your motives? Step back a minute and focus on theoretically "more notable" cricketers instead. Add to Test cricketer stubs or whatever. Can't do it? Then don't complain. Bobo. 13:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If those who screamed "but we're all volunteers! You can't tell us what to add or delete in our own spare time!" were able to foster article creation in some way, they would do that instead. Please don't tell us that there is a serial problem with article creators if you cannot see there is also a problem with serial delete voters. How do serial delete voters think they are trying to help the project? By deleting facts? If you had anything to add, you would do so. Bobo. 14:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure many editors would expand stubs if sources existed, but (other than scorecard databases and trivial mentions) sources very often do not exist, and those creating these articles know it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

As shown by the more and more bizarre justifications for AfD discussions, I think we can both agree this is not the case. Bobo. 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure many editors would expand stubs if sources existed there's no evidence to support this sweeping generalisation. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We've always had our core group of members who have been willing to help develop articles. But we cannot develop every article every day. The fact that any of us can still be bothered given what is going on right now is a sign of our dedication to the project that even when it is being destroyed we are still here. If there were too many (cricket) articles on Wikipedia, or our project was somehow "unmanageable", we would be struggling to keep up with editing them as we found out what each of them had for breakfast. Until now, the core group of members who have been working to achieve our goal have been doing so. What we are now struggling to cope with is people protesting against the work we have put in. The only people who appear to be finding the scope of the project "unmanageable" are those who have popped up after 17 years and said there is a problem. Why was there no problem until they came along? I wonder. Bobo. 16:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there seems to be a distinct lack of good faith here from several of the nay-sayers. Creating stubs, however it's done, is fine. If a guideline or policy is problematic in allowing it to be done, focus on that, not the editor doing the work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Good faith doesn't need to exist when someone has neither the knowledge, ability, or will to maintain articles. The level of which, according to some, is "unmanageable". But not to those of us who have been doing so for all this time... Bobo. 16:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It happens to be true in this case, and the task is not made easier by the Wikiproject's disdain of (and opposition to) any material beyond statistics- deriding article content as 'bumf'. Reyk _YO! 16:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There never used to be "disdain" for this when we were all co-operating. I wonder what went wrong..? Bobo. 16:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment- needless to say, writing some python scripts to scour stats databases and then outsourcing the work of actually writing proper articles to people who are skeptical of the whole profusion of microstubs phenomenon, is ridiculous. Reyk _YO! 16:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Good one, making up a new class of article in an attempt to ridicule the efforts of a good faith editor. Deary me, this is doing no end of harm all this divisive "discourse". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If only I thought of getting my pet python to write articles instead. Bet he'd be throwing a hissy fit right now. (Roffles). Oh wait. Pythons don't have fingers. I forgot. Bobo. 16:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't "make up" the concept of a microstub; the term has been in common use for years. Go back and read through this ANI. We really are being told, "If you don't like these bad articles we wrote on non-notable people, you have to fix all the bad articles on notable test cricketers we wrote before you can object to it." Reyk _YO! 16:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If you can't improve something yourself, don't complain something isn't being improved, when we have exactly the same access to exactly the same material should we wish to access it. Bobo. 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• You re-read it. What you're being told is there's no consensus that there's any violation of policy here, so there's nothing more to be done at ANI. The ensuing witch hunt has been divisive and destructive, and a lot of people need to take a long hard look at themselves. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If people who were protesting against article creation were able to do something about it themselves, there would be no need for a "witch hunt". We'd all be quietly getting on with our own business as we have been since the outset of our project. Bobo. 16:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't called for sanctions against any particular editor. Go back and read my first comment on this ANI if you don't believe me. I've been commenting on the editing culture that allows for the rapid-fire semiautomated creation of statistical entries as articles at a rate of one every few minutes, while also criminalising AfD nominations that are an order of magnitude slower. I've also objected to the Wikiproject's habit of calling on the "nay-sayers" to do all the actual work, while opposing the sort of content people would usually expect to find in an article and while making completely unfair and inaccurate aspersions about their editing ability. Reyk _YO! 16:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We have been "editing" cricket articles for over 16 years. If this constitutes an "editing culture", I'm proud of it. If others are proud of forming a deletionist culture, then that's disturbing. What is this? 1984? Bobo. 16:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• There's no comment on anyone's editing abilities, that's a complete non-sequitur. ANI is not the place for what you appear to be trying to do. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh really? Good faith doesn't need to exist when someone has neither the knowledge, ability, or will to maintain articles. That's a mendacious attack on other editors' abilities and motivations. Reyk _YO! 16:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really. it's a reflection on the nature of our project. A project that is sitting there unedited is "unmaintainable"? Bobo. 17:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• You think that's a "personal attack"? Honestly. This has run its shoddy course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  You got pretty hot under the collar when I implied someone was using computer scripts to generate articles, which is quite a bit milder than saying people can only be objecting to those articles because they can't and won't edit properly themselves. Reyk _YO! 17:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not really. I called out an attempt to shame a single editor whose actions have not contravened any policy or guideline. This is not a good look I'm afraid, the sooner this thread is closed, the better for the project as a whole, one fewer venue for unjustifiably singling out good faith editors. There's only a couple of people going round here making things personal. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what a python script is, let alone how to write one. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, "good faith" and all that! What a diabolical thread this has become. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I expect nothing less from this user. After all their stub-bashing, they still hold a grudge after I once pointed out they created this masterpiece. Still, they've come a long way since then. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Continuing stub creation

• After the posting of this ANI thread, Lugnuts has created four more new cricket articles sourced only to the statistics database part of CricInfo: Hubert Pagden, Arthur Pattison, Thokozani Peter, and Andre Peters. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  ...and all of these players have more than a dozen top-class appearances in domestic cricket. Johnlp (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  And that is all completely and entirely meaningless if there's no coverage about them besides statistical databases. WP:NOTSTATS - if the only things we can say about these cricketers is something mundane and run-of-the-mill, they don't deserve an article. But again, better to argue the uselessness of NCRIC elsewhere but ANI, right? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, most people's lives are "mundane". Get up, do stuff, go back to sleep. Do the same stuff tomorrow. Bobo. 06:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

So the first one I click on happens to be Andre Peters with 51 first-class appearances. 51. Not one or two, but 51. If anything has confirmed to me that this ANI is not done in good faith, it's that. If you're so concerned by stubs, why don't you help to expand them, instead of causing your own disruption? StickyWicket (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You've just demonstrated one of the reasons why mass stub database creation's so problematic. It's possible Peters is notable. There's not heaps of information online, there are mentions in a couple books, he might not meet GNG at the end of the day but there's a good chance he does, but it creates BLP issues. Looking at Pagden, there's not an ounce of information I can find online that's not a CricInfo or Cricket Archive database directory, it's a clear GNG failure. This would be less of an issue if every player being created clearly passed GNG and it wouldn't be an issue at all if these articles were properly sourced from the get-go, even if they were stubs. SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not possible that Peters is notable, he is notable. 51 first-class appearances isn't a borderline notability call. StickyWicket (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

In which case, I would see Test cricketers' articles as being more of a pressing issue than anything else. How do we know any of those who have zero sources "pass GNG"? Maybe because people pull these "guidelines" from out of nowhere with no will to expand articles. Bobo. 15:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Part of the issue for me is that the discussion on GNG being more prevalent than SNGs whenever it took place, hasn't been implemented well enough into the guidelines. Reading WP:SNG it basically states that if a subject passes an SNG it is presumed notable still, even if it doesn't pass GNG (although it does say it may be deleted later if it doesn't pass GNG). There is nothing in this passage to say that any of the articles Lugnuts have created aren't notable as they all pass the cricket SNG. Obviously many don't like the cricket SNG because they feel it too inclusive and there's a discussion still ongoing on it at the project, although I personally feel that GNG doesn't deduce notability in sports people very well anyway. In simple terms, the discussion on GNG overruling SNGs hasn't been implemented well enough to stop mass article creation like this, not that I really have a problem with it anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Why is this header "Continuing disruption" when there's absolutely no consensus in the preceding section that there is any kind of "disruption" occurring? This is disingenuous. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• What TRM said. Looks to me as if Lugnuts is editing according to guidelines. That's not disruption. If one dislikes this editing, one should gain consensus to change the guidelines. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Deepfriedokra: It appears the remedy here will instead be to continue the massive push at AfD to identify all of the articles created that don't pass WP:GNG, especially the BLPs. My understanding is and has always been that's not "within guidelines." SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Which "guidelines" are you referring to? It would be useful to see them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Doesn't it seem prudent to require that anyone who wishes to create lots of articles based just on a database get consensus to do so beforehand, like any other mass creation? That feels like the sort of proposal that might find support more easily than a change to NSPORTS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus? The principles we've been working towards have existed for 17 or more years. If we were all willing to work together instead of in direct combat with each other, we wouldn't need "consensus" for mass article creation. We would just get on with it. And that's what we were doing until recent deletionist tendencies came to the fore. We were happily working towards "consensus" that we were all here for the same reason until recently. If the people complaining about guidelines had been around 17 years ago, we might be taking them more seriously... ironically, it's those of us who have been involved in "mass article creation" who wouldn't be complaining if they were to help out with this very issue! Bobo. 14:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it seem prudent to discuss with a user if you have problems with them, rather than raising an ANI thread where no previous user conduct discussion has been raised? Also, I doubt anyone has done a proper WP:BEFORE check to make sure that these people are actually not notable. Someone with 51 appearances from a time before the internet from a country where there isn't great historical newspaper coverage may well be notable in offline sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I did reach out to them on their talk page and took the additional creation of these single-source stubs as proof my request had been completely ignored without engaging in discussion. Thokozani Peter and Andre Peters might pass GNG. There's very little available online about Hubert Pagden and Arthur Pattison beyond the statistical databases, at least from - probably a slightly more thorough BEFORE search than I'd normally do. The fact that some players may well be notable really isn't the issue - it's that many are not, these articles are being created at a good clip, and no effort is being put in apart from their mass creation. Further the fact there's an auto-patrol on means that none of these articles get tagged for notability - they just sit there. I don't have any problem with the mass creation of stubs which clearly pass GNG and are not problems. SportingFlyer T·C 15:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't actually a response to what I said, though. Mass creation of articles based on a database, whether through a controversial notability guideline or even one which is entirely uncontroversial, should require consensus to carry out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

But does it? If not, then why is this being discussed at ANI? This isn't a venue for talking about disliking the way things are, there are plenty of other venues to go chasing process change, ANI is not it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• On top of the four listed above, Lugnuts has created an additional ten stubs sourced only to CricInfo today, auto-patrolled. I can't BEFORE all of these. SportingFlyer T·C 15:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Knowing that the above proposal has already failed to attract any strong opposition, I would only recommend you to care less about this area. It is really not your or anyone's duty to ensure that nothing wrong happens on this website. You have already bothered enough. Just leave things as is. 106.205.215.69 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There are clearly some concerns about these stubs. Whether this was the appropriate place is another question. Anyway there's a discussion at NSPORTS and hopefully that can attract more constructive dialogue than in the context of WP:Cesspit. The above proposal for restrictions should probably be closed per SNOW; though, as it clearly won't happen. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Time to close

There's clearly no consensus in the original thread here that Lugnuts has done anything wrong per current guidelines and policies. Continuing discussions over changing said guidelines and policies should take place at the relevant locations. This conversation is providing no light, just an opportunity for people to air their personal feelings on stubs, notability etc which is not what ANI is for. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth ($.02 I should think) I have to agree with this. I actually don't much care for Lugnuts approach here, but they have absolutely complied with a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines and policies available. This is, as has been said, a matter of policy and not user behavior. Let this close and discuss it in the proper places. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand the desire to close, but I was also definitely hoping to bring this to the attention of administrators, and most of the discussion has been from users over at the Cricket WikiProject. This also isn't a guideline or policy change. As I mentioned, sports bios require GNG to be met. Lugnuts is adding dozens a day which do not on their face, and many of them cannot even with proper editing. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I get your point, and even more, I agree with it! But my point is simply that I believe Lugnuts' interpretation is a perfectly reasonable good faith way to read the guidelines (even if you and I might prefer something different). As such, whatever this is, it's not an issue of editor conduct, ergo, this is the wrong venue in which to deal with it. If you'll forgive the egregious legal analogy, I believe something like the Rule of lenity applies -- it simply won't do to be sanctioning users for good faith and reasonable interpretations of policy. That has to be dealt with in another way. Again, the foregoing is just one old man's opinion, and if consensus is against me, so be it! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

And I concur with that. This has always been about interpretation of policy/guideline and never needed administrator intervention at this place. Consensus is clear above that Lugnuts has done absolutely nothing worthy of any kind of sanction, and to that end, this is case closed. If you wish to address the matter you have noted, you'd be much better off addressing the apparent shortcomings in whatever policies and guidelines you believe are not tight enough for these verifiable stubs. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admin whitewashing, attacking RSes, and violating BRD (KHive)

Hello all,

CorbieVreccan, an admin, has acted in what I feel is a very unprofessional and unbecoming manner at the page KHive and associated Talk page. They have removed all direct references to allegations of harassment by KHive members, not once but twice, in violation of BRD [224] [225]. (I voluntarily am refraining from engaging in an edit war in this regard, but I have no doubt this user would cross 3RR if prompted. I have performed exactly one partial revert, including words such as "alleged" and "who?" templates that the user added, which was reverted by this user [226].) This material is cited to HuffPost, which has been determined by the community to be a reliable source source with no consensus on reliability re politics. Regardless, the user called the report "libelous" and wrongly stated that one of the named individuals, Bianca Delarosa, did not have a chance to respond [227]. They later said various "intel reports," which had not been cited and which I could not find through some genuine research of my own, had contradicted the report, and that HuffPost is not reliable on issues of race [228] – that's only tangentially related to this specific issue, and is not the belief of the community at large per WP:HUFFPOST or, to my knowledge, anywhere else. To be clear, I have no issue with some of the edits made to better balance the article, including noting that examples of harassment are "alleged", noting that the alleged targets were primarily Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren supporters, and including the response via Twitter from Bianca Delarosa. I have, in fact, noted my willingness to better balance the article on the Talk page [229]. However, mass removal of sourced content with accusations of libel, belligerence both in reverting and on the Talk page, and unfounded statements saying that the report has been debunked are, suffice it to say, not a level of professionalism that I would expect from an admin. I have started a discussion here from the advice given in WP:ADMINABUSE. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute. WP:BRD is not policy, just good practice. However, I don't see how the removed comment violates BLP (no individuals are named, and the comment appears to be centred around events on the site rather than around alleged perpetrators [who are not named in the source neither]). Neither the sentence nor the source are saying that Delarosa themselves wrote that content, as far as I can tell? Content does not appear to be libel. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Although, HuffPost appears to be NC for reliability for political topics, per WP:RSP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's highly unacceptable to call a reliable source libelous on Wikipedia. Without evidence, that's pure POV-pushing. Libel is a written false statement, calling a reputable journalist "libelous" on Wikipedia is entering dangerous territory. All the more unacceptable coming form an admin. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  It actually isn't a reliable source in this context, afaict. The piece is explicitly political, and the community found no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost for political matters, and found it to be explicitly biased. Corbie probably could've chose a better word than "libel", but they're probably right in that the source is probably unsuitable to be used in that context. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Except the argument was not that there was no consensus for the Huffposts's reliability on political topics (which is a fair argument), it was that the article was "libelous" and "vile". CV alleged that a reporter was publishing objectively false claims with the intent of damaging the reputation of persons who were not even named. That is not only spurious, but dangerous for this project. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

As the OP, I want to follow up on this. I did not initially notice the division on HuffPost reliability between political and non-political subjects. However, I still think it is fairly obvious that, as Swarm says, accusations as major as libel should not be so freely flung on edit summaries and on the Talk page of an article; rather, that should be taken up higher (to a place like RS/N). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The threats and harassment described in the article, attributed to people who can not be confirmed to be members of the online group (KHive), are what I described as "vile". This comment was made on talk, not in article space. I think the piece in the HuffPo is potentially libelous, not solid journalism, and the person attacked in it has commented publicly that she is considering suing for libel. That's where the discussion of libel came in. The author of the HuffPo piece accused an entire online group of, yes, vile actions, based on some tweets by people that can't be proven to be part of the group. It's enough to say that the accusations, on both sides were made; the awful threats themselves do not need to be quoted and detailed, which is what Allegedly Human was insisting on doing, and reverting to preserve. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You have not once provided a reference to Delarosa's comments calling the article "libelous", nor insinuated before this point that anyone other than yourself was making those claims. To be clear, your comment was "It's libelous and shouldn't be on here." [230] Furthermore, even if the story is in fact libelous (which is an outrageous premise to accept with no evidence), we the editors could not know that or decide on that ourselves until a court does. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You really should respond in order, as these inserted comments confuse readers. The sources in the article link to Delarosa's response: "Since I doubt a retraction is forthcoming unless I involve lawyers,"and "Still considering involving lawyers," if it is not clear to you that her lawyers would be suing Vagianos and HuffPo for libel (and possibly damages, etc) I'm not sure how to explain it to you. It looks to me that you are not reading the sources. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse you yourself calling the article libelous, and even if she says it's libelous, it doesn't mean it is, especially given that she hasn't gone forward with a lawsuit and a court hasn't ruled on it. Here's that comment in full (from a tweet thread that another editor has now removed as OR): "Since I doubt a retraction is forthcoming unless I involve lawyers, as publications now appear to be entities set up to attack and abuse private citizens, I'll simply post all of the harassment and abuse I've received from that crew on medium, and let you be the Judge and Jury." If Delarosa is leaving this up to the court of public opinion, that's fine for her, but it's not enough for us to consider removing the claims made in the article because of it. But this has progressed past a content dispute or an argument over RSes; this is systematic political editing, WP:CENSORSHIP, and WP:OWNERSHIP, as I have noted later down in this thread. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I was going to come to ANI myself to ask for some additional, calmer eyes on Khive, as we now have another new user who is not only trying to add back in the inflammatory language about rape, gas chambers, and nazis, but is now trying to add non-RS, irrelevant content about Marianne Williamsons tweets comparing her political opponents to the Proud Boys.[231] *sigh* - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the quoted content. We can have a calm discussion without resorting to these unwarranted personal attacks and meta-discussion of demeanor. I think that comments by candidates on other candidates' supporters are relevant, and there isn't any more to it than that. If you are willing, we can compromise by removing the example you mentioned while leaving the two others. Typeprint (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Williamson is no longer a candidate, for anything. Your edit inserted inflammatory language from a questionable source. There is no reason to have that language - which isn't proven to be associated with the group described in the article - in the WP article. It is more than sufficient that we link to the piece, as in the current version. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I intentionally avoided making such an assertion earlier, but given new developments I think it's become clear: this editor is obviously engaging with a motive aimed at shielding VP Harris and the KHive. These comments in edit summaries and on the talk page – outrage at how dare someone say such a thing – not only speaks to that but is utterly vapid otherwise of any discussion of policy, reasons for reverting, or generally why they think the content shouldn't be on the page [232] [233]. This new comment made above at ANI demonstrates that they think it is their duty as an editor to remove "inflammatory language," even ostensibly keeping in mind WP:CENSOR and the fact that a discussion is ongoing, and Talk page consensus has not been reached. They say they are aiming for WP:BALANCE [234], but so far are not willing to make any concessions when now two editors have expressed their concern about the article following their whitewashing. I was not viewing the page at that moment, and yet, theoretically, I again am prone to agree with the reversion – the new addition re Marianne Williamson is gossipy and has no evidence of larger significance, in my view. However, the reasoning provided behind it is not only rude (to a new editor, FWIW) and unclear, it is fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the project, as are the baseless accusations of libel and this edit summary, which despite a written, sourced, and documented report by a journalist, says "There is absolutely no evidence that the people who did these things, if they even happened, were part of this group; none." [235] AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• It is not reasonable to decorate an article to say a supporter of Sanders claimed someone from the Harris campaign said the supporter should be raped in a gas chamber. It's tarring-by-association (Harris has evil supporters so Harris is evil). Even if the source were solid-gold reliable, the anecdotes are untestable fluff. On the other hand, the current article says "there have been incidents of what some consider cyber-harassment"—that underlined text is rubbish. If the incidents are substantiated, it obviously is cyber-harassment, and if they're just claims it should read as "claims of incidents of cyber-harassment". I don't see where CorbieVreccan has used adminship so this really is a content dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Tweaked working accordingly. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The testability of the anecdotes is immaterial to the notability and relevance of the material to the topic at hand. It isn't always possible for reporters to go out and personally verify the identity on the end of every account, especially when the posts under scrutiny are often deleted when exposed to the disinfectant of sunlight, but people note the phenomenon and it becomes notable, so we get these articles. If a group of supporters is notable enough to have an article, then every aspect of their behavior is notable as well, not just the positive aspects, so the quotes should stay. Never before has a meta-discussion beyond the reliability of the source itself come into play for articles on supporters of other politicians, and it shouldn't now, unless we set up a guideline to address all such articles at once. Typeprint (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

So say there was cyber-harassment. However, it is not satisfactory to list unverified claims that an opponent's supporter said something evil with the wink to the reader that Harris is surrounded by evil people. By the way, you are what's known as a single purpose account. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

A SPA who is ignoring our advice and is now back to revert-warring to insert the anecdotes:[236],[237]. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I should have copied the source code, edited the private copy, and posted the the edited source code on the talk page, and I'm sorry. I suggest we keep the extended Vagianos quotation in the second edit. If you look over on Bernie Bros, you'll see unverified claims about harassment, cyber- or not, similar to the removed anecodes, from sources also marked as no-consensus reliable but biased, and yet those were allowed to stand without any BLP concerns. All this talk of "SPA" is an ad-hominem attack based around pulling rank. No, I don't have many edits on non-Harris related content, aside from the few on the Reagan article. There are accounts with just as many Harris-related edits, but a much greater abundance of edits on politicians and media figures in general. I personally don't have time for anything else, either, because I'm busy with schoolwork and only got involved in response to the whitewashing back in Summer 2020. I'll let up now, and I'm sorry for taking up more of your time. Typeprint (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a reason to degrade an article and violate BLP policy to attack people. If another article has violations, go clean it up; don't use it as an excuse to further degrade the 'pedia. I suggest you accept the advice here, stop WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:DROPTHESTICK. All of us have limited time. ETA: Thank you for agreeing to move on and stop wasting all of our time (If I read correctly that this is what you've now agreed to). - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Typeprint, I agree that you are not helping the discussion here. I did not start this ANI discussion to solve the content dispute; that is what the Talk page is for. I started this because I had and have genuine concerns about the "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" of a Wikipedia admin. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Persistent BLP violations at Hilaria Baldwin

I don't know why this isn't properly protected; requesting rev/deletion of masses of defamatory content, and user blocks. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:B9E6:B41C:7BA4:6706 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I protected the page for a month, blocked two users indef, and revision deleted a bunch of edits. Some older edits need to be inspected by a native speaker, I can not say whether these are BLP violations or ordinary vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Ymblanter. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:B9E6:B41C:7BA4:6706 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing in Malassezia

MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)

Malassezia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I formally request to look at Talk:Malassezia#WIP discussion. WP:CANVASS in broad daylight in an questionable attempt to enforce WP:MEDRS. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Evidence1: 1013864045 - Parties which called are already involved in discussion with me on the opposite side of the dispute. The article and matters are separate from this one.
• Evidence2: 1013478970 - The same.

They brought it to the attention of editors that commented on the same issue elsewhere. WP:CANVASS does not prohibit all canvassing, just inappropriate canvassing. And you had already brought attention to the topic here. Natureium (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Natureium: And you had already brought I only pointed out at reverts, not discussion as evidence of poor application of WP:MEDRS. People called by MrOllie don't overlap with those in MEDRS talk. Don't forget to take dates and times into account as well.

@Natureium: They brought it to the attention of editors that commented MrOllie canvassed those who confronted me at here (Pancreatic cancer). The matters discussed here (Malassezia) and here (Pancreatic cancer) are related only indirectly as reverts concern different sub families of fungus (Malassezia restricta vs Malassezia globosa) and different diseases (Crohn's Disease vs Pancreas cancer). The matters concern only relationship in either exacerbating immune response or cancer. Both contributions were sourced differently. Parties which were called by MrOllie are biased and may not participate in the indirectly-related discussion and pinging them out intentionally is a sign of ill intent.

Moreover, considering that MrOllie took less than a 3 minutes to make a revert, failed to deliver any clues on problem with sources, failed to point in clear direction of WP:MEDRES provisions, didn't contribute to the original article and yet somehow figured I was participated in here (Pancreatic cancer) I summarily consider this as reliable evidence of violation of WP:CANVASS. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• As a side note: My recent contributions are WIP in at least 2 places and this is well known to all parties involved in the Pancreas discussion. Bluntly reverting anything is always a disservice to wikipedia, let alone, direct guideline violation (assuming WP:MEDRS is applicable): WP:BMI#What_to_do_if_you_want_a_more_appropriate_source.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• If there had been commenters on both sides of the issue, and MrOllie had notified everyone, pro and con, that would not be canvassing, right? And if he had only notified those that agreed with him, that would be canvassing. But the fact that everyone in the discussion disagreed with you doesn't somehow mean MrOllie can no longer notify everyone of a similar discussion. The note at Talk:Malassezia#WIP seems fine. The note at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus seems a little non-neutrally worded, but not significantly, and not enough to worry about. I don't think there is a canvassing issue here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, User:Alexander Davronov in the future, please note the big orange banner at the top of the page. You're supposed to notify people you report here. I've done that for you this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Let's do it: MrOllie --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: ... If there had been commenters on both sides of the issue ... I'm not sure which "issues" are you talking about as MrOllie didn't clarify any in details. His bulk edits (one,two) touch a lot of text, both old and recent. He made it clear he was aware of Pancreas cancer discussion in his revert summary:Revision as of 21:20, March 23, 2021, MrOllie so it's a conclusively dishonest bold-faced attempt to influence discussion by having "right" people (WP:VOTESTACK?). --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Seems pretty courageous of the OP to complain here when they are attempting to edit-war[238][239][240] poorly-sourced medical content into the article – and they know it's poorly-sourced as elswhere they're trying to gets MEDRS changed to lower its sourcing standards: see WT:MEDRS#Primary sources usage. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: ...when they are attempting to edit-war
I immediately took matters into Talk:Malassezia (March 23, 2021) WIP discussion, so this is simply false. In response to that MrOllie has failed to provide details on his revert (as I requested here) at the same time calling others (seemingly involved) parties instead (Evidence1/Evidence2).

Making 2 reverts in bulk in consequence (one,two) content of which includes a whole range of information (see details above) overlaps with Pancreas cancer discussion only in part. Nobody so far has elaborated on the rest of "issues". The time that took MrOllie to revert changes was so short after my last edits so it's apparent that he didn't assess anything. He seems to have ignored that the said discussion he is fully aware of is still going on.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring. The diffs show you did that. Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You are amongst those called in by MrOllie in Revision as of 21:45, March 23, 2021.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:TPO Violation

User talk:MrOllie (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

MrOllie removed ANI notice (related to this case) left by me without having my permission. It wasn't page clean up. I'm aware that Floquenbeam already notified him. I took no action. Revisions timeline:

• 13:32, March 24, 2021 - I left notice as per WP:ANI
• 14:00, March 24, 2021 - I replaced it with {{ANI-notice}} template.
• 14:45, March 24, 2021) - WP:TPO violation

Additional cases of possible WP:TPO-breach worth to look at on User talk:MrOllie:

• 17:54, March 22, 2021 (Reverted 1 edit by Ice-eleven (talk): Rv duplicate message, again) - NO duplication.
• 17:47, March 22, 2021 (Restored revision 1013625252 by MrOllie (talk): Rv duplicate message) - NO duplication.
  --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• You're going to need to buy a clue, and stop accusing MrOllie of all kinds of unrelated "violations" in order to get him in trouble. Editors are allowed to manage their own talk like this. No one needs your permission to remove a post from their talk page. If anything, you were in the wrong for spamming a repeated warning to his talk page when i already told you I had notified him. This is veering rather quickly into a battleground attitude. You risk sanctions if you continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Users can remove basically whatever they want from their own talk pages, see the third bullet point exception in WP:TPO and WP:OWNTALK - "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". There's nothing actionable here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@86.23.109.101: WP:OWNTALK is a subject to the same WP:TPO (WP:TPG policy) which lists clean up not as exception, but as «... examples of appropriately editing others' comments», which doesn't automatically gives a right to clean up whatever they think is "unnecessary" once they are objected. I object such actions here and of course asking admins to take this as an evidence of anti-collaborative behavior (and as the fact of awareness of the notice). The rest of revisions listed above shows such tendency pretty clearly. This misbehavior is clearly actionable. It's not the major issue here though and should be only considered in conjunction with canvassing. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, yes they can remove those comments and notifications. The only things you are not allowed to remove from your talk page are declined unblock requests while the block is active, deletion tags on the page (as in the boxes stating that the talk page is being considered for deletion, not notifications of deletion discussions) and shared IP notices. Users can delete anything else they want from their own talk page - see WP:BLANKING. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

AXONOV, you need to drop this. The IP is right. There’s nothing wrong with removing an ANI notice (or pretty much anything else) from your own talk page. it’s done all the time. As Floquenbeam has already suggested, you coming across as completely lacking clue pursuing this. DeCausa (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa,86.23.109.101: I'll let admins handle & close this section. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Boomerang?

In this thread, so far, the OP has made clear that they don't understand WP:CANVASS, WP:TPO, and most importantly WP:MEDRS. At what point is it time to talk about a WP:BOOMERANG on WP:CIR grounds? - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

He clearly did not understand WP:CANVASS and WP:CIR is also problematic, as he needed 3 edits to add an unsigned request for help here: User talk:The Banner/Archives/2021/March#WP:MEDRS. The Banner talk 13:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• In view of the original complaint about canvassing, it seems pretty rum that the OP has now selectively contacted what they presumably view as fellow malcontents who have faced "misapplication" of the WP:PAGs in an apparent recruiting effort to change WP:MEDRS.[241][242][243][244][245] This canvassing thus looks rather pointy. I am beginning to suspect there may be a WP:NOTHERE problem. Alexbrn (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Revoke TPA for blocked IP - antisemitic vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin revoke TPA for 66.30.101.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? See diff. I tried re-reporting to AIV but the bot removed it because they were already blocked. Thanks. DanCherek (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May need some rev/deletion of personal attacks

...once Conorcool2021 (talk · contribs) is blocked. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:B9E6:B41C:7BA4:6706 (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Urgent edit warring rangeblock needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:117.111.0.0/19_reported_by_User:Jasper_Deng_(Result:_). Admin attention (rangeblock preferably, as there seems to be very little collateral) is needed pronto.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 d'you mind popping in really quickly? I see that you're active. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also placed a protection request at RPP for the targeted article, 2019 World Figure Skating Championships, several hours ago, but that request has been similarly sitting without action. Where are all the admins when we need them? Nsk92 (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When midnight starts sweeping out over the Pacific Ocean on a Saturday night, the number of active administrators declines. I actually enjoy watching Saturday Night Live instead of my phone sometimes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, we Europeans are now waking up, a bit delayed by the summer time which started this night.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edit restriction for Carlossuarez46

Moved to AN here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Persistent sockpuppet attacking cricket pages is at it again and I screwed up my SPI report

Realvk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making the exact same edits as the last several Vallabharebel socks, but I misfiled the SPI without capitalizing the 'V' - can someone move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/vallabharebel to the right spot, and block the sock while we're at it? User contribs will tell the story - compare Realvk's to, say, those of blocked socks Special:Contributions/Bhbhhbns, Special:Contributions/Hsyukab, /Special:Contributions/Vallabhadeshn, Special:Contributions/Vallabhasesss... All of these have been blocked in the Vallabharebel investigation listed above - this month.

I have no interest in cricket, I just stumbled across this a couple of weeks ago clicking around recent changes and watchlisted it to see if it would happen again. It did. User:El_C temporarily blocked the first copy I noticed when it had acquired repeated disruptive editing warnings, another one got blocked as a sock after and that's when I learned about the entire thing, and, well, here it goes again. This seems like something that should be approached with an edit filter of some sort. Kistaro Windrider (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel stupid asking for the SPI "move", I guess that's just cut and paste? But there's this script thing involved that sets it up, I don't know if I'd break anything worse by trying to fix it myself... Kistaro Windrider (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the case for you. And copied the evidence above to the SPI as it's more useful than the "quack, quack, quack". Cabayi (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon goading banned users into a violation - What is the policy?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am topic banned from one topic and my talk page is being riddled with provoking discussions from Guy Macon, trying to prompt me to violate my ban. Is there any entrapment policy here? --Frobozz1 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

[246], [247] - Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, here – written after the ban was imposed – you quite clearly imply he has misbehaved, so it's unsurprising that Guy Macon feels the need to reply to defend himself. Filing an ANI claiming an editor is provoking you and gravedancing, whilst you appear to be provoking him, is probably not a great look? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You can ask Guy Macon to stop posting to your talk page and this should be respected. But if you're going to do that, you need to shut up about Guy Macon. Don't refer to them directly or indirectly. I suspect if you do that Guy Macon will also stop posting to your talk page without asking. If you ask Guy Macon to stay away from your talk page but then keep talking about them there, I'd fully support an indefinite block of you. BTW I'm sure you've been told this before, but stop posting random requests for help on ANI. Use the WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk or frankly just ask on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Why was I not notified of this ANI report? Clearly Frobozz1 knows about notifications, because they notified me the last time they had a go at me [248], refering to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#I feel personally attacked for good faith edits - MfD my user page, Incident threats, BRD disruption - still learning, am I wrong? )

I would suggest a one-way interaction ban to get Frobozz1 to leave me alone. I of course would voluntarily avoid interactions with Frobozz1 (I am already doing that) and would expect an interaction ban or a block if I continued to talk about or to Frobozz1 when they could not reply. That's just basic politeness. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Frobozz1 has contracted the ANI Flu but I would still like a close to this. I am taking a lot of heat by various quacks over my essay at WP:YWAB, and this is the sort of thing they love to weaponize. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional username, disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Study , Art And Fun Hub YouTube Channel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are several problems with this user:

1. Username policy violation: the username promotes a YouTube channel and does not represent a person. The user received a warning about the username policy violation and ignored it.
2. WP:MINOR violation: the user keeps marking major edits a minor, despite receiving four warnings about it ([249], [250], [251], [252]], including a final warning.
3. WP:DISRUPT (WP:ICANTHEARYOU) and WP:CIR violations: wikipedians have to be able to listen to others and cannot keep ignoring all warnings. The user also keeps creating the repeatedly deleted Abhishek Nigam article and their user page also suggests that they are here to promote Abhishek Nigam.

In addition, WP:VANDAL explicitly says that intentionally marking major edits as minor constitutes vandalism. The user does it intentionally, because they keep doing it despite four warnings and explanations.

There is no point in warning the user anymore, the user keeps ignoring everything, refusing to communicate, so the only remaining option is blocking the user from editing.—J. M. (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked indefinitely by Orangemike, so the discussion can be closed.—J. M. (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DisneyMediaStuffFan

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

Apparently, the IP user who has been making problematic edits to articles such as Movies Anywhere has created their own account to try and bypass the article's protection. DisneyMediaStuffFan attempted to recreate the abandoned Disney Movies Anywhere with unreliable sources such as this. I request action be taken against this sockpuppet. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems they've decided to return to using an IP in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz's behaviour in the article Mate (drink)

Since March 15, 2021, I have been attempting to land a "citation needed" inline tag in the infobox regarding the "country of origin" [253]. I have explained the rationale on why a citation is needed (and in particular for the inclusion of Uruguay as a "country of origin") both in edit summary and later since March 23 in the talk page [254]. User User:Walter Görlitz keeps reverting my edits possibly bordering if not transgressing the WP:3RR. I have never before faced such staunch resisntance to a simple "citation needed" tag. Walter Görlitz keeps writing that either the "cn"-tag is not needed or that the content is already souced in the text, but fails to substance for such claims.

On March 23 Walter Görlitz went further to add a warning template in my talk page [255], telling me that my recent contributions to Mate "did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines."

Later on March 26 Walter Görlitz seem to have acknowledged that contentious content in the infobox needed to be based on WP:RS [256], Walter Görlitz adds a reference to Britannica and writes on the summary:

"Now that it is correctly sourced., date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script!"

The Britannica reference does not say anywhere that Uruguay is more of a cultural origin than say Lebanon or Syria. Walter Görlitz is essentially distorting the source to engage in WP:OR. As Walter Görlitz has a long term and strong, precesence in the mate (drink) article and does not allow me to tag specific sentences I sense Görlitz's behaviour is a case of WP:OWN.

Dentren | ^Talk 20:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Dentren has ignored all of the sourcing that has been added. First, by an anon, and then later by me. I tried to explain that we do not add cn tags to infoboxes or leads, ideally trying to tag misinformation in the article. No recent engagement on the talk page.

The issue is simple, the tea was consumed by the indigenous Guaraní and Tupí. The first Europeans were introduced to the tea by the two groups. There are no sources to where they consumed it, or where the first peoples were found consuming it. The consensus was that the nations themselves should not be listed. @Oulipal: and @Warshy: argued that the first peoples should be made the source. That cannot be disputed. However, to give a modern reader an area, the modern day range of the two nations were provided.

The source of the ranges is what those ranges is what I sourced. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766581/obo-9780199766581-0222.xml is clear: "Caught between tradition and modernity, more than 100,000 indigenous Guaraní-speaking peoples currently reside in southern South America in what is today Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Bolivia." Britannica itself does not list Uruguay. I'm not really sure what is missing or what level of detail Dentren is trying to extract in the infobox. The drink's origin is not an issue to anyone except Dentren who has continued to edit war ignoring procedure or discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, this complain is about your behaviour, not the content per see. Dentren | ^Talk 20:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand, and the issue is clear, your behaviour was problematic and I was simply trying to maintain the correctness of the article. You failed to show were I added the CN tag to the section in the article that stated that the origin was with the Guaraní https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mate_(drink)&diff=1012361132&oldid=1012360910 . I even wrote there that "we tag articles not leads or infoboxes." yet you insisted on adding it to the infobox. Sorry, that's not done if it can be placed in the article. At best, you should {{citation needed lead}}, but it was stated in the article and later sourced. The problem is, you were showing OWNership of the idea of a tag of shame in the infobox. You refused to accept that a CONSENSUS had been achieved and you dieced you knew everything and the right way to approach this and edit warred to have it your way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: For reference, can you paste in the policy where {{citation-needed}} can't go in infoboxes? Thanks! WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 21:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If something is stated in the lead or an infobox, then never mentioned again in the body, I can't see where else you could place the cn tag... Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a policy at all, it's a practice. The purpose of an infobox and lede is to summarize the content in the article.

At the time that Dentren tagged the infobox, the claim was already made in the article and was not sufficiently cited there, so clearly the problem was that Dentren did not want to read the article to find where the claim was made and either CN or refimprove inle added there. That is why the content there should have been tagged and not the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz, Objectively speaking, I think your contributions are more disruptive than constructive. Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. In this specific case, I applied a general practice (and quite common in the music projects) and moved the CN template from the infobox to the content of the article. Dentren did not recognize this constructive behaviour and I engaged in discussion on the talk page. Is there some way in the actions on this article in particular that you would have done things differently? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Until Walter Görlitz seem to have reacted to my concerns on March 26 [257] Görlitz behaved as if he/she owned the article by reverting the "citation needed" tags I first tryied to add on March 15 [258]. More so, the Britannica reference Görlitz added does not give Uruguay as country of origin unless you engage in WP:OR. Summarizing, Görlitz have wrongfully hindered me in pointing out wrong (or likely wrong) information information in the article, and then engaged in an unacceptable distortion of sources. Dentren | ^Talk 00:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're linking to a place where I added a source that is not Britannica, and https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766581/obo-9780199766581-0222.xml does support that the Guaraní as being in Uruguay. Again Dentren is misleading and showing OWNership. Further to clarify, after the {{fact}} was added, I removed it and immediately placed one in the body of the article, where I believe it belonged. No OWNership at all. After that, Dentren twice added the template back to the infobox, which was unnecessary, refused to acknowledge the act of moving it to the body, refused to acknowledge that an anon added a source to support the claim, and misrepresents my addition of sources ignoring the addition of oxfordbibliographies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

So far Görlitz have failed to show that ancient Guaraní were drinking mate in Uruguay, a place that is outside the natural occurrence of Ilex paraguariensis. If Görlitz want to state such thing, Görlitz need to provide WP:RS about it, and not disrupt the inline "citation needed" tagging. (Just in case, the Oxford dictionary source provided here does not talk about yerba mate nor the mate drink, its just about the indigenous Guaraní). And —again— what I intend to discuss here is not content but Görlitz behaviour. Dentren | ^Talk 02:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

If that is your concern, it can be removed. You have not stated Uruguay as your only concern prior to this discussion. The sources do state that thr drinking of the beverage is associated with the Guaraní and that their range included Uruguay, and that is all that the infobox states as well. My behaviour was above board and i engaged in clear communication. Dentren has not been so forthcoming. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Our article about Yerba mate, the herb that is the source of the beverage, says about the origins of the beverage "Its consumption was exclusive to the natives of only two regions of the territory that today is Paraguay, more specifically the departments of Amambay and Alto Paraná" and there are two references. That seems to undermine the Uruguay theory, if those sources are reliable. I don't care about the content dispute, other than to encourage the involved editors to work much harder to improve the content and the sourcing, as opposed to arguing about the location of cleanup tags. Refocus on improving the encyclopedia instead of bickering. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I never claimed it was in all of those regions, only that the the parameter required a place. It originated with the Guaraní. I have been endeavouring to improve the article, and will continue to do so, if given the opportunity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 thank you for your feedback, yet let me remeber you that Walter Görlitz did neither allow me to tag [259][260] nor remove contentious information [261]. With such behaviour, and considering Görlitz wrongfully tagged my talk page because of my edits "not appear[ing] constructive and has been reverted." [262], I find it difficult to work in this article with Görlitz, indeed it seem a case of WP:OWN. Dentren | ^Talk 05:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Both of you should focus ten times more on cooperating with each other to improve the content and to evaluate the reliability of sources than on arguing about the location of maintenance tags. Please get back to work, and assume good faith of other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me remind you, Dentren, that I moved the citation needed tag to the body of the article. Do you acknowledge that this happened?

Once it was, there was no need to add it to the infobox. Do you agree that is the case? If not, why did you not remove the tag from the body of the article when adding to the infobox?

Also, do you agree that you made no clear statement of provenance?

Do you agree that the beverage originated with the people and not in a place?

Overall, this appears to me more of an instance of your lack of adequate communication and peculiar approach to wanting things your way, rather than cooperating on a solution?

YOU made no effort to communicate any of what you are complaining about here, other than the removal of the CN in the infobox, and you never addressed my comments in the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the best advice is really that of Cullen328. I would stop this discussion here and go back to the article talk page, so the task of "cooperating with each other to improve the content and to evaluate the reliability of sources" could be continued. Let us all leave personal grievances aside and go back to cooperating in goof faith to improve this encyclopedia. I know it is hard sometimes, but it is really the best path forward. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

EEng ridiculing a BLP who may use neopronouns

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I tried several times to deescalate the situation at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale, but EEng has persisted in making posts that denigrate Lonsdale for asking to use neopronouns. EEng is of the opinion that Lonsdale was joking when using the pronoun "tree", which may or may not be the case—no reliable sources have suggested it is, but I suppose it's a possibility. The article currently uses no pronouns to refer to Lonsdale, which is an approach editors have taken elsewhere (for example at SOPHIE), and EEng has agreed twice now that this is acceptable to them. For clarity: I think this is the best solution at the moment, and have not suggested the article should be changed to use the neopronouns.

EEng is continuing to post on the talk page and now on other pages to make fun of Lonsdale's pronoun, and neopronouns in general:

• 17:39 22 March 2021 at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "let's get real: tree is now a pronoun? WTF? Are there no limits to this nonsense?"
• 21:55 22 March 2021 at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "All this gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair is just unbelievable. What -- his own PR firm is misgendering him (or, you might say, mistergendering him)?"
• 04:35, 23 March 2021 at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "If he really wanted to be called tree they'd be calling him that, but of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope."
• 00:57, 25 March 2021‎ at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism. No words can properly capture how idiotic the idea is, not to mention how idiotic it is to take the concept seriously. I may want to be referenced by the pronoun Lordthygod but if people don't do that it's not transphobia or any other kind of phobia. I keep returning to the idea that this may be a grand hoax along the lines of the Sokal affair, designed to test how credulous Wikipedia editors can be."
• 01:01, 25 March 2021 at a completely unrelated discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: "Maybe you'd like to be called tree [263]"

The 00:57 25 March comment to me seemed particularly over-the-top, and so I removed it and left a note on EEng's talk page (User talk:EEng#Please stop): "Please stop denigrating Lonsdale and those who use neopronouns. I understand that you don't like the pronoun, nor believe it is a genuine preference, but this is becoming cruel." EEng replied by insulting me as "an otherwise very sensible and respected admin and former arb" and claiming that they're "not denigrating anyone. I am trying to give a short, sharp shock to editors somehow unable to see through the fey pretension of [264]". They restored the comment.

In my opinion this is not an acceptable way to speak about a BLP subject, and furthermore it is cruel to those who use various neopronouns. It is altogether too reminiscent of the 2019 Signpost "humor" article which has remained embarrassing proof that Wikipedia is not a welcoming place for trans people, and given that EEng is involving a specific BLP as a target of their jokes I think it requires intervention here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

EEng is unblockable. Nothing is going to come out of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

One way to ensure an "unblockable" remains that way is to shut down any ANI discussion of their behavior with the suggestion it will be pointless... GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GorillaWarfare. Even if this were a hoax it would be insensitive to others who use neopronouns to mock like this. Hopefully they'll revert their comments. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so we're currently at that point where we await EEng's fun band of enablers who make light of everything until the point that someone else can close the discussion as unproductive? Well, before we get to enjoy that, certainly insinuating that the subject of one of our articles could be an 'affected dope' if they disagree with EEng is about as clear a blp violation as one can get. Doubtless, they will claim that they were not insulting the subject, just the abstract notion; but since the two are so intertwined, it is impossible to one without the other. And such a claim would hold more water if they then didn't double down on it by restoring their comment rather than taking it under advisement. In any case, and this is non-negotiable, it is not EEng's job here to be giving anyone a 'short sharp shock' with regard to anything or anyone here. ——Serial 14:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Nah, my brigading contract is currently in re-negotiation, so I won't be jumping in to defend him. Seriously, though: you know better, EEng. This was not okay. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Asking them to tone it down was reasonable and proportionate. Restoring the comment after that reasonable request is trolling and a block is necessary to prevent further disruption. And since I couldn't find one in their talk history, I've given them a BLP DS alert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, HJ Mitchell. I've added a gender DS alert as well. Should the re-added comment be removed again? GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've removed it. It had already attracted a reply, which (while in much the same vein as this thread) is precisely what we want to avoid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good block. This kind of conduct is entirely inappropriate. GiantSnowman 14:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Proportionate and necessary. This instills confidence that no one is exempt from conduct issues, even longtime contributors. Shushugah (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh well, while I was typing, I see EEng was blocked. I spent all this time typing, so I'll post it anyway. The problem with the signpost essay was that it was mocking people who want to use actual neopronouns like xe/xem/xyr (etc, etc, etc, there are a lot). People can have different opinions on that, and the whole pronoun thing is in flux, but making fun of someone's good faith desire to have pronouns of their own was deeply uncool. Regardless of whether you think xe/xem/xyr is a good idea or a bad idea, mocking those who do not fit comfortably into a rigid he/she dichotomy, and do not want to be called he or she, sucks.
  However, if anything, treating a request for everyone to use the pronoun "tree" the same as we treat a request to use xe/xem/xyr or similar makes it easier for people to think the mocking attitude of the essay was reasonable. Thinking that using "tree" as a pronoun is dumb is not in the same category as the attitude expressed in the essay. I read the subject's "tree" quote as a kind of philosophical "imagine there's no heaven" kind of statement, not as a genuine request that this pronoun be used. It's fine if people want to interpret it as an actual request, and reword the article to avoid pronouns altogether, as long as we don't actually use "tree" in the article. But I don't think criticizing that is nearly in the same ballpark.
  IMHO, there was no need for EEng continuing to beat that objection to death, and there was no need for GW to keep it alive, so to speak, by over-reacting to it, and there was no need for a block. I assume this makes me part of the fun band of enablers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  No, the train has already departed. At this point, if you want to join the fun band, you need to unblock EEng with the comment "block shortened to time served" or similar.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be a good idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Me neither, but if you look at their block log, they have been blocked 14 times, not counting a one second block, and unblocked, up to date, 8 times.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: For what it's worth, I have not suggested anywhere that we should use "tree" in the article–only that we should avoid using pronouns that differ from the ones Lonsdale has specified.

  As for your latest* suggestion that I am "overreacting" to an issue by bringing it to ANI, I tried in several ways to end this issue: first by attempting to end the talk page discussion by reestablishing that EEng had agreed to the decision to avoid pronouns in the article, then by quietly removing EEng's BLP-violating talk page comment, and then by politely asking them to stop on their talk page. They responded by restoring the talk page comment (explicitly saying in the summary that I needed to go to a noticeboard if I think it should be removed) and then insulting both me and Lonsdale in a user talk page reply. It was clear that the behavior was continuing despite my several attempts to put a stop to it without broader community involvement. I'm not sure what else I could have done, aside from turning a blind eye toward EEng's abuse of a BLP. Is that what you would have preferred me to do? Am I to stop posting to ANI entirely, lest you suggest for a third time I am overreacting to problematic behavior? Floquenbeam, I very much respect and often agree with you, but this refrain that I am overreacting in coming to ANI is confusing to me–particularly given that in both this instance and the previous there was general agreement that there was a legitimate issue.

  * For context, the previous time I am referencing was at the February thread "WGFinley reversing protection without consent of protecting admin". I can't link the diff because it was hidden, but ctrl-f "G: Please don't bring minor issues to ANI". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'd forgotten about the WGFinley thing. I don't think, and don't mean to imply, that you habitually over-react. I often get involved in ANI threads by blind luck; when I happen to check my watchlist, there happens to be a new ANI thread with an intriguing thread title at the top of my watchlist, and sometimes i happen to have the time to get involved. Of all the times I do that, twice in the last 2 months they've happened to have been threads you started. And those two times, I happened to think (and still think) that you were over-reacting. But I assume you start a lot of ANI threads I never read, and I assume I wouldn't think you were over-reacting if I read those. If you go back and look at comments I make in ANI threads that don't involve you, you'll probably notice a pattern of me thinking people are over-reacting in those threads too. I think a lot of people on WP over-react a lot of the time. Obviously a lot of people disagree, or things would change. But I don't think it means I need to change my basic opinion that we should let some stuff slide more often; "letting the small stuff go" is the lubrication that allows a large, unwieldly, disorganized machine like ours to keep working. Escalating every "violation of policy", however minor, is like sand in the gears.
  For the avoidance of doubt, and to directly answer your question: although this is much less clear-cut than the WGFinley issue, yes, personally I think you should have just let this go. If there was a hint of an undercurrent of homophobia or transphobia, I wouldn' think that, but I don't think there is. EEng thinks respecting the pronoun "tree" is dumb, and I agree. He says it too forcefully and didn't deescalate either. Apparently almost everyone else here disagrees with me. Including you. That's OK, as long as you don't think it's evidence I don't respect you because of that difference, and as long as I'm allowed to keep thinking people over-react here far too often, without it being discounted as a "refrain" or that I'm singling you out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I see. I think perhaps that is the source of my confusion. I actually don't start very many ANI threads (or at least I don't think I do, I suppose each individual's bar for "many" probably varies), and I also participate in them similarly rarely to you and so haven't seen that you express this belief often. When you showed up at two of the three ANI discussions I've created in the past two months and expressed that you thought I was overreacting I took it to mean you were seeing a pattern. Thank you for explaining. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Points taken. However, I remember Fæ going on at great lengths in some thread on meta about this sort of behavior from EEng. At the time, I thought Fæ was off-base. It saddens me that EEng has proven that point. A little more consideration for the impact of one's words would make Wikipedia less toxic to those with gender related issues. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Good block indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• As much as I like EEng, I think he needs to re-equilibriate. He's been like a run-away locomotive. Picking up speed and crashing through crossings. Need to put on the brakes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

^{Just an aside I once met someone who did a lot of work on rail/road crossings ...they were intersex ... i just called them by their name which was gender neutral. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)}

• Yeah, can't disagree. But I have to say, we mention the neopronoun thing in the article, which is based on one comment made by Lonsdale on social media three years ago, and is illustrated with a long quotation which doesn't exactly make anyone reading it think the subject is the brightest ("I want people to call me "tree", because we all come from trees, so it doesn't matter if you're a he or a she or a they or a them. At the end of the day, everyone's a tree.") ... or alternatively, of course, it was a joke, or even a barbed comment about identity. And we have no reliable sources dating from then that actually use the neopronoun, anyway. So do we even need to mention it ourselves? Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps a better conversation for the article talk page, but have no terribly strong opinion on the inclusion (or exclusion) of the quote. I mostly added it as a way to explain to readers why the article was avoiding pronouns, but it could be shortened or removed entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to see the block reduced. And since anyone supporting such a sentiment has already been preemptively painted with the brush of being one of his "enablers", I feel compelled to say that that's not me. Paul August ☎ 15:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• On the topic of "EEng's fun band of enablers", we've now got Roxy the dog continuing the behavior that EEng was just blocked for at User talk:EEng#Blocked... "I've seen silly blocks, but taking the piss out of a bloke who wants to be called "tree" seems spot on. Well done, I lolled a lot." ([265]) and "But yes. Taking the piss out of somebody that wants to be called tree is fine. Good grief. He's a bloke." ([266]) GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, we should be careful to not label all resistance to the usage of neopronouns as denigrating. It's easy to see the logistical nightmare of allowing any single person to create a new pronoun in a language that already has established non-gendered pronouns (they/them). Nihlus 15:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  There's a difference between 'resistance' and outright mockery. Sam Walton (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Correct. The difference was demonstrated by the two individuals in question. Nihlus 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Nihlus: Nowhere in here have I labeled all resistance to the usage of neopronouns as denigrating. I don't agree with those who object to neopronouns, but it is a valid opinion so long as you are not ridiculing those who use them or questioning their identities. "Good grief. He's a bloke." is doing the latter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  This has been taken to a level that could have been avoided. For instance, Lonsdale has said this: "The more I'd been building confidence as an out black man..." regarding homophobia, "They’ve got to watch me as a Black man play a superhero, and then they compare it with the fact that I’m an out queer Black man who plays a superhero" about other work of his. He has a sponsored post on his social media that states: "Yo it’s ya boy, holding ya guy @keiynanlonsdale, who’s the new @oldspice man, man". He even has an album called Rainbow Boy. I struggle to see how calling him a bloke is offensive. Nihlus 16:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I didn't know that Lonsdale self-identified as a man. For a little bit of background, I only became involved in this issue when I was clearing RfPP one day, and so don't actually know all that much about Lonsdale besides what I've gleaned through cleaning up the page. I did go searching for more statements on the pronouns Lonsdale uses since the 2018 source, but didn't come across much mentioning gender identity. I do think continuing to suggest that we should be "taking the piss" out of BLP subjects is questionable, but perhaps they have gotten that out of their system. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think it is best to err on the side of caution when it comes to these issues as BLP is involved, but I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere when it comes to the reasonableness of the request. It doesn't help that some of these pronoun requests are made in jest while to some it is pretty serious. That being said, we should use the English language as is and stick to he/she/they until a time comes where other pronouns become standard; we should be following the language rather than being ones to guide it ourselves as an encyclopedia. But that's probably best to discuss elsewhere at this point. Nihlus 17:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• I said that on E's talk page, yes, after the block had been issued, and now I'm involved? -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 15:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• We can't legitimately add "tree" as a pronoun choice to like the infobox (a passage discussing their "treeness" in the article is fine of course, if deemed notable), but this went way past articulating that simple point, IMO. Would support unblock if the transgression is genuinely acknowledged and a commitment to avoid future disruption on this point is made. ValarianB (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Good block, this kind of conduct is unwarranted and hurtful, and the thing is, EEng already knows this. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Good block, highly experienced editors should know its unacceptable to mock BLP subjects. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have a number of thoughts. I think GorillaWarfare was doing the right thing by trying to de-escalate the situation and use language that didn't invite controversy. I recall a similar discussion on Genesis P. Orridge some time back (which seems to have settled on singular "they" as I look at the article now). Now, having said that, irrespective of everything else (don't want to play the "one of my best friends is transgender" card, but she is), if you use the name for a large plant from which wood is produced as a pronoun, many many people will not be able to understand you. That's not intending to insult, degenerate or belittle anybody - it's a plain old fact of life. In that respect, it's like using Wikipedia policy on a newbie without context, they don't know what you're talking about. I assume this was the point that EEng was trying to get at. That said, edit-warring comments after multiple editors have told you to stop doing putting them back in is just asking for trouble. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Point of Order - Some of us are indeed trees (my pronouns are fim/fir or tree/trer). And before anyone drags me, I am non-binary/genderqueer. We can make fun of ourselves occasionally. </sarcasm></humor> An unfortunate but good block for the restoration of the edit and the repeated edit summaries. EEng should know better, even if the subject was using "tree" in jest. A simple "this was not a serious statement, see talk page" would have sufficed. I don't expect neopronoun ridicule to occur again, but should it I think a t-ban under WP:AC/DS's reviewed Gamergate case would be in order. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Brigand reporting for duty! Though EEng did sit through my 2019 block (without an unblock) — all 24 hours of it. Like Paul, I am in favour of reducing the block duration, but do not in principle object to it having been imposed as such. El_C 16:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Given that EEng seems to regard WP:TPO as some sort of holy writ and has been known to edit war his joke images back into closed ANI threads, I'm not surprised he reverted GW's removal of his post to Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale. I think calling the pronoun "lunancy" and a possible hoax was a bad idea on a BLP, as was restoring the comment.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• While we're on the topic of Keiynan Lonsdale, could someone help with User:Jiveviced and also perhaps the RfPP request? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• I ECP'd to stop the disruption, unless my part in this discussion makes me involved. However, User:Jiveviced was not edit confirmed, and SP might srve. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I requested ECP simply because the last time it was semiprotected (five days ago) it needed to be bumped up to ECP due to involvement by confirmed accounts. That said the Twitter thread about Lonsdale has probably died down some so it's possible ECP is not needed, though it's not a hugely edited article either way and I doubt ECP will stop many editors trying to make productive edits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• I looked at the quote where the BLP subject discusses "tree", and the subject goes on to express the hope that everyone will call everyone else "tree", which I think takes it out of the realm of a request to use one's preferred pronouns for oneself, into the realm of what Floq quite aptly compared to an "imagine there's no heaven" type of statement. I'm not personally interested in whether or not that makes me some sort of enabler, but I do think there's something to be said for trying to read quotes from sources in context. As I see it, GW came to this from a position of wanting to do the right thing and made a good-faith effort to resolve it without escalation, and EEng was correct to raise the issue of it maybe being something to not take seriously, and was incorrect not to drop the stick. Somewhere in there, there's a joke to be made about a tree and a stick, but I'm too disheartened to make it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, making a joke about it would require you to go out on a limb. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, that's right, it wood. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• We do not exclude stuff because it looks foolish or silly. We exclude stuff because it is not supported by WP:RS. If RS say that someone claims to be Napoleon Bonaparte or the Queen of Sheba, or both, that can be included as an asserted fact. We can leave the hoots of derision to RationalWiki. Narky Blert (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• EEng has requested here that the following comment of his be copied from his talk page to this discussion:

---

Except taking the piss out of the real, living subject of a Wikipedia article, on the talk page of the article is not what I was doing, and your comment shows you didn't actually read the discussion on the article's talk page and the earlier ones linked from it. What I was doing was taking the piss out of the people who actually believe Lonsdale wants to be called tree, when (as is perfectly obvious) he has no such desire; I point out for the millionth time that Lonsdale's own PR firm continues to refer to him as he [267]. Floquenbeam has it spot on:

treating a request for everyone to use the pronoun "tree" the same as we treat a request to use xe/xem/xyr or similar makes it easier for people to think the mocking attitude of the essay was reasonable. Thinking that using "tree" as a pronoun is dumb is not in the same category as the attitude expressed in the essay. I read the subject's "tree" quote as a kind of philosophical "imagine there's no heaven" kind of statement, not as a genuine request that this pronoun be used. It's fine if people want to interpret it as an actual request, and reword the article to avoid pronouns altogether, as long as we don't actually use "tree" in the article. But I don't think criticizing that is nearly in the same ballpark. IMHO, there was no need for EEng continuing to beat that objection to death, and there was no need for GW to keep it alive, so to speak, by over-reacting to it, and there was no need for a block.

There's definitely a place (though not on WP) for discussion about whether there's liberation value in a thoughtful campaign to get people to understand and use xe/xem/xyr – very much like the movement to bring Ms. into common use 50 years ago. Such a consciousness-raising campaign around a considered addition to the language is completely different from random individuals picking random words to be their "pronouns". If people want to do that, that's not my business. If other people want to invest their mental energy in referring to their friends by tree or bunny pronouns [268], that's also not my business. But when people show up at Wikipedia insisting that articles refer to people that way, that is my business, and I'm going to say something about it.

I wasn't denigrating Lonsdale for any choice of pronouns, because it's patently obvious that he made no such choice; my disdain is for those who keep insisting that we actually refer to Lonsdale as tree in his article when (as linked at the start of this post) Lonsdale himself doesn't do that. But we have editors so focused on falling all over themselves in the RIGHTGREATWRONGS department that they can't see the forest for the, um, trees.

EEng 16:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

---

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(Random break for the scroll-weary)

Doubtless, they will claim that they were not insulting the subject, just the abstract notion [269]. And so it goes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read and re-read what happened multiple times now, and I think a case can be made that EEng wasn't insulting Lonsdale, but was insulting editors who wanted to use the term "tree" in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This case could only be made if you assume that Lonsdale does not genuinely use the pronoun, which is not a given. "but of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope" and "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism." are both BLPvios. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that calling people lunatics, stupid, cretins, is clearly offensive, and clearly not what I want to see on Wikipedia, no matter who is being called that. It sounds to me (and I haven't examined the source material as carefully as I would have if I were actually editing the article content) like there's some basis for concluding that Lonsdale intends "tree" to be understood lightheartedly, but not enough basis to conclude that Londsdale definitely feels that way, so it's appropriate to err on the side of deference. That said, I think EEng really is trying to say that editors who reject the premise that Londsdale was being facetious are those insulting things. This may have been a block for BLP violation that should have been a block for NPA violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but this is where I come down as well. I suspect EEng was substantively right, but as a BLP, we really need to err on the side of caution, and though I don't think it was intended as such, it was not unreasonable to see EEng's behaviour as belittling all users/advocates of neopronouns. I look forward to slightly more measured irreverence upon EEng's return. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess if Lonsdale is really keen to want to be referred to as "tree", despite the best intentions of his PR company or his ash's Wikipedia article writers, and if enough people oblige him oak, then "tree" will indeed become a pronoun. Not sure it's happened just yet, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: and why have you now used the incorrect pronouns? Laziness or ignorance? GiantSnowman 21:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to dial down the intensity here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Trypto, you're just barking up the wrong pronoun again. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: not when there's edits like this taking the piss?! GiantSnowman 21:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Above, I said it was wrong to call other editors lunatics, stupid, or cretins. To that list, I'll add lazy or ignorant. I think it's generally better to try to de-escalate conflicts, than to escalate them. I also think it's good to try to respect the pronoun preferences of BLP subjects, to the degree that we can find out those preferences from reliable sources. I also think that we can do that without trying to virtue-signal one's woke credentials. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You think I'm ridiculing all non-gendered people here, or just Lonsdale? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Both. GiantSnowman 21:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I was ridiculing non-standard English usage. But I guess you could block me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. but thanks for pointing out that I'm either lazy OR ignorant.

This is ANI, so there's no joking here, but if we were somewhere else, I'd say that you are both. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Lonsdale has ever used "tree" as a pronoun outside of a single Instagram video from 2.5 years ago? On the contrary, there is evidence that Lonsdale does not in fact use the pronoun. Here, LGBT site PinkNews refers to "His welcomed casting announcement in Step Up". MTV also uses "his", etc. As noted above, so does Lonsdale's PR firm. Lonsdale also refers to self with male terms as noted above by Nihlus. The MOS' direction is meant to avoid misgendering and to show respect for people's gender, but we use common sense and what sources say when applying it. I don't think a possibly-nonserious social media post from years ago that reliable sources don't take as a serious pronoun preference means that we need to write the article as "Lonsdale...Lonsdale...Lonsdale..." According to policies, we are supposed to follow reliable sources, not act like we know better. Twitter people policing others' actions don't set our standard. EEng should have said some things differently, sure, but we need to keep this matter in perspective. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think thst I shall never see
A poem as lovely as a tree DFO

Lonsdale has used the terms "man" and "boy" but has afaik not used either tree or any other pronouns (which is unsurprising given most people don't often talk about themselves in the third person). But we can't assume that because someone refers to themselves as a man, they use he/him pronouns (or vice versa). As I've explained on the talk page, I do not think avoiding the slightly awkward wording caused by not using pronouns is worth potentially using the wrong pronouns. Regardless, this is probably a conversation better had at the article talk page, since my post here is about EEng's BLPvios or personal attacks or whatever they were decided to be, not about their opinions on if the article ought to use pronouns, or which. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Food for thought: if EEng's comments were about some other BLP or situation where gender and neopronouns had nothing to do with it, would it have been a week-long block? I've seen ANIs dismissed as a mere content dispute for worse behavior than this. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Lonsdale in 2020: I felt like I had finally returned home to myself, the version of me that wasn’t here before. I tried to work so hard to change him, which we all can do in some ways. [270] gnu57 21:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And there it is. Proof positive. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• After reading EEng's statement above I read the entire talk page thread so I could see the offending statements in context. I think it's a reasonable interpretation that EEng was indeed ridiculing the Wikipedia editors who would try to use "tree" as a pronoun in a Wikipedia biography, and not the subject of that biography. In that light I think this is a bad block. ~Awilley (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree that it can reasonably be interpreted that way, but even so, are we not to avoid calling other editors lunatics, "affected dopes", etc.? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Where did he say that about any Wikipedia editor? After reading the reverted comment, he seemed to be speaking in a hypothetical sense. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I am referring to Awilley's comment. I don't think EEng was referring to Wikipedia editors at all (generally or specifically), as I've said I think they were referring to Lonsdale. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I can't possibly read it that way either. Lonsdale doesn't use tree as a pronoun, anyway, as we've now established. And this level of sensitivity about speech about a BLP is truly unprecedented. I see far worse about other BLPs all the time. Some BLPs get rallied around more than others, I gotta say. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've done the same and I tend to agree. But I don't think "cretinism" and "dopes" were good word choices. A bit too non-standard perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with Awilley. While the words still shouldn’t have been used against the editors, the block is about the sensitivity around a subject’s supposed use of neopronouns (per crossroads earlier comment). In its true context it wouldn’t normally have resulted in a block. DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Support unblock DeCausa (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock per above - this is nothing but misunderstandings upon misunderstandings and there is no doubt in my mind that the volatile nature of the topic played a role in the reactions. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• From a review of the thread and EEng's history, he appears to enjoy sailing as close to the line as he possibly get and has a pattern of going over it, getting blocked, then backtracking and saying he didn't really mean it or the silly admin took his remarks out of context or a brigade of humourless editors is determined to rob him of his fun. He knew, or should reasonably have known, that his conduct wasn't appropriate; if he wasn't aware, GW very politely informed him and asked him not to repeat his edit; he belittled GW then reinstated the comment he'd been told was disruptive and a BLP violation. That got him a week off. A newish editor with a clean block log would have got 24–48 hours. EEng is neither new nor clueless, nor does he have an unblemished record; given the usual practice of escalating blocks, he gets a week. I strongly oppose any early unblock (to the point that I would have made the block a discretionary sanction if it weren't for the techinicality of alerts), and will seriously consider filing a request for arbitration against any admin who does so without a very clear consensus. Have your fun, by all means, but don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and don't have your fun on the talk pages of BLPs, whether directly at the subject's expense or not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I realize you're dancing as fast as you can, but that's nothing but handwaving until you answer the challenge -- issued to you twice now [271][272], and twice ignored by you even as you were posting the above exercise in alternative reality -- to provide actual, specific diffs for my alleged BLP violation. Or maybe Gorilla Warfare can help you out with that? EEng 01:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC) (Posted on EEng's behalf by nagualdesign)

  I linked them in the first ANI post. 04:35, 23 March 2021 and 00:57, 25 March 2021 are the two I would consider the actual violations, most of the other stuff was just rude. I can't speak for HJ, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Dear oh dear, what a shambolic waste of time! But since we're all here I'll throw in my two cents, and if anyone wishes to call me an enabler for doing so I'm fine with that. I read through Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale last night after seeing User talk:EEng#Please stop, then rolled my eyes and went to bed. It's disappointing to see that this nonsense has escalated to ANI. A few points:

1. Tree asked politely to be referred to by the pronoun "Tree" - That simply isn't true. To quote; I don't want to go by "he" anymore, I just want to go by "tree". [...] So, I think, like now, when people ask me what my preferred pronoun is, I'm going to say "tree". That is a statement, not a request and, as has since become evident, wasn't even entirely serious.
2. Please stop denigrating Lonsdale and those who use neopronouns - At no point did EEng denigrate those who use neopronouns. He clarified this multiple times on the Lonsdale talk page. It seems rather disingenuous to ignore those clarifications. What he did do, arguably a little too vociferously, was point out that "tree" is not a pronoun, and anyone who takes Lonsdale's flippant remark at face value is being rather credulous.
3. EEng ridiculing a BLP who uses may use neopronouns - This is specific to the accusation of BLP violation; at no point did EEng actually ridicule Lonsdale. He reasoned that Lonsdale was joking on the grounds that "of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope." In other words, EEng is saying that Lonsdale is not a dope. ...Please note that the section header has now been altered by GW "per Awilley's concern" (EEng's 'Scenario 4' has been proven), but it really ought to say, "..doesn't actually use neopronouns".
4. EEng is unblockable. Nothing is going to come out of this thread. - Ymblanter throws mud into the mix and 30 minutes later EEng is blocked. Am I the only one who finds this rather reactionary? Do we accept that EEng has actually been the victim of bad blocks in the past, or are we seriously just going to tott up the total and assume that that should add weight to the current procedings?
5. Ah, so we're currently at that point where we await EEng's fun band of enablers who make light of everything until the point that someone else can close the discussion as unproductive? - That particular tar brush is no more or less eggregious than EEng's alleged NPA violation(s). But ultimately, that sort of comment should be like water off a duck's back, much like EEng's colourful choice of words.
6. The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. - Bingo! It is not an English pronoun. If Wikipedia was to proceed as if it was we'd leave a lot of readers scratching their head, or worse, pissing themselves laughing that WP editors would be so credulous. We need people like EEng who are willing to put their neck on the line to stop that sort of nonsense in its tracks, since we appear to have enough editors who are all-to-quick to entertain it.

TL;DR - Support unblock. nagualdesign 23:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock - At the risk of being labeled part of "EEng's fun band of enablers" I can see where they are coming from and their statement supports that. Time to move on. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Non-admin here, I don't think this block is helpful any longer. EEng should've posted their full explanation on the article talk instead of having to come around to it here, but I think it's obvious they were making a simple, legitimate point about commonsense use of pronouns within the context of standard English. But I'm glad to see the preview of the UCOC implementation is going smoothly ;). -Indy beetle (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock - I am disconcerted that HJM didn't accept EE's very reasonable explanation, and I see no way in which the block is in any respect "preventative" any longer. If EE is unblocked and picks up again -- which I highly doubt he would do, in my estimation -- than it's simple enough to block him again for a longer period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. In some cases "unblockable" has meant "behaves inappropriately but has too many supporters to keep blocked". But in some cases it may mean "repeatedly triggers others to behave with inappropriate authoritarianism and is unblocked when it becomes apparent that the authoritarianism was inappropriate". I tend to think EEng is more often the second kind, and that this case is more of the second kind. I don't know; maybe that makes me an enabler. But the WP:AGF explanation that EEng thought, maybe accurately, "surely this request for a pronoun was always intended as a joke and therefore it's ok to treat it as a joke" seems to have been repeatedly missed. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Well, the last episode (or was it the one before the last?) at ANI was with EEng saying to another user that what the user said was idiotic, and they avoided a block because their defenders said it is not a personal attack (a personal attack would be calling the opponent an idiot). They are obviously very skilled in insulting people without facing any consequences for this. Once they must be shown that if they continue behaving like this blocks are inevitable, and no defenders would help them. This is why I oppose unblock. They must sit it out and then move from the edge (or face the next block). Btw if we had a mandatory reconfirmation of administrators, just this remark would add me about twenty opposes, even though it has nothing to do with my use of admin tools.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  You are continuing to bear out what I said immediately above about repeatedly missing the AGF interpretation. We can finish the thought, in multiple different ways: "what the user said was idiotic, if intended seriously, so it must have been a joke", versus "what the user said was idiotic, so the person who said it must have been an idiot". The second of those two is a BLP violation, but was not said by EEng. The first of the two continuations is a valid explanation for why he treated it as a joke, and is not a BLP violation. If we were treating you the way EEng has been treated here, the next step would be to block you for your AGF violations after the issue of AGF has already been directly brought up, and demand that you apologize before being unblocked. But instead I think it might better to point out politely that this might all just be a misunderstanding that you are continuing to misunderstand. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I am sorry, I do not feel safe continuing this debate. I stop now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Where, prior to HJMitchell calling it one in this thread, was EEng's comment ever called a BLP violation? GW called it unnecessarily insulting and it may be, but to editors and not the subject of the article. And after it was removed it was restored with slightly less severe unnecessary insults. I dont see how that merits a block. If GW had called it a BLP violation to begin with, explicitly, then sure, per WP:BLPRESTORE EEng should not have restored it. But she didnt. I dont think the slightly less insulting version merits a NPA block, and at least it has never been restored after being called a BLP vio, so unblock. We can argue over whether or not it is a BLP violation if EEng really wants to restore it after it was removed as one, but that hasnt happened yet so I dont really see the need to do so here. nableezy - 05:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – It is, in my view, appropriate that in the Keiynan Lonsdale article he is (currently) referred to as "Lonsdale" rather than "tree". There would be significant logistical problems using "tree" and what would happen if each week Lonsdale said that he/tree wanted to be known by a different neopronoun? Would the article have to be changed each week? Criticising the general notion of using "tree" as a pronoun on Wikipedia, without being insulting to Lonsdale, is a legitimate point for a Wikipedia editor to make. The logisitical problems of using "tree" as a pronoun on Wikipedia is an issue and I disagree with GorillaWarfare's suggestion that this is similar to a matter in 2019 which GorillaWarfare said is "proof that Wikipedia is not a welcoming place for trans people". Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unblock - I don't see why Ymblanter can !vote but I can't. Everyone can call us "Brigadier Levivich" and "Antibrigadier Ymblanter". Respecting people's preferred pronouns is important. The BLP subject's statement that everyone should use tree as a pronoun is not an expression of gender identity in my view, and it doesn't turn "tree" from a noun into a pronoun, in the same way as someone asking to use he/she/they (which should be respected). Singular they is an acceptable gender neutral pronoun, per dictionaries. I don't think it's a blockable offense to express these views. We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit; the dictionary anyone can edit is down the hall to the left. Edit warring and rudeness are not to be condoned, and I see plenty to roll my eyes about in this fiasco, but not enough to justify a week long full block. And I agree that E is the second type of editor in David's comment above. Over and out, Brigadier Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unblock I can't see where anyone has shown EEng "insulting a BLP subject after being asked to stop" (that's the block reason). I see the OP of this section and I read quite a lot of Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale but that only shows EEng insulting the idea that tree is a pronoun and should be used as such in the article. MOS:GENDERID is good but it's a guideline that gives no hint that an article must use tree due to a single Instagram post (reported here) with no real-world examples of anyone, including the subject's PR firm, using tree. Of course EEng overdoes it but this is the wrong incident to make that point. Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unblock I agree with others that this is not a BLP issue. Perhaps a tone it down issue but not a BLP issue. This feels somewhat like a topic where the moment someone cries -ism we aren't allowed to question and must punish. I guess that means I'm enabling the questioning of -isms. Springee (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unblock EEng per nagualdesign's very clear, and accurate, analysis of the situation. Who is surprised that Wikipedia's court jester has been unfairly sanctioned for pointing out the obvious? EEng was not insulting Lonsdale, but was criticizing Wikipedia colleagues who didn't understand Lonsdale's statements. Decision to block EEng was rash and should probably face its own repercussions: a longstanding a highly valuable editor who's not engaged in obvious vandalism shouldn't be blocked without careful deliberation by the community. It's probably worthwhile noting that there's going to be a generational divide in how Wikipedia editors view these kinds of situations — something we'll all need to keep in mind for future incidents. -Darouet (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Good block; commute to time-limited page ban partial block - someone find me one source on "tree" pronouns, just one, published in a reliable source (not a celebrity gossip blog) after October 2018 or any reliable source from any time which seriously discusses the use of "tree" as a pronoun without being about Lonsdale, and I'll reconsider this comment: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and Lonsdale's proposed use of "tree" as a pronoun is literally made up. Lonsdale has not refined this choice beyond saying "I just want to go by 'tree'", nobody else has even attempted to define the use of "tree" as a pronoun, and Wikipedia does not invent things. If this was any other editor I would not have commented here at all, I would just be pushing the unblock button. EEng, though, has a very long and obviously intractible pattern of escalating and personalizing these disputes, which are sensitive enough in their nature without the pointless aggression. Their comments on this dispute are indistinguishable from trolling, and the more I see EEng instigating these disputes the more I to think that the trolling is the point. It's a good block, and admins shouldn't hesitate to block EEng for longer when (not if) this happens again. He's already said he doesn't mind. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Partially struck because I literally forgot that partial blocks are a thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Good block, do not unblock: the point is not that any single edit by EEng is egregious, but that they are consistently below the tone expected per BLP, as they have been since at least this discussion on the same subject at the end of January. I don't understand why EEng thinks this is worth their valuable time, rather than dropping the stick and moving onto something that improves the encyclopedia. A week's block with threat of further escalation from there sends the message that it will certainly not be worthwhile for EEng to continue. A day's block sends the message that continuing unchanged will not have meaningful consequences. — Bilorv (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep blocked Comments like "I care little about being blocked, as most people know, since it's one of the hazards of the job.”[273] suggest that the subject of the block does not understand that blocks are serious and believes that they can be disregarded, shortening their block would seem to only reinforce this understanding. Their behavior during these proceedings also raised civility and battleground issues, I don’t understand why they insist on insulting and belittling people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  If Lonsdale himself now uses the pronoun he, how do we know that he doesn't himself think the tree idea is (or was) "idiotic"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I think you meant to place this response in another section, I never even mentioned any of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I meant it here thanks, in response to your comment about "insulting and belittling people." But maybe I've misundestood who you think EEng was insulting and belittling. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You have correctly diagnosed the misunderstand, I meant insulting and belittling wikipedia editors and groups at large after the serious discussion began not the original BLP issue. Examples:

"fey pretension” "your comment shows you didn't actually read the discussion on the article's talk page” "If other people want to invest their mental energy in referring to their friends by tree or bunny pronouns [156], that's also not my business.” "my disdain is for those” "we have editors so focused on falling all over themselves in the RIGHTGREATWRONGS department that they can't see the forest for the, um, trees.” "I care little about being blocked, as most people know, since it's one of the hazards of the job.” "I'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of your continuing to say that my, er, criticism was directed at the subject of the article.” "dancing as fast as you can” “nothing but handwaving” "and twice ignored by you even as you were posting the above exercise in alternative reality”

Either thats not ok or the line most of us think we’re toeing isn’t even close to the real line. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifyng. I don't have a problem with most of that "banter". But then I wasn't the target and perhaps I'm too thick-skinned. But at least two of those comments go a bit too far for me. Whether they justify a week's block, I'm just not sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Right block, wrong reason. EEng did not in any genuine way violate BLP. But he absolutely violated NPA. I think that the place to start from, when thinking about this dispute, is that gendering and misgendering is a very significant and serious issue for LGBTQ+ people, and comes from some very real suffering, and that obligates Wikipedia to treat it respectfully. EEng argued at the article talk page to use the non-gendered "they", but not to use "tree" in Wikipedia's voice. He never said, nor ever really implied, that Lonsdale commented about "tree" out of any kind of bad reason, such as stupidity or the like. EEng argued that Lonsdale should be treated by editors as intelligent and self-aware, and therefore, editors should not take Lonsdale's statement about "tree" as a serious reason to use the word "tree" in Wikipedia's voice. This is an argument that, understandably, can push other editors' buttons: but what if "tree" really, seriously, is the preferred pronoun? It's false to construe EEng's comments as meaning that EEng thinks that Lonsdale was stupid because of seriously wanting to be called "tree".

So why did so many good-faith editors find it unthinkable that EEng was doing anything other than disparaging Lonsdale? Exactly because the issue of misgendering is such a sensitive one. Editors on both "sides" of the content dispute felt deeply and emotionally invested in the dispute. And EEng took it a step too far, by very blatantly calling the belief that "tree" should be used in Wikipedia's voice some very insulting things. And when GW reverted him, he restored the insulting comments, with obviously insincere strike-throughs. Those were personal attacks against other editors, but not attacks against Lonsdale. It wasn't a BLP violation. It was an NPA violation that got twisted into WP:CRYBLP.

But the block should stand, and run its course. A block can be flawed without being so flawed as to require unblocking. EEng has long had a problem getting the message that, just because he realizes (usually correctly!) that other editors are doing something wrong, that does not entitle him to ridicule those editors. He really does need to get that message. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this analysis is pretty close to the mark. I think that EEng will not get the right message if he is unblocked early, as has happened so often in the past. If the block is serving a purpose, it should stay, even if NPA should have been given in the block log instead of BLP.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock per others (especially nagualdesign) above. Also I'm actually amazed at the fact there are people who are unironically arguing we should indeed use the "tree" pronoun in the article (it is lunacy). The fact that there are no pronouns at all makes the article a bad read, but I can at least compromise and accept that. — Czello 17:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• comment Tryptofish has put it well. I like EEng. I used to think him funny. But the humor in his posts has been replaced by meanness/cruelty. It is no longer (if it ever was) overly sensitive, butt-hurt users complaining because he took the piss out of them. The hurtfulness has reached an unacceptable level of non collegial behavior. And whatever positive effects his mockery might have had in driving home a point has been lost in the meanness. It has become counter productive as a rhetorical tool and has (seemingly) become meanness for its own sake. Unblocked or not, he needs to reflect on this. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I feel the need to clarify that, in my opinion, the cruelty isn't as bad as how you describe it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  EEng commented somewhere on his talk page that he intended to give a "short, sharp shock" ([274]) to the editors who wanted to respect Lonsdale's stated gender expression, misguided though they may have been (as it seems Lonsdale himself has retracted that statement). "Shock", of course, implying that EEng intended to provoke an emotional reaction over users' closely-held beliefs over a very sensitive issue (you described this much better than I can). Cruelty is precisely the word to use for this, whether that was EEng's intent or not.

I've said a variation of this comment before: I truly believe that EEng is a smart person, is capable of grasping how this incident was a misstep, and is capable of taking on these comments and addressing this situation more respectfully in the future. However, what EEng has repeatedly demonstrated he does not understand (or that he doesn't care) is that his many followers are not so capable, and will follow his cruel example. Several have commented that they thought it was funny. There are only two solutions to this: the much preferable one is that EEng finally takes some shred of accountability for this and sets a better example. The other involves a lot of pushing of the block button. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I consider myself a close wiki-friend of EEng, but in that regard, let me suggest to his fellow "followers" that you take a look at WP:USTHEM. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, that's part of why I'm not seeing a genuine consensus here to unblock (also notavote, etc.). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he is a smart person. Trouble is, now and then, he's a bit too smart. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it was for the wrong reason. If you are ridiculing and mocking an idea that can be attributed to a living person (in this case Lonsdale), where that idea originated from, then yes, you are ridiculing and mocking that person as well. If an editor believes that content is not suitable for inclusion in an article, then make your point without resorting to ridicule and mockery of an idea that is obviously associated with a living person. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• We're talking about a user who was first blocked in 2014, and has managed to get blocked at least once a year, every year since then. And it seems tht each time there is an element that wants it reduced to "time served". I have never bought that as an argument. A block isn't a prison sentence, and without assurances that this disruption won't be annually visited upon the community in perpetuity I see no cause to reduce the block length from the rather modest one week, which is pretty lenient for someone's fourteenth block. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. Be it for BLP or NPA reasons, EEng's block was correctly imposed (although I tend to follow the BLP school of thought). I hope that after the block expires, EEng will take to heart what their close colleagues like Okra are saying. I would also add that I completely agree with Beeblebrox's reasoning. "Time served" is a strange concept, and I don't think I've seen it used with such a great frequency. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• From the Department of Hasn't He Suffered Enough: Right wing news media in the US are taking up this en-wiki dispute as a supposed example of cancel culture, or something like that (linked to elsewhere on-site, I won't link to it here). Anyone who knows about EEng's political views should see this as truly hilarious! EEng is being heralded as a champion of Trump-world. And that's a far worse punishment for EEng than anything anyone can do here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately that particular publication has decided to give a platform to a banned user with a grudge list, and I am one of the editors on that list. I am always sorry to see when other editors are named in pieces that that author uses to further his own personal axe grinding; it is extremely unpleasant to be targeted by that particular "news" publication and its readerbase. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Please let me make it very, very clear that I share your view that such publications are despicable. I agree entirely that the kind of stuff that has been directed at you is deplorable, and I have nothing but sympathy and well-wishes for your experiences. My seeing humor in those publications reflects my seeing a total lack of self-awareness in them. And just maybe, we have identified something where you, I, and EEng, find ourselves agreeing in our disapproval of that part of the media universe. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unblock - for all the reasons stated above. Atsme 💬 📧 23:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

BLP violation?

Leaving aside, for the moment, the other bad things EEng may have done, the block reason is given as BLP violations, in particular "insulting" an LP, so I would like us to focus on that here. And as the following question, asked elsewhere of the blocking admin, has so far gone unanswered I would like to repeat it here:

@HJ Mitchell: Since one important issue here seems to be whether EEng's criticism was directed at the subject of the article, and so possibly a BLP violation, something EEng specifically denies above, are there diffs that, in your view, show that he did?

Above GorillaWarfare has said that the two diffs, which in GorillaWarfare's view are BLP violations are these:

• 04:35, 23 March 2021 at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "If he really wanted to be called tree they'd be calling him that, but of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope."
• 00:57, 25 March 2021‎ at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism. No words can properly capture how idiotic the idea is, not to mention how idiotic it is to take the concept seriously. I may want to be referenced by the pronoun Lordthygod but if people don't do that it's not transphobia or any other kind of phobia. I keep returning to the idea that this may be a grand hoax along the lines of the Sokal affair, designed to test how credulous Wikipedia editors can be."

In my view, neither of these are insults directed at Lonsdale. The first seems to express, in fact, a somewhat positive view of Lonsdale, that in EEng's opinion Lonsdale is the kind of person who would not want to sound like an "affected dope". In the second—since it is obvious that EEng does not think that Lonsdale seriously wants to be called "tree", that in fact the whole thing is, in EEng's opinion, a "grand hoax"—none of the words "lunacy", "stupid", "Cretinism" or "Idiotic" can refer to Lonsdale. So I think it is obvious that there is no BLP violation here. So unless there are other more damning statement made by EEng, EEng should be unblocked. Paul August ☎ 12:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - on the BLP issue, the sources that covered Lonsdale's Instagram live Q&A, [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], didn't take the approach of describing Lonsdale or his comments as: a "whimsical ha-ha", or "talking out of his ass" or that his comments would "make him sound like an affected dope", nor do they say, "The idea that tree is a pronoun is, bluntly, idiocy". And since it was Lonsdale's idea that tree is a pronoun he wanted to go by, it's obvious that EEng is making a dig at Lonsdale and his idea as being, bluntly, idiocy, and also making a dig at Lonsdale's opinion on neopronouns, by saying it would make him sound like an affected dope. These comments by EEng were not related to making content choices, or he would have kept his argument confined to policies and guidelines, instead he chose to make digs in relation to Lonsdale's ideas and opinions. And it doesn't make any difference if it's patently obvious that he made no such choice; Lonsdale is still entitled to express his opinions and ideas about neopronouns without editors offering a running commentary that is offensive and insulting. Good lord, if EEng is so easily frustrated by "that idea", and his disdain is for those who keep insisting that we actually refer to Lonsdale as tree in his article, the correct course of action would have been to walk away and let someone else handle the matter, he didn't do that and doesn't seem to acknowledge that he should have done exactly that. And quite frankly what is really insulting, is the idea that some editors have expressed here in this thread, and EEng on the talk page, is that Lonsdale's article would have actually used tree as a pronoun to describe him, just because a few rogue editors showed up and changed the pronouns due to an obscure and non-notable tweet. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• This comes across as just playing word games. Fundamentally, if you state that a person's idea is "lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism. No words can properly capture how idiotic the idea is, not to mention how idiotic it is to take the concept seriously" then the reality is that you are attacking the person. Sure, it is worded as being attack on an idea, but most readers will (rightly) read that as also an attack on the person who came up wth the idea. Let's not lawyer this to death. - Bilby (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

But, it seems to be that EEng's opinion was that it wasn't Lonsdale's idea that is "lunacy", rather it is the idea of some Wikipedia editors that Lonsdale was being serious which was "lunacy", so I still don't see this is attacking Lonsdale. Paul August ☎ 13:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd accept that, but the wording quoted above was "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism.". That was an idea proposed by the subject. I understand the wish to defend a respected editor, but fundamentally if you say to someone that their idea is lunacy (or worse, cretinism) then aren't you saying something about them as well, as they are the originator of the idea? I just feel that the "they said the idea was stupid, not the person who proposed it" has merit, but not when it went this far. If that was written about an idea I'd proposed, I'd feel affronted. I suspect that many others would feel the same. - Bilby (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it an insult to Jonathan Swift that I think eating children is a dumb idea? Because he had that idea. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr Swift was a satirist. He didn't go around calling himself a tree? ("I shall be like that tree", he once said, "I shall die at the top.") Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If EEng wanted to die in a tree, he should have waited until next weekend. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with Paul August. I can’t see the “playing with words” point. He was clearly ridiculing the IP who wanted to to use tree not Lonsdale. (I don’t buy that he was ridiculing just the concept, it was clearly directed at the IP - for being a “credulous Wikipedia editor” - as well as the concept.) The whole tone and force of it, as well as the literal words on the page, are crying out (in terms): “It’s obvious Lonsdale wasn’t serious and anyone who thinks he was is an idiot”. But it’s HJ Mitchell that needs to comment. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) While I don't agree that "EEng wasn't calling Lonsdale an idiot/dope/lunatic/stupid/cretin, they were calling Wikipedians that", even if it is true that is still unacceptable behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Well yes, calling Wikipedians that is (of course) not good. But that is not the stated block reason. And as I asked above, can we please focus in this section on BLP issues? Paul August ☎ 13:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

GW, the identity of that IP editor remains unknown (of course). What is your view on the possibility of a Sokal affair situation? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the identity of the IP editor is relevant; IPs are Wikipedians too.

You mean the possibility that Lonsdale made the statement about pronouns solely to see if RS and/or Wikipedia would begin using those pronouns? That seems very unlikely to me. Lonsdale is a part of the LGBTQ community, and trying to convince publications to use neopronouns that you don't genuinely use would be seen by many in the LGBTQ community to be transphobic. While being a part of the LGBTQ community doesn't eliminate the possibility that he's trolling (certainly there are LGBT people who engage in trolling, and there are transphobic members of the LGBTQ community), he doesn't appear to have exhibited other behavior that would suggest he is prone to either of those things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the IP's other four Wikipedia edits seem to have been good ones, so we have to give them the benefit of the doubt, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. did somone ask the IP if they were offended by EEng's language?

@GorillaWarfare: Could you clarify your original reply to me? Are you saying even if I were right, EEng should still have been blocked i.e. even if it wasn’t ridiculing a BLP because of the supposed neopronoun? That’s really puzzling if that’s what you’re saying. It’s obviously not good behaviour, but a week’s block? If it’s not, I don’t understand the relevance. DeCausa (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right: Either they were ridiculing a BLP (as I believe), or they were making personal attacks against other editors (as you and others have suggested). Both are blockworthy, particularly from an experienced editor. Whether the latter would've (or should've) landed them a week-long block, I don't know and it's not my place to say, but the suggestion that "they shouldn't have been blocked because they did [X blockworthy thing], because they really did [Y blockworthy thing]" seems odd to me. If you simply meant that the block should've been shorter if they were making personal attacks rather than attacking a BLP, I suppose that's at least an understandable argument, although, again, not one I agree with. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it. I think most would say that in context (and without the BLP/neopronouns) what EEng said might earn a reprimand but not a block, but thanks for answering. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• I said yesterday that this edit was ill-advised and reminded me of a non-apology apology, that might have been worth a short block if it disrupted conversation. However, I think he's served enough time now and, unless he's got any grudges to bear, we should unblock. Although, EEng has quite happily said he'll sit the block out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism" could be taken as an attack on both the originator of the idea, Lonsdale, and the Wikipedia IP editor who wants to include it. As Serial Number 54129 said right at the beginning of this thread, the two are intertwined. Once the comment was removed and a request to stop made on his talk page, EEng should not have restored it. A block for that behaviour was within administrator discretion.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• There seems to be suggestion that the first removal should have been accompanied by a clear warning that it was a BLP violation. But then, elsewhere in this thread, there seem to be a few instances where folks have said "EEng oughta know this". There seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal: It seems to me that there is a considerable majority of opinion that there was no BLP violation (rough consensus even?). So, since the stated block reason is BLP violations, I'm inclined to unblock. If another admin chooses to block again with some other reason that's up to them. (In my opinion EEng has been guilty of extreme rudeness, but I don't know whether a further block is warranted or useful. I generally think there are more effective ways to persuade editors to be nice to each other.) Are there serious objections to my unblocking? Is there a consensus to support this? Paul August ☎ 16:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: I suggest ("seriously") that you leave the weighing of such a delicate consensus to an experienced administrator. Might be for the best all round. Cheers, ——Serial 16:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: As for experience, I've been an admin for 16 years. I was an arb, and I've been a functionary (or the equivalent) for 14 years. Is that not experienced enough? Paul August ☎ 16:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, perhaps an admin who has done all or some of those things (and what is the "equivalent" of a functionary?) in the last decade would be a Brucie Bonus. Cheers, ——Serial 17:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: My "or equivalent" refers being an arb or ex arb during the period before functionary was technically a thing (c. 2009), in any case I've been a functionary as long as there have been any. The rest of your comment seems to be some sort of denegration of me, ironically (given the setting) something which most of us here in this thread (but not you?) agree is not helpful. Please don't do that. Paul August ☎ 17:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I think you are letting your opinion dictate the result, and that, as you probably know, results in a supervote. V poor! If wishes were horses, beggars could ride, you know? ——Serial 17:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I oppose unblocking with no further consequences, per my comment above. There's more to this than what was probably not a BLP violation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

When you say "Their comments on this dispute are indistinguishable from trolling", do you mean the comments EEng has asked other editors to be added to this thread, or something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm referring to the five comments linked with diffs in the original post. Did you mean to put your reply after that comment above rather than after this one? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:, given that you think EEng probably did not commit a BLP violation, are you not concerned that, his block log says he did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul August (talk • contribs) 17:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: pinging doesn't work unless you sign your edit. No, I'm not concerned about the precise terminology in the block log whatsoever, I'm concerned with stopping the bad behaviour. More on this below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah thanks. No I meant here, after you said "There's more to this than what was probably not a BLP violation." I can see why those comments might look like trolling. EEng often seems to be "on the up-escalator" when most others in a debate are already going down. And if someone tries, however politely, to ask him to "be quiet", he can over-react a little. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the question is whether we would tolerate someone who consistently over-reacted like that to polite and civil advice if they weren’t a senior editor. EEng seems to be able to get away with a lot, personally I like the guy and he hasn’t ever wronged me personally but I think the chorus of voices saying we have a double standard issue here is probably more right than they are wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, we have a chorus of voices saying he should be unblocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

In no way does that answer the question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

In response to the "more to this" question from a few lines up, I mean pretty much what Tryptofish said in their comment in the main section. EEng entered a dispute over a sensitive topic on an article that happens to be a BLP, and whatever was the origin of the dispute, it came here because of EEng's uncivil behaviour and comments directed towards other users, as well as generally insensitive comments about the broader subject which is already a recurring issue for EEng. The block being marked as for BLP violations (which I agree was incorrect) is a side point and a deflection: the problem is that EEng made the comments at all. I don't give a fig what it says in the block log nor how long EEng stays blocked for; I care about putting an end once and for all to EEng and several editors like him responding to genuine discussions about gender and LGBTQ+ issues with trolling and personal attacks, and then whining about being blocked since their insensitive comments weren't directed at specific persons. I'm increasingly thinking, since EEng has stated they see these blocks as a "hazard of the job", that they should be blocked indefinitely until they make a commitment to avoid this happening again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the other instances of "trolling and personal attacks" at gender and LGBTQ+ topics. I guess that would be a separate admin action/ discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

As am I. Diffs please, Ivanvector. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you agree with me in part, I want to disagree with your idea of a condition-based indef block. This sorry situation needs to deescalate, not look for ways to up the ante. I still think that letting the block remain and run its course is the best option. In particular, it never does any good to demand a commitment with a (metaphorically) pointed gun. EEng will either say OK in order to get unblocked or commit suicide-by-administrator, neither of which is a good outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well then we agree to disagree, I suppose. If by "this sorry situation" you mean the BLP's talk page, I concede it would be much better if users could just treat everyone with respect (you know, this old thing) but if they just won't, then removing them is a much less preferable but perfectly plausible solution. I'll do you one better though: I suggested above that this block should be converted to a page ban (I meant a partial block but apparently I've been away too long) for the original duration. But it also looks like EEng is doing everything he can to not learn anything from this, so IMO indef is on the table. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

By "sorry situation", I meant the dispute over what to do with the block, as discussed here at ANI. I don't think anyone would really have a problem with a block from just the one page, but if you see this as a systemic conduct problem, there is no reason to think that it won't move to another page, so there's probably no point. EEng is smarter than I think you are giving him credit for, and he's more likely to actually learn and do better if you don't push him up against the wall. I am sure that he is getting the message, if his wiki-friends are not bringing about an early end to the week-long block. And in any case, if we have multiple admins arguing that there may be a consensus to unblock now, you will find yourself in an uphill battle to argue for an indef. I'd rather not have a shouting match an argument between "unblock!" and "indef!" --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a long thread so it's not necessarily safe to assume you've seen the comment from the blocking admin above. For what it's worth I do oppose unblocking, though I'm obviously not an uninvolved admin here, so weigh that how you will. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Let an uninvolved admin judge the consensus. It's also a bit disingenuous to suggest another admin could immediately re-block for a different reason, as that would effectively be wheel-warring and is not going to happen.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Surely the technical wheel-war issue can be got around? I'm saying that I won't consider another admin choosing to block for a different reason other than BLP violation to be "Reinstating a reverted action" of mine, so not wheel-warring by definition. Or if we can gain a consensus for a new block with different stated reasons. Then I would be willing to make that block, which would also seem to avoid a WW. Paul August ☎ 18:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Any kind of admin-vs-admin action here will just escalate the situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Gott im Hiimmell. Paul August, you've been here long enough to know not to suggest such a thing. That's why the strictures are so strict and the aversion to even reversing an admin action so strong. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an extraordinarily bad idea, no matter what one thinks of the block. Brainstorming ways to end-run the wheel warring policy right on ANI... that is special. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Indeed. Well said! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: @Deepfriedokra: No, you've both misunderstood me. I'm saying we can do what I've proposed without WWing. My unblock would not be WWing. And a new block could be done also without WWing (via discussion and consensus). So no "end-run" here. Paul August ☎ 11:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating consensus to unblock EEng

I dispute, in the strongest possible terms, the idea that there must be a "very clear consensus" here before an unblock, or else HJ Mitchell will bring the unblocking admin to ArbCom. HJ Mitchell has made it clear that this is not a DS block (although he wished he could have done one, which is fine). It is not OK to demand the same higher level of consensus required to overturn DS sanctions when it is not a DS sanction. And there is an extreme chilling effect on an admin reviewing this, finding that there is a "normal" consensus to unblock, but not doing so because of the threat of being dragged to ArbCom because it isn't at that heightened level of consensus. This is not a moot point, because I think there is a "normal" consensus to unblock (or reduce to time served, I haven't looked at this in depth to see which). I consider this issue a much bigger deal that EEng being a jerk on a talk page, and if there is a consensus to unblock, it is not fair to EEng to keep them blocked in order to not "escalate the situation". If an admin sees a consensus to unblock here, they should unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"extreme chilling effect ". You bet your sweet Aunt Bippy. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about whether it's "very clear" or just "clear", and I agree that HJ does not have the power to declare unilaterally that the policy for unblocking is different here than it is otherwise. But I'm not seeing a community consensus, one way or the other. Clear, cloudy, hazy, or whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that asssessment. Personally, I think EEng should be unblocked, because I didn't read the quoted diffs as BLP violations, since I, too, think the suggestion to use 'tree' as a pronoun was meant lightheartedly, not necessarily mockingly, but not really dead-seriously either. I don't think, however, that I can change the minds of those who support this block. Maybe I can persuade EEng to concede that it's not always about being right, and that being right isn't a license to go on and on in a quarrelsome fashion when faced with resistance to the argument by other estabished editors. A couple of months ago there was a long exchange between EEng and another argumentative editor, and it was a basically a contest about who's the smartest person in the room, and it was unproductive. Anyway, no need to concede to that, but maybe acknowledge the subtext (as well as explicit text) of this discussion. Maybe that will allow for a sooner unblock. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't had much to do with EEng, so so I don't know if this is part of a wider pattern. But this is the second issue I've seen with EEng's editing this week - the first was when EEng dropped a video that seemed to be making fun of people for their sexual preferences in a discussion with on ANI [282]. EEng did explain that this was a mistake, and it was intended for a different discussion - and I fully believe that was the case. However, my concern was EEng's response - reinstating the video but striking it out (was it necessary to keep it in?) and attacking those who took offence: [283] even after they tried to politely de-escalate the issue [284]. There was a similar response here - when faced with concerns from other editors, Eeng seemed to dig in rather than finding a way to de-escalate. I'm not worried about whether there is consensus to unblock or not, but we've all seen the path that Eeng's actions take editors down, and it would be nice if Eeng found a way to get off that path before we get there. - Bilby (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't delete a page because there wasn't a "very clear consensus" to keep it. We leave the page alone in its natural (undeleted) state. We don't move a page because a move discussion didn't have a strong consensus against moving it. We keep the status quo. If somebody jumps the gun by deleting or moving the page before the discussion is complete, we don't leave their action in place if the discussion lacks a clear consensus. We restore the status quo ante. The natural state of an editor is to be unblocked. If a quorum of administrators can't muster a consensus that a single admin's block is necessary, the blocked editor should be restored to their status quo (unblocked) state. (Note however that if a consensus of administrators finds that an editor should be blocked, it does require a clear consensus to later overturn that new status quo.) The exception to this is Discretionary Sanctions, but that's the exception, and this was not a DS block. ~Awilley (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• The consensus to unblock is obvious. I have unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 03:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC).

• Brigand Likes. El_C 04:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• If you didn't, I would have. The consensus to unblock was clear, but even if it was debatable, a blocking admin does not get to issue preemptive threats that their blocks are not to be overturned by a community consensus, as read by an uninvolved admin, unless the consensus meets their own standard for being "clear" enough. Hell no. Shocking, chilling, authoritarian, borderline abusive conduct coming from HJ, who we all know knows better. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Atsme 💬 📧 00:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• moving forward, how about adding a warning to the user page that they should never be blocked. ~ cygnis insignis 05:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be appropriate, but see my post just below. EEng 12:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Post-close analysis

• I've just undone Ivanvector's close since I don't think the close comment is an accurate description of the discussion. Can we please have a Non-POV closure? Paul August ☎ 12:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  A good close might combine David Eppstein's observation above...

  In some cases "unblockable" has meant "behaves inappropriately but has too many supporters to keep blocked". But in some cases it may mean "repeatedly triggers others to behave with inappropriate authoritarianism and is unblocked when it becomes apparent that the authoritarianism was inappropriate".

  ... with one made by Iridescent elsewhere [285]:

  EEng in particular [has] been repeat victims of a known flaw in Wikipedia's dispute-resolution mechanism, owing to there being no easy way to flag "not actionable"; a hundred admins can see a comment and deem it non-problematic, but if one admin deems the comment problematic they can block on the spot. The platonic ideal of such an incident—complete with the obligatory admin wagon-circling—is probably the block documented here.)

  And finally, it's a little disconcerting to see the number of admins commenting above who don't know how to read a block log. I've been blocked 15 times now. The first was six years ago, by an admin pissed off at my criticism of him (seen here), and the second was by the same admin, still butthurt that that his beloved bot wasn't allowed to keep breaking an article [286]. Then there's one joke block and nine overturned blocks. That leaves three blocks that I probably deserved, in thirteen years of editing. I'm not ashamed.

  EEng 12:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, what do you think of Choess' observation further up the second discussion, regarding gadflies and errors in judgment? Mackensen (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  EEng: Perhaps your lack of shame is part of the problem. That you've behaved in a way that has engendered "nine overturned blocks" does not speak well of you. Paul August ☎ 14:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Nine overturned blocks is a sign of someone who pisses off admins but not the larger community. I'm not sure what to make of that, though I think it speaks worse of the nine admins than of E. But of course I would say that. Over and out, Brigadier Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Considering that @Bishonen: was the one who unblocked and decided that consensus to unblock is obvious, they should have closed the discussion and provided a rationale for their unblock. Of course I guess anyone is free to close the discussion. Personally, I liked Ivanvector's close, made perfect sense, even if it was a POV close. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I would have liked to hear a little more than "I've unblocked." And judging by EEng's responses so far, there is unlikely to be any self-reflection and we'll all be here again in a few months. P-K3 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and not that it makes any difference now, since he is unblocked, but after re-reading this entire thread, and all of the comments and genuine concerns expressed, it doesn't appear that the consensus was obvious, at least to me. It looks more like no consensus. I do hope the eventual closer will address the issues raised here in this thread though, just so the community can have clarity. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

As misconceived as it was, I bet I wasn’t the only one that was disappointed to see the non-admin closure reverted. But this carcass needs a funeral director/mortician (depending on your ENGVAR). DeCausa (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

One of these, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The closing comment by Usedtobecool seemed appropriate and NPOV. (For those who missed it: [287]) Are non-admin closures forbidden at ANI? Is that what you mean by "As misconceived as it was"? nagualdesign 20:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there was nothing necessarily wrong with it but I think non-admin closures of drama-sinks are generally thought unwise (e.g. WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC, an essay). DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. Cheers. nagualdesign 21:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The opinions were roughly 2:1 in favor of an unblock by my count, that's a pretty clear and obvious consensus in my opinion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• So the guy who thought he'd preempt community discussion by imposing a unilateral block, then threatened to sic Arbcom on his fellow admins in a desperate attempt to avoid being overturned, somehow decides he's the right guy to close the discussion. Now that's chutzpah! But given the circumstances the impulse to avert further scrutiny is certainly understandable.
  EEng 03:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. There were a number of thoughtful points made (in this thread and elsewhere) – by friends, foes, and those in between – that have gone unanswered because of other pressures (and, of course, having both hands tied behind my back for most of the discussion didn't help). I hope to get to them in the fullness of time. All are welcome on my talk page for further collegial reflection and fearless self-examination.
  P.P.S. Somewhere along the way someone changed this thread's title from "EEng ridiculing a BLP who uses neopronouns" to the more tentative "EEng ridiculing a BLP who may use neopronouns". In light of Talk:Keiynan_Lonsdale#Lonsdale_uses_"him", let me suggest someone now change it to "EEng ridiculing the idea of insisting on calling someone tree who doesn't want to be called tree".
• @Swarm: - And by the way, that's part of why I'm not seeing a genuine consensus here to unblock: The opinions were roughly 17 good block/oppose unblock to 14 support unblock. That's not a pretty clear and obvious consensus in my opinion. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Nobody is entirely happy". Quelle surprise. But getting a horse into a coffin is a neat trick. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: Just to be clear, when you wrote The opinions were roughly 17 good block/oppose unblock to 14 support unblock. I think you got those numbers the wrong way around. After careful re-reading, by my count it was 14 opposing unblock versus at least 18 supporting unblock (3 others appear to have supported unblocking without explicitly stating it), which is roughly 2:1 in favor of an unblock, as Swarm stated (Edit: Sorry, no, that's roughly 3:2. My bad). I realize that consensus isn't necessarily about totting up !votes, and perhaps non-admins such as myself don't count (?), but you meant to write "The opinions were roughly 14 good block/oppose unblock to 17 support unblock", right? Sorry to keep bludgeoning the carcass! nagualdesign 17:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't get those numbers the wrong way around. You said - 3 others appear to have supported unblocking without explicitly stating it; There were also comments that appeared to oppose unblocking without explicitly stating it (5 by my count). And I didn't even include GorillaWarfare (the filer) or HJ Mitchell (blocking admin) as being opposed to unblocking, I just assumed their actions would speak for themselves. I'd also note that I did not count Atsme's !vote because it was made after Bishonen had already unblocked. However you slice and dice the numbers and comments and/or opinions expressed, I still stand by my point that there was not a pretty clear and obvious consensus to unblock. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, somebody should have closed this, but... An irony that really needs to be pointed out, because it reflects in a very serious way upon how blocks should be issued, is that one of the justifications for the block, given at the time, is that what EEng did could bring disrepute to Wikipedia. And yet... what actually happened is that the block is what attracted attention from the outside world. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• This was closed properly by an uninvolved editor, but that close was undone. Perhaps this is a good time to remind everyone that WP:BADNAC is an essay that doesn't have global consensus, while there has been global consensus, for over eight years now, that a NAC shouldn't be reversed simply because it was made by a non-admin. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This is perhaps a good time to remind people that a close on an admin board must be more than uninvolved, it must reflect consensus. It did not, so it was a bad close. Anyone who can't see that needs their brains tested. ——Serial 18:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I must admit I was expecting an uninvolved admin close that included the phrase "EEng is strongly reminded... " or similar. Perhaps HJ Mitchell felt too compromised to do this, as he was 100% involved? But folks do get fed up after days of argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.