Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018

Rogers Communications LTA once again
It seem the LTA had changed their ip address from. But again, EngVar vandalism pattern is unchanged. Also additional cross-wiki vandalism in zh-wiki in zh:國泰航空. Matthew hk (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous ANI
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive946
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008
 * Blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Genre warring on Heartbreak on Hold article
The new user Iwannasingmysongtoo continues to add R&B in the infobox of Heartbreak on Hold, sourcing it with an italian blog's article. Warned. Blueberry72 (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the behavior, I'm pretty sure this is LTA. I've filed an SPI. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I blocked for 48h, but looks like a sock indeed, only edit-warring and no useful contribution,--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now confirmed as a sock and CU blocked--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IPs
I've been having problems with a few IPs (probably the same person) inserting line-breaks into locations in Infoboxes, making them into a sort of address format. This had been done to a couple dozen pages, some many times over: I had explained several times in edit summaries that it's an inappropriate format and also sent a warning to the Talk page of one of the IPs, but they're apparently ignoring me. A temporary page protection had been placed on one of the pages worst affected, but once that had expired, they again returned to doing the same edits.

These are the IPs that had been used: Would a range block be appropriate here? Alivardi (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They're all from the same ISP, but that's a impractically large range of IPv6 addrs to block for one person. creffett (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to say a temporary range block. Though I don't know if it would be much of an issue either way, since they seem to be the only person making edits from these IPs. Then again, I may have just misunderstood how the blocks work. Alivardi (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The 2402 IPv6 address is a cellular provider and not the same as the other IPs. Rangeblocks operate on addresses which share the leftmost values in common. So "2405:204:8183:xxx" and "2405:204:8189:xxx" are provisioned together by the ISP as a /36 block: 2^92-1 addresses in this block. The "2409" address is a completely different /36 block, and "2402" is a /48 block: 2^80-1 more addresses in this block. We'll take these massive numbers with a grain of salt, because each individual customer may be assigned a /64, but still, these are large swathes of address space, and not contiguous, so the collateral damage is a denial of service to perhaps everyone who uses this ISP in Gujarat. Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn. Point taken. Any ideas for an alternative solution? Alivardi (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An edit filter? -- 2001:16B8:1E2E:5700:C51F:E800:7F3D:5D42 (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it works. I'm not really to familiar with it. Honestly, I'm just getting tired of dealing with this. I've been doing multiple reversions a day for over a week now. Alivardi (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sooo an edit filter? Is that the way I should go? Alivardi (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of an RfC on a Talk Page


I have COI as a paid consultant to Noah Kraft, the subject of a BLP. I posted an RfC at Talk:Noah Kraft and it was removed, apparently by DaRonPayne based on his comments toward the bottom of Talk:Noah Kraft that he was "not open to holding a vote until I've had an opportunity to post a rebuttal to the new points that you've raised." The editor also moved the discussion from the RfC into the previous section, a closed Request Edit so it appears as though the Request Edit already had a discussion about the proper use of a new primary source. It did not when the RfC was posted as a new section. Strangely, I have not been able to pinpoint the removal and move on Talk History. You can see the RfC as I posted it in History here: Special:Diff/914189294 When I made the Request Edit, it was a simple matter because I was only asking for removal of an unsourced contentious statement on a BLP. But DaRonPayne objected, so the Request Edit was closed with a recommendation by the reviewing editor for discussion amongst editors. Immediately afterwards, DaRonPayne added a new primary source to the article, so most of the Request Edit discussion about the lack of a source became moot.

I left notice on the section that I intended to start a new section about the remaining NPOV issue and whether use of the new primary source is proper. DaRonPayne asked for more time to do research. The editor has added a long series of interleaving replies to individual points in the closed Request Edit, against WP:TPO, making the closed Request Edit section especially unsuitable for gathering consensus amongst editors for a new issue. Finally, to compound he situation, DaRonPayne has added a series of vicious personal attacks against me in the closed Request Edit, such as accusing me of "scummy and unethical behavior that reflects poorly on Wikipedia" and accusations of "vote-rigging, before you attempt to do it again." I had already requested that the editor refrain from personal attacks on article Talk and instead, direct any complaints against me to COIN or Admins.

I'd ask that Admins intervene to review and restore the RfC (I believe it to be neutrally phrased) and to take the unusual step of removing the personal attacks against me in Talk, as his accusations are extremely slanderous and an attempt to sway the outcome of the consensus decision on content, and intimidate me, by maligning my professional reputation. I am notifying DaRonPayne on their Talk page of this report.BC1278 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * BC1278 is attempting to jam through controversial changes to the page of his paying client, the subject of the page, without allowing any time for discussion of those changes. I'm completely open to having a poll, under a few conditions:
 * (1.) That BC1278 wait 48 hours for me to respond to his arguments
 * (2.) That BC1278 not be allowed to contact editors that have voted for his changes in the past, since could tarnish Wikipedia's public image, given BC1278's history of controversial tactics around votes.
 * (3.) That anyone voting on the change disclose if BC1278 has contacted them to vote on one of his suggested changes in the past, and if so, how many times.
 * (4.) That the poll be reworded to something acceptably neutral. As a paid editor, BC1278 should not have the ability to unilaterally determine the wording of the poll just because he was the first one to post it.
 * (5.) That there is disclosure that BC1278 has come under scrutiny from other Wikipedia editors and journalists for a pattern of controversial tactics around votes.
 * Note that BC1278 has materially misrepresented his history of changes to the page. (1.) The claim he objected to was not "unsourced", although it was updated with a newer source, (2.) The editor objected to BC1278's change because it was objectively controversial, not because of my involvement.
 * BC1278 exaggerates the difficulty of using the preceding discussion as a basis for gathering consensus, but in any event, that makes the need for a reply to the new claims that he raised all the more urgent so that editors have the context to evaluate this dispute. BC1278 has made several claims that I believe are false or misleading, and he shouldn't be allowed to logjam through a poll without any discussion, even if that's what his client would prefer.
 * I think that the caveats I have suggested are fairly reasonable and I'm happy to reword my statement about BC1278's past behavior to merely reflect what others have said about him, for example here: Special:Diff/845217397 and here Special:Diff/843020422 DaRonPayne
 * Also note that BC1278 resorted directly to posting this here instead of taking it up on his Talk page, where I tried to have a discussion with him. DaRonPayne (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The HuffPo accusations against me were discussed at great length at AN and discredited. An Administrator uninvolved in the AN discussion summarized the consensus on the Administrative Closure Noticeboard as: “the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU. [Terms of Use.]." Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 28 COIN and AN found no violations. The accusations are immaterial to the severe disruptive editing at Talk:Noah Kraft or the proper process of an RfC for the Kraft article. BC1278 (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see why you linked to the summary instead of the full discussion. It's not flattering: Special:Diff/887985129 DaRonPayne (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Notice how BC1278 never mentions the other two links to Wikipedia editors reprimanding him for his aggressive behavior and never denies the claim from the article that is most relevant here, namely that he has a history of controversial tactics around votes. Assuming the article is accurate on this narrow point, which BC1278 has never flatly disputed, allowing this sort of thing to go unremarked upon sets a precedent. Namely that it's fine for BC1278 to continue with his controversial tactics around votes. I think it's in Wikipedia's interest to mention this behavior prominently as a deterrent, and to prevent negative press coverage in the future. I suspect that most lay readers, and many Wikipedia editors, would perceive these tactics practice as unethical. It is possible to act unethically without technically violating Wikipedia policies, and it bears mention. DaRonPayne (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not reading this wall of text. But  per WP:TPO you should not remove someone else's talk page post.  If some editor wants to post an RFC, do not remove it just because you don't like it.  Let the RFC run its course.  Whether you like it or not, other editors can solicit input through RFC, without getting anybody else's approval first.  I haven't looked through the posts by .  And I really don't care.  They posted an RFC on a talk page, and it should have been allowed to run its course. You are, of course, welcome to take this whole issue to WP:ANEW for some kind of resolution.  But do NOT remove another editor's talk page post. — Maile  (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and other admins. DaRonPayne has responded to your instruction about removing the Talk post by posting his own entirely different RfC on the same issue at: Talk:Noah Kraft and leaving my RfC from earlier today blanked. Special:Diff/914189294 His RfC contains personal attacks against me. It omits my entire RfC explanation from the new Discussion. He has left in all the more severe personal attacks in the previous Request Edit section and directed other editors to that section with links. We could move this discussion to WP:ANEW, as you suggested. But given the severity of the situation, including the very severe personal attacks in the previous section, I'd suggest an Admin at ANI correct the Talk page and DaRonPayne be given a formal warning about disruptive editing. This goes beyond edit warring. BC1278 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BC1278 there's nothing stopping you from reopening your RfC, you're just as capable of doing that as I am. And you're asserting the claims about your editing history are unfair without actually responding to any of them. And I don't see where in the Wikipedia rules you have a God given right to run the only RfC on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaRonPayne (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think it's fairly reprehensible that a paid editor is aggressively attempting to get admins to prevent a volunteer editor who disagrees with him from making edits on his client's page. BC1278: You're welcome to reopen the RfC and I won't stop you, but this heavy-handedness is not a good look. DaRonPayne (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * DaRonPayne's conduct at Talk:Noah Kraft (not just the first thread but the whole page) is very concerning, as are his repeated attempts to throw shade at BC above. – Levivich 01:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This editor has also severely personally attacked me on my User Talk page Special:Diff/914201300 and restored the attack twice after I deleted it. He was already cautioned by an Admin to stop. User talk:DaRonPayne His harassment of me on Talk:Noah Kraft and my User Talk Page has been escalating for several days. BC1278 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made literally zero edits before today going back until August 23rd. What are you talking about? Also I stopped editing your page immediately after the Admin told me to stop. It seems like you're a paid editor trying to weaponize the fact that I'm a new editor against me in order to get me kicked off of your client's page. DaRonPayne (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And a quick update, I have reposted BC1278's RfC. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You placed it AFTER your RfC on the talk page and out of chronological order. He doesn't control an RfC. If you don't like the phrasing, you can always add another option or another phrasing. Buffs (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Requesting other admins here to have a look at the edit history of DaRonPayne, which seems to me to be almost a single-purpose POV account focused on Noah Kraft. Earlier in the year, he used the same tactics on  who had been editing the Noah Kraft article.  FeldBum has since quit editing altogether. DaRonPayne went after FeldBum on their talk page and reported them at COI Noticeboard 1. I'd like other admins to look at this, but this looks to me like blockable harassment focusing on Noah Kraft. — Maile  (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FeldBum had an undisclosed conflict. He __admits__ that he had been hired by TWO of Kraft's companies for PR work, and he didn't mention it ANYWHERE. Why would you automatically side with the party that has a financial conflict in these disputes? Should I have not reported that? Did you even read the complaint? And he hasn't stopped editing altogether. He just stopped editing Kraft's page. Check his contributions, he has been quite prolific since February, which was when I made the complaint. Also, the only reason my account appears to be "almost a single-purpose" account is that I've faced an army of Kraft's paid associates and other people with disclosed but unspecified connections to Kraft lobbying to turn it into a PR piece (Talk:Noah Kraft). This is the COI equivalent of "stop hitting yourself." Seriously, read the FeldBum complaint instead of bringing it up as evidence of my "bias" without reading it. It's eye-opening. DaRonPayne (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if there were more than the two of you editors duking it out on the article talk page. Perhaps you should end the accusations and attacks because they are chasing away well-intentioned editors who are probably staying away from such a divisive atmosphere. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable and I'm happy to reword it. I do think the fact that BC1278 has been reprimanded by editors before is fair game, since he is a paid editor who has attracted considerable controversy from other editors. So I think that's important context for people coming across the page, but I'll try to make the language milder and more on-topic.DaRonPayne (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I re-worded the relevant section to note BC1278's history of controversial tactics around votes but much more mildly worded. Please take a look, if you have a minute. DaRonPayne (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I posted a routine RfC for just purpose Special:Diff/914189294 and DaRonPayne deleted it. He moved the RfC discussion (about the use of a primary source) into a a previous Request Edit section that had already been closed. Then he started his own RfC on the same issue - incorporating a veiled personal attack into the actual RfC question, and not including any of the discussion from the deleted RfC. That is why we are here. Highly disruptive editing by DaRonPayne is indeed chasing away other editors. The deleted RfC should be restored and DaRonPayne cautioned to stop moving/deleting other editors' Talk posts and filling Talk with personal attacks. BC1278 (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And BC1278 keeps bringing that up even though he refuses to restore his RfC himself, presumably so that he can continue playing the victim and trying to get me banned from interfering with his client's page. I've told him he can restore it and I won't stop him. I have also substantially modified the wording, but in a way that still points out that BC1278 has been involved with controversial tactics around voting and has been admonished by other editors in the past. That is fair game, AFAIK, for editors who don't have that context evaluating claims by an extremely aggressive paid editor with a history of controversy. DaRonPayne (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia shouldn't have two competing RfCs on the same exact topic., you need to take responsibility to undelete the RfC and RfC discussion you removed and get rid of the competing RfC and personal attacks you posted. I'm not getting into an edit war with you. BC1278 (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reposted your RfC. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Requesting admins here take a look at the edit history of Noah Kraft's page, which appears to have been created by a PR firm and has been zealously interfered with by people with admitted conflicts since the page's creation. (Talk:Noah Kraft) DaRonPayne (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just found this and it makes for some interesting reading: Special:PermaLink/887985129.
 * A few excerpts from the discussion that BC1278 omitted: "articles like this make us look ridiculous and that our official begrudging acceptance of disclosed paid editing is even more of a threat than undisclosed paid editing because it ruins our reputation when major media outlets runs stories like this." "There are no good decisions for us to make here only least awful ones." "Here we are the bureaucrats that allow Big Tech to whitewash their own articles." "Hi guy here who thinks you're right that UPE is worse. But do you understand why as a volunteer how your 700+ words are troubling and could be seen as WP:BLUDGEONing this conversation in contradiction of WP:PAYTALK."
 * And reading over this, BC1278's conclusion is that the article was COMPLETELY DISCREDITED and he paints it as if all of the admins who looked at it found no issues whatsoever with his conduct. I think the discussion speaks for itself, and the editors on Noah Kraft's page should be able to evaluate BC1278's arguments in the context of the controversy surrounding his tactics. All I ask is the ability to link to other editors comments on his practices. I don't think that counts as an attack. DaRonPayne (talk) 05:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is all irrelevant to the disruptive editing in Talk:Noah Kraft, but DaRonPayne's link above is to the second day of a 6-week discussion, before more serious investigation by admins. The full archived AN discussion is here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive308.BC1278 (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This "full archived AN discussion" you've linked to here again has you referencing a "summary" of a prior discussion that doesn't actually link to that discussion. I, for one, am interested in reading the entire discussion, not just the summary by Swarm, which seems to have swept a lot of editors reservations about your conduct under the rug. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Diffs
For administrators gasping for the lack of appropriate diffs to actually look at, here are some: Uncle G (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/882669102 &mdash; talk page refactoring to exclude signatures
 * Special:Diff/882670341 &mdash; talk page refactoring to remove parts of comments
 * Special:Diff/912029529 &mdash; edit request not placed into a section
 * Special:Diff/914230527 &mdash; section headings
 * Special:Diff/912032397 &mdash; objection to edit request placed ahead of it, unsigned
 * Special:Diff/912205008 &mdash; breaking up someone else's comment to post the same thing over and over, see also the edit summary
 * Special:Diff/914204122 &mdash; use of undo
 * Special:Diff/902042721 &mdash; unsigned
 * Special:Diff/914181770 &mdash; placement of RFC section
 * Special:Diff/914200620 &mdash; blanking of the same, combining RFC discussion under preceding section
 * Special:Diff/914233386 &mdash; placement of altered RFC
 * Special:PermaLink/914257926 &mdash; The RFC right now
 * Thank you for this. Re: Special:Diff/912029529, this was an inadvertent formatting error that I noticed and corrected within 15 minutes by adding a section header above the Request Edit. Special:Diff/912031161 BC1278 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a quick update, BC1278's RfC has been reposted. DaRonPayne (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * DaRonPayne reposted the RfC he deleted, but has left live the RfC he later created on the same issue (which had been his first solution after being told here he could not blank another editor's RfC) and placed it on top of the original RfC. Special:Diff/914345027 BC1278 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I've read through just about everything and DaRonPayne's behavior in the above diffs is atrocious and completely unnecessarily aggressive. Consistent refactoring of others' comments (even deleting whole sentences...practically paragraphs of others' remarks) is inherently disruptive behavior. Persistently adding comments to others' talk pages (Special:Diff/914204122) because "other people need know just how bad you are" (I paraphrase) is particularly heinous. Deleting an RfC, etc. are all underhanded techniques and are inherently uncivil. Claiming to have restored the RfC is also misleading...he's restored it below the one he started the next day. This means that, if you are looking at a list of RfCs, the link will go to the first one.

BC1278 is not "clean" in the matter, but appears to be trying to make a good faith effort to be a good editor and openly states his COI. Personally, I don't see a problem with that. Let an RfC pan out and see what people think. BC1278 seems largely content to let it pan out. I don't know who Noah Kraft is or who he hired/didn't hire. I don't particularly care. DaRonPayne, at this point, I'd call for a block of you and restoration of the original RfC in chronological order regardless of anything you don't like about BC1278. DaRonPayne, I recommend reading WP:BLUDGEON. Now, I'm off to weigh in on an RfC. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The latest DaRonPayne abuse is to use his invalid dulpicate-topic RfC as a bargaining chip to get his way on a rewording of the lead. He says he will delete the RfC he improperly posted on the same subject as the RfC he deleted (then restored - but not in chronological order - under Admin pressure, so there are now two competing RfCs), but only if the specific proposal he prefers (one of two being discussed for a new lead) is adopted as a "compromise." Special:Diff/914473604 Otherwise, I suppose he's saying the chaos he has created by violating Requests_for_comment and WP:TPO will continue. He will persist in actively breaking policy (3 days since he was warned here) unless he gets his way. BC1278 (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BC1278 is now actively misrepresenting what I said and should be reprimanded for his blatant dishonesty. I flat out said that I am willing to have the $50 million claim removed entirely from the article as a compromise if BC1278 is willing to stop trying to micro-manage and write the lead for the article for his client. In fact, I'm willing to completely abstain from any further editing on the article/Talk page if BC1278 agrees to do the same (and if Kraft does not retain other paid editors to influence the article going forward), and I think that would be the best course of action for all parties involved here. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And update: Just closed my RfC as a show of good faith and to highlight that this is about BC1278 trying to turn the lead into a PR piece for his client. DaRonPayne (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Question I'm glad DaRon is backing down here and I've given my two cents over at Noah Kraft. However, I have a question for : how often do your requests for clients end up as RfCs? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , just twice before (over about four years) for clients. And once for myself (unpaid) about the proper use of the above referenced HuffPo article about me in an article. In Noah Kraft, in normal circumstances, this question should have been easily resolved without an RfC. A new editor seemed to be improperly using a primary source for contentious material in BLP. A friendly consensus discussion or a BLP/Help should have been enough. But the Talk page evidenced highly disruptive editing and axe grinding by the editor. The primary source cited from YouTube popped up the same day (August 22, 2019, as the only content from a new YouTube account) after this editor noticed I was preparing a request edit on the subject of unsourced info, in a sandbox User_talk:BC1278/sandbox/Noah_Kraft, and asked for time to "reply," suggesting to me someone closely involved in the subject matter. So it seemed to me that only a definitive decision by a cross-section of Wikipedia editors, in a format that was more tightly structured and not as easily disrupted, could resolve the issue of the use of the source with finality. It did not occur to me the editor would just delete the RfC.BC1278 (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks. That's helpful context. Note that you pinged poor Barkeep. For future reference I'm the 49th Barkeep. :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Is Guy applying a too-stringent ban on first-party references in Retrospect (software)?
On 21 August 2019 Guy put the tag on the "Retrospect (software)" article. "What are your criteria for 'Relies too much on references to primary sources' for articles on software applications?" is a diff of the discussion on Guy's User Talk: JzG.

Key exchanges in that discussion are:


 * The basic problem is that this is an article about a client-server backup software application with a 30-year history. One of the two references I just added says its newly-acquired single-application vendor has "half a million customers but skinny revenues".  That may be counting customers still using older versions of the application under perpetual licenses, because those versions just keep on working so long as you don't need new features (...). There haven't been any reviews of the Windows variant since 2012 [after this was written, I found a comprehensive review written 24 July 2019], but one independent Mac news source publishes a new review at least for every once-a-year new major version.


 * The article does cite three primary-source references at least 10 times each, but that's because the article from the third section on consists of a very compact list of application features. Secondary-source reviews simply don't mention all of the features of a software application; for those a Wikipedia editor must fall back on the primary-source application manuals and knowledge-base articles.What must I do to justify removing the tag?  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove anything that's sourced to their own websites or to press releases. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * First, the "Retrospect (software)" article is not PR in the sense that WP:OTHERSTUFF discusses. The notability of its subject is demonstrated by referenced up-through-2019 reviews of the software on the Mac-related TidBITS.com website and referenced reviews up through 2012 on Windows-related websites.....DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)




 * It's really quite simple. Only include reliable independent secondary soruces. Don't include anything that independent commentators haven't thought significant enotgh to cover. Don't inlcude sources that are obviously based on press releases (aka churnalism). Don't include WP:HOWTO or other manual-like content. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy's definition of "relies too much on references to primary sources", stated in those exchanges, goes well beyond the Wikipedia rules that "Primary sources should be used carefully".  Those state "However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. .... The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about its history, products ....".

I use four primary sources—20 cites of 101 total vs. 52 of 101 when the diff'ed discussion started—in the article: User's Guides for the Windows and Macintosh variants of the Retrospect application, a collection of technical Knowledge Base articles that expand on product features described—or recent enhancements not described—in the UGs, and the cumulative Release Notes for Retrospect Windows. I use these mainly to demonstrate the existence of product features: Small-group features, Enterprise client-server features, and Edition and Add-On features. The exceptions are in the article's lead—where one provides the only available mention of a feature that has been recently deleted from the application products, the History section—where two describe a un-reviewed (because it is cross-variant) difference between the Macintosh and Windows variants of the products, and one developer notice (referenced because it is sneaky) that a feature will be changed to an Add-On. The article makes no use of any "how-to" content that may be in the primary sources.

More thoughts on a ban on first-party references
I agree with Guy here. Primary sources are OK for things like headquarters city, current CEOs name and the like. What is considered a "feature" is part of how a company markets its product and referencing "features" to the company website is not appropriate. We need independent sourcing for that. But this is really just a content dispute which should be discussed on the article talk page. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a slightly-famous case where the primary reference is an abstract written before the actual paper, and turned out to be wrong. (Not unusual in conference papers.) Reasons like that are why secondary sources are preferred. But as above, in some cases primary sources are best. Gah4 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with Guy, and also with Cullen328. I realized an hour ago that the root of the dispute is a particular bit of terminology corruption over the last 50 years in our English-speaking culture. IMHO the corruption is that "sell" has been turned into a four-letter-word (for non-native English speakers, that puts "sell" into the same category as "f**k"), with the euphemistic synonym "market". Cullen328 reveals on his personal Project page that "I have been self employed as a small business owner in the construction industry for 25 years". To illustrate the terminology corruption, let's first ask whether Cullen328's firm sells cabinetry services, and if so what kind. The answer to that would be either "no" or a list of cabinetry services. If the answer is not 'no", we can next ask how his firm markets those services—to which the answer could be "on Craigslist" or "via TV ads" or "via ads in glossy magazines".

My point is that the parts of the first-party references used in the Retrospect (software) article only list software features for sale, they do not attempt to market those features. If they did so that would be a violation of Primary sources should be used carefully—but they don't so it's not a violation. In the article those references simply verify that Retrospect Inc. sells software with particular listed features.

Let me close with an example of why I use a first-party Knowledge Base reference in one case in which I could have used a second-party reference. (To understand what I'm talking about, you need to first read the lead of the Retrospect (software) article.) In the LAN/WAN/Cloud paragraph, I've written "Advanced network client support—which can be extended to 'remote' clients anywhere on the Internet for Proactive scripts and user-initiated backups/restores ...." There exists a second-party review of Retrospect that mentions its "remote backup support for remote employees"; however—besides admittedly being a straight copy of a Retrospect Inc. press release—it doesn't mention either user-initiated backups and restores or the limitation to Proactive backups. That's why I used the first-party reference for this feature. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The notion that the marketing plan of my tiny dad-mom-son business might be subject to analysis here at ANI had never occurred to me before, and it feels as creepy to me as it is wildly inaccurate and presumptuous. I have no objection whatsoever to ethical businesses selling their goods and services anywhere, with the exception of Wikipedia. This encylopedia does not need content created by marketers and PR professionals because it can never be neutral, and that content is readily available on company websites. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me, Cullen328, I was just using your business as an easy-to-understand hypothetical example of the difference between "product sales support" and "product marketing"—as they used to be understood. A first-party user manual on a piece of software such as Retrospect should properly discuss the features of the software, but it shouldn't stray into a marketing-oriented discussion.  The pages I have listed in my four first-party references are strictly confined to a discussion of particular features, so they weren't written by marketers or PR professionals—just technical writers or application programmers (I was an application programmer for 40 years before I retired, but I never worked for Retrospect Inc.—I've merely been a paying user of their software for 19 out of the last 24 years).  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The very word "feature" in this context comes from the world of advertising, marketing and public relations. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  15:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ; since 2008 the software feature WP article has quoted the IEEE 829 definition ""A distinguishing characteristic of a software item (e.g., performance, portability, or functionality)." I could have used "functionality" in my comments above, but IME everyone talks whether a piece of software has a particular "feature".  There's also the American Heritage Dictionary definition; I'm using sense 2, while Cullen328 is using sense 7.  I'm afraid his brain, along with those belonging to a number of other WP administrators, has been colonized by Madison Avenue.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Speaking of administrator brains being colonized by Madison Avenue, I had an applicable WP experience the day after Labor Day. I was making an edit to the Retrospect (software) article, and found that WP was suddenly insisting that every  ref have a "website=" parameter.  This was a real nuisance, as I found when I made some minor edits to the NetBackup article—most of which I didn't write—and found that this insistence was being applied to refs so old that their URL's were dead (which made it difficult to look up their website names!).  Fortunately, by a day or so later cooler heads had prevailed in WP support, so the "website=" error messages disappeared.  I get the strong feeling from personal Talk pages I have seen that some administrators want to ban first-party refs, and requiring the "website=" parameter would make it easy for a bot to enforce that ban.  See my above comments for why that would be a really bad idea for articles on software.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You were not the first to notice the compulsory website parameter and the resulting error messages. See Administrators' noticeboard. Narky Blert (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for somewhat puncturing my hypothesis that these two events were related. I didn't have the time to wade through 4.5 screen pages of this preceded by its shorter predecessor sections, but I gathered that "website=" was made optional again because someone noticed that many websites—including the one published by the U. S. Supreme Court—don't have names.  I think there was also some dispute about italicization—rather than about making first-party identification easy for a bot (unless painlessly sabotaged), but I don't have the stamina or interest to follow it.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * To your reasons for not studying any of those yards-and-a-half of discussion, I would add lack of patience. It looked as if one editor had made unilateral changes to a major template (what could possibly go wrong?), and was then surprised that anyone might find them remotely controversial. Narky Blert (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Looking at, what I see is that DovidBenAvraham edits in exactly two areas: Retrospect software and a couple of closely related articles, and Ronny Lee, where he declares a COI. While he "respectfully" rejects the views of Cullen328 and myself on Wikipedia's sourcing policies, he has substantially less experience and this looks very much like motivated reasoning. At sme point I am inclined to lose patience with editors who persist in writing long self-sourced articles with excessively technical and/or PR content. Guy (help!) 21:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * GuyIf by goal-oriented motivated reasoning you mean that I wanted to write a sufficiently-referenced Retrospect (software) article, "it's a fair cop, Guv'nor". In the fall of 2016 I looked at the analogous WP articles on a couple of best-selling enterprise client-server backup applications, and thought "I can do better than those".  My first version was 10 screen-pages long with a lot of "how to" content, but a somewhat-contentious but cooperative effort by JohnInDC and me—with some help from Scope_creep—cut those down to 2 screen-pages in the fall of 2017. (That effort also included a split-off and compacted generalization that eventually became the 2.5 screen-page Enterprise client-server backup article.)  But I have to admit to being a slacker as to self-sourcing!  The analogous 2.5-screen-page NetBackup article I looked at has 20 first-party references out of 25 total, and the analogous 6-screen-page Backup Exec article has 73 first-party references out of 96 total; both of them far exceed in percentages my last-month's 52 first-party references—which I've since cut to 20— out of 101 total.


 * (As far as my COI is concerned, I took over the Ronny Lee Publications business in late 2014 because its previous owner sold it to me for $1. Its gross revenue had been $967 in calendar-year 2013, but it sank to $340 in 2014.  We thought at the time that the decrease was caused by e-mail marketing to musical instrument stores no longer working, but it turned out that it was really caused by students wanting to learn to play guitar by watching instructional videos—which the still-living-at-the-time Ronny Lee categorically refused to make.  The gross revenue rose to $591 in 2015 and $651 in 2016, neither of which resulted in a profit because I had to reprint some of Ronny's guitar method books; however it dropped to $490 in 2017 and $363 in 2018.  As of the end of August 2019 gross revenue is $545, and this year for the first time I didn't have to reprint any books.)


 * And this news just in: editor Andy Dingley—the same editor who has commented directly below—says at the beginning of this diffon the article Talk page "'It's really quite simple. Only include reliable independent secondary soruces.', is wrong. There is no policy to justify that." Note that Andy Dingley is a code monkey and a template guru.  So please show us the alleged WP policy, Guy, or admit that "I am inclined to lose patience with editors who persist in writing long self-sourced articles with excessively technical and/or PR content" is simply personal anti-software-article prejudice that I have refuted above.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy is WP:RS. You have two admins telling you the same thing, and one gadfly egging you on. Your call at this point. The fact that other articles are also shit is covered by WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also of note: Retrospect is a tiny player by comparison with BackupExec. I don't think Retrospect makes even the top 20 by market share, and it's not our job to fix that. You seem to think that a "code monkey" will know more about this than me. You are wrong. My day job is service transformations and migrations, I work every single day with NBU, CommVault, Networker, Avamar and others, I gave some of the launch presentations for Data Domain's DDBoost and Avamar integration,. and in my first job as a network administrator (in a mixed Mac / DEC environment) I used... Dantz Retrospect Remote. So I probably know more about the specifics of backup solutions than Dingley does. Which is irrelevant because WP:RS gives the trifecta: sources must be reliable, independent and secondary. We make some exceptions, but we don't write entire articles from primary sources. And especially we don't write marketing / HOWTO articles from such sources. You have an obvious personal investment in this product, presumably as a fan and user, and that is blinding you to the simple fact that what you are trying to do is wrong according to Wikipedia policies. Guy (help!) 09:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What is this doing at ANI? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * it's at ANI because IMHO Guy made up his own Wikipedia rule to justify his putting the tag on the Retrospect (software) article.  Please read the locked section above this sub-section.  Thanks for your 16:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC) comment on that article's Talk page; as you can see I quoted the beginning of it and diff'ed all of it in my belatedly-signed comment directly above this one.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's at ANI because you flatly refuse to accept that Wikipedia requires reliable independent secondary sources, a policy that has existed since well before I joined Wikipedia over a dozen years ago. You want to write a mix of software manual and marketing brochure, and you want to support that with primary and affiliated sources, and you refuse to accept that what you want could be anything less than the platonic ideal of Wikipedia's purpose and policies. And that makes you the problem. Guy (help!) 09:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a long thread from July, in the proper place at WP:RSN. In which Guy uses an automated process to bulk remove a site because he doesn't like it, no-one can find this mythical "Anything not-RS must be removed" policy, it turns out he deleted a lot more than the challenged site alone  (some clear WP:RS, some just removing a reference and leaving hanging cites to it, there's then some credible claim that the author of the source meets WP:RS anyway).  Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270
 * But in the end, Guy relies on WP:FAIT to get his version forced into place anyway. He makes a mess (the cites are still dangling), his argument for deletion is refuted, but because he's done a massive automated run it's too big for other editors to fix.
 * One might also note that the RS author here was being modest and despite being well known and respected within the community of castle historians, he describes himself as "just an amateur". Whereas in the thread above, Guy demands that we "Respecc mah authoritah", ignore RS and see Guy as the arbiter instead because – apparently unlike anyone else on WP – he works in IT. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please find another hobby. It is unfair on an inexperienced editor for you to continue your sniping here—the editor will think you are supporting their work and will continue wasting everyone's time. The topic is Retrospect (software) which a glance shows is promotional fluffery. Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, is that a request with your official admin's mop on, for me to leave WP? You do (of course you do) remember that I voted to oppose your recent RfA, but one of your supporters threatened an indef ban and made me withdraw it.
 * As to the article here, then I have literally no opinion on it either way. But we do not have a WP:RSONLY policy and Guy cannot just invent one like this, which is a much bigger issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The topic is Retrospect (software)—anyone can add a comment here, but things that distract from the topic should be elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

From the subheading downwards this has stopped being an incident. It is clearly a dispute. A discussion of what constitutes reliable sourcing for an article about a computing topic will not be solved here, and indeed will not even be seen by editors who could make a productive contribution to such a discussion. Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Uncle GYou're not entirely correct, IMHO. The dispute is about whether an editor writing about a piece of software can ever use a first-party reference, even if it's to a user manual that is evidently not any kind of marketing document.  Andy Dingley has gone so far as to state that there is no rule that an editor can't do that.  Where should I go to discuss that, since nobody has so far been able to link to a WP rule on the subject?


 * OTOH Guy has invoked such a rule—as has Cullen328—for the Retrospect (software) article, while so far refusing to prove that they didn't simply concoct it. Guy also has not bothered to demonstrate, either on the article's Talk page or here, that the content of any of the particular references I used is actually marketing—which would be the correct response for a content dispute.  I'd call that an incident deserving of this ANI.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of my position, whether that erroneous statement is deliberate or due to a comprehension problem. I do not favor any kind of "rule" or blanket ban on use of primary or first party sources. Instead, I strongly support our core content policy No original research which states "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." I agree that company websites can be used for information about the company's headquarters city, current CEO, date of founding, and other non-controversial facts that are in no way self-serving. I completely disagree that a company's website should be used for the list of features of a software product, and I think there is wide agreement among many editors that this is utterly inappropriate and risks turning encylopedia articles into marketing brochures. A list of software features A through Z cited to the company's website is the very essence of self-serving promotionalism. You have accused me of of having a brain colonized by Madison Avenue because I oppose advertising and marketing brochures masquerading as encylopedia articles, whether those are about profitable software or less profitable guitar book authors. The type of brain that I possess is one that was approved by hundreds of my colleagues to exercise administrative powers on this encylopedia, and I intend to maintain my consistent and long-standing position on this matter as long as I am able. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , No_original_research says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Please let me know when you have used your administrative powers to get that sentence modified or supplemented as it applies to software user manuals.  In the meantime let's look at the WP article on a very-widely-used piece of software. Nine of the first thirteen references for that article are to first-party sources.  The initial eight of those first-party refs are in the infobox, but your rule doesn't make an exception for infoboxes—it would be inconsistent to do so but maybe it should.  Meanwhile I eagerly await your putting a  tag on that article!  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you really think you are telling me something new when you inform me that some of our nearly six million articles have serious problems? Do you think that is a legitimate argument for creating more articles with significant problems? I don't. As for tagging another article that you brought to this discussion, I will leave that task to you or anyone else reading this. I do not edit to make a point. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, that article is disgusting. The other admins have it right. If reliable sources have very little to say about a subject, there is nothing wrong with the article being a permastub. Just to rephrase advice that has already been given, but in my own way, articles are supposed to be about what independent sources have to say about a subject - not about what the subject has to say about itself. People who want to know that can go to their official website. "But the article will lack important detail otherwise" is not an exception to RS/V/DUE. In fact, one may argue that details ignored by independent sources are demonstrably not important so far as Wikipedia is concerned. There is an allowance for basic corporate-biographical details that would be expected in any article, but not one for a detailed listing of software features. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal threats at John Nathan-Turner
An anonymous IP User talk:195.166.151.225 has made legal threats at John Nathan-Turner if the article references the most prominent biography of the subject. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Diff: and the following edit. --JBL (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Even though this is not a BLP, I checked the sources cited for the cause of death and found them wanting. Removed the purported cause of death.--  Deep fried  okra    21:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'd followed the dif, I'd seen that's not the issue.--  Deep fried  okra    21:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The book by Richard Marson seems relevant. I know fans dislike it, but Marson is a respected industry figure and the book is published by a legitimate, if boutique, publishing house, and Marson is not listed as having any controlling interest. Guy (help!) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of all else, I'm blocking the IP. Legal threats are not permitted, period. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
User:2A02:A31C:843B:2200:E702:70C4:B06F:2A2A is continiously doing personal attacks. See contributions Michepman (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Bluntly, I feel that even as an IP editor, it would be preferable if an Admin extended this to, say, a week Nosebagbear (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. In addition, I will notify him that he has been posted to ANI. Michepman (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:TylerKutschbach - Mass rollback needed
This editor has been replaceing current population figures in infoboxes with 2018 estimates, but the references they are providing lead to a dead Census Bureau page. I thought I could take care of this myself using individual rollback, but there are thousands of them, so someone with a mass rollback script is going to have to deal with it instead.

If the editor doesn't stop, he should probably also be blocked until he understands the problem with what he's doing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At least some of their edits seem to be linking to . It's not immediately clear to me how to find the information on that site - it seems to be at least a few clicks away - but it's no worse than the link that is being replaced. Is it still a 404 for you? ST47 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the dozen or so I spot checked led to a dead link. Again, this editor made at least 2000 of these changes - I lost count of how many 500/edit pages were full of edits labelled as adding 2018 figures. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have notified the user of this discussion, as is required by the rules of this noticeboard. I have looked at the four reverts that you made after this most recent comment, hoping that would point me in the right direction:   . In each case, you remove a link to https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2018.html, which again, does not appear to be a "dead link". Certainly no more so than the link you replaced it with on at least one occasion, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2016.html., what is the dead link, in what way is it dead, and where is a diff in which TylerKutschbach removes a working link with a dead link? ST47 (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec)The dead link is this, and the text on it says: "Sorry, the page you requested has either been moved or is no longer available on this server.". TylerKutschbach has started to replace this link with the correct one, but there are still very, very many that are wrong.  For instance -- choosing randomly -- this, thuis, this, this, and this. If you need more, please ask. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying the editor, something I would normally do as a matter of course. I'm not sure why I forgot in this case, but I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In each of those diffs, the link that was added was https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2018.html, not https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables. ST47 (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When I click on the URL that the editor added, it sends me directly to the page I described above -- on all of those pages I listed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The usual protocol for these kinds of articles has been to link to that general landing page, but I think it's long past due to use the actual data pages. It's fairly simple to do this en masse by state, as each gets its own table (e.g. this one for Washington); to get a direct link, the user must click on the "Bookmark/Save" button above the table. I've asked the user in question several times to format their citations, but they seem to not be listening.  Sounder Bruce  05:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, my understanding is this. We have long used an inconvenient reference format. (Links to the correct website, but the wrong page on that site, apparently because of how the target website is designed.) TylerKutschbach has been updating some old links to new links, but keeping the inconvenient format. You and Beyond My Ken have asked Tyler to begin using the better format, and it seems like he has done in some situations, but he has not been communicating with the people who have reached out to him via his talk page? If that's the case, I hope we can agree that mass rollback of this user's contribs is not needed: while it might be better to use the new format, their edit updating from (e.g.) 2016 data (and an inconvenient ref) to 2018 data (and an equally inconvenient ref) is still a constructive edit. The article has not been left any worse off. To invoke a relevant policy, it doesn't seem to fit into WP:ROLLBACKUSE. So I hope we can stop reverting and instead look into the communication issue, starting by seeing if TylerKutschbach responds here or not. ST47 (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still not understanding why when I click on the link (on the diff page) I go once place, and you go another. Every time I do it, I go to https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables, which I;m obviously being re-driected to.  Why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It could be a location-thing, like is-in-america/is-not-in-america, I've encountered it once before. Have no idea of the intent behind it, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/tables.2018.html works fine for me..I don't know what's causing problems for Beyond My Ken, but I would suggest it's something best dealt with at the Help Desk or maybe VPT or similar. I don't think TylerKutschbach needs to stop just because one editor is having problems with the links, although they do need to communicate and as SounderBruce said, I'm not sure if they're using the best replacement. BTW, I assume Beyond My Ken is having the same problems with links to that page here e.g. earlier or ? Because if not it's an even weirder issue but even more of an indication whatever is going wrong for BMK, it's not justification for reverting the edits since it can clearly be seen in the diffs the URL is the same. Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And -- another question -- why hasn't the editor responded to anything on his talk page? They have not made a single edit to it. . Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks like on Sep 8, the editor started using Census Quickfact links, and changed their edit summary from 2018 estimates to 2018 estimates with the page website with the community showing the population number. See, for example, their last 100 contribs. I think this is a good improvement. Would be better if they engaged directly on their user talk page or here. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 18:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems that the linking problem is specific to me, for some reason, and that TK has started using a more appropriate reference anyway, so I'd like to withdraw this report as mostly moot. The only outstanding issue is why TK isn't communicating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Mcnford's editing privileges on Mark Lindquist page
The individual "Mcfnord" has come forward stating his COI with the subject of the Mark Lindquist page. I find the fact that he is allowed to edit and discuss on the subject's talk page somewhat inappropriate. Senior editors have continued to allow his participation, even though he has stated himself that he is a noted negative critic who was unsuccessfully prosecuted by Mr. Mark Lindquist. He also has a history of vandalizing said page. CoalBear (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support topic ban You forgot to provide diffs and notify the user, but looking at Talk:Mark Lindquist it is clear that this user (and, who last edited in April) should not be allowed to edit about this topic. Additionally, the Mark Lindquist page should be extended confirmed or fully protected. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 The problem with locking down the page is it leaves the page existing as an attack page, authored by Mcnford. CoalBear (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Boomerang. I self-declared COI recently after I collaborated with a BLP subject COI on another page. The page has been target of many waves of whitewashes by SPAs since 2015, of increasing sophistication. Happy to declare and operate within COI parameters. Mcfnord (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * CoalBear created their account on August 23. Since that time, they have made 46 edits to mainspace and 14 edits to article talk space. Of those 60 edits, 30 have been to the Lindquist article or its Talk page. I wonder if Mcfnord is not the only editor with a COI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if BBB23 and Mcnford are the same person? They seem oddly in sync. Like within seconds. I'm only raising a concern here, things do not seem above board concerning Mcnford and the Mark Lindquist page. And bbb23 is also NOT a neutral editor. CoalBear (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, my sweet summer child.--Jorm (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that bbb23 has backed up a person grossly in conflict with this page and who has been violating wikipedia rules. How neutral is that? Please don't "sweet summer child" me. That's not very civil, bro. CoalBear (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 5 seconds of checking would show that bbb23 is an administrator at this point you are aiming for a ban 50.35.82.234 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * How many articles do we have on prosecutors at this level? A lot of this looks to me like people trying to carve a biography out of articles surrounding the actions of his office. Guy (help!) 09:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you haven't already, Articles for deletion/Mark Lindquist is worth a read. It seems that in the end, the feeling was whatever else the subject met notability as an author. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guy. Most of the content in the prosecutor section is information about the actions of his office. It was added by Mcnford and the page has been stuck with it ever since. Maybe there should be a page about the Pierce Co. Prosecutor's office instead? CoalBear (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Along with Bbb23, I've been the editor who's handled various COI editing over the last 9 months, so I'll cover both Mcnford and CoalBear:
 * Oppose Topic Ban - as admitted, Mcfnord has a COI. However, while there were a large number of issues with his edits back during the AfD and very shortly after, he ultimately moved to the Talk page to discuss it. More recently, his direct edits to the article have generally either been non-biased edits, or the reversion of other edits (many of which were biased). He has also participated, though not always with a calm voice, on the talk page. Nosebagbear (talk)
 * I should note that my second choice would be a ABAN on both editors, in the same format as lays out below Nosebagbear (talk)
 * CoalBear's behaviour also shows signs of COI editing, though certainly less egregious than Mcfnord's early edits. Mainly in the form of unbalanced additions and desire to remove sourced information without sufficient reasoning, rather than in-article rants or completely unsourced content. Nosebagbear (talk)
 * I would generally advise an extended-confirmed protection, so the discussion can be moved by both/all parties to the Talk Page. There have been positive additions by both sides, so I'm reticent to just advocate removing one or both from the article. Though I suspect this ANI may be encouraged as the most recent points of dispute are because CoalBear couldn't get consensus for more drastic changes - I had advised we'd probably need dispute resolution if they wanted to progress further with certain suggestions. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've reread the entire article, and putting aside the list of books he's written, the main section, regardless of how it's balanced, is damned poorly written. I don't think the fellow's sufficiently notable for me to take the time to rewrite it, but maybe someone else might wish to do so. It jumps around from issue to issue: the flow needs to be improved so it reads more like a story, and there is often no context for each individual "fact". Finally, some of the clearly self-promoting material (put in by CoalBear) needs to be removed. We don't need quotes from Lindquist about how he is fighting for justice and the American way.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are threads within the facts that I wrung out, even though it made the facts seem independent of each other. I agree the result may as well be a bulleted list. I wanted to find the core facts that shouldn't be forgotten, and toss the rest. I will ponder adding the connections. But you see, that's where the spin of a million centrifuges seems to appear, too. Mcfnord (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can support retaining Mcnford's privileges if the prosecutor content on this page is removed. I discovered this page because I liked some of this guy's books. If that makes me COI, then guilty. Admittedly, I'm new here, learning how Wikipedia works (and what better way than getting involved in a controversial page, amiright?) It was clear to me that this page was not right. It only contained negative information, and it wasn't a "writer" page. It was mostly about this guy's political career. That content was originally added Mcnford, though it has been trimmed down, into something (as bbb23 correctly states) "damned poorly written." I've advocated for removing said content because a) it's politically motivated either for or against b) has no standing on the reason this wikipedia page was created -- which was for the writer's work, and c) the content of which is completely taken out of context. I've suggested this several times to Nosebagbear, only to be told that the content can stay because it's "reliably sourced." But even they admit that it has nothing to do with why this guy has a page. So why keep it? It has nothing to do with his books. I say make it a page about his writing career and leave it at that. Even leave all the negative reviews. Because it's clear the lawyer stuff really doesn't belong, and was added in the first place as a method of retaliation by Mcnford. CoalBear (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is based on whether Mcfnord (and any other editors raised, potentially including yourself) are too disruptive due to COIs to legitimately participate in the article. But to give a 1 line summary - please read WP:NOTEWORTHY - "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". Nosebagbear (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Pardon me if I don't understand, you might have to explain more to me why that means that content added by a COI (that had nothing to do with the page's reason for existing) can be allowed to stay, and his editing privileges retained. And how information about a prosecutor in a small-ish city is regarded as "notable." I realize this is a discussion about editing privileges, but what I'm saying is I support keeping those privileges if certain content (written by the COI) is removed. He can edit the writing career stuff all he wants. I just think there is a pretty big conflict of interest for Mcnford with the prosecutor content, don't you think? CoalBear (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For ten years, the subject was the top law enforcement official in my state's second largest county, population nearly 800,000, not a "small-ish city" as you claim. The section lede that you wrote says the subject, "tried some of the most significant cases in Washington State." "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" qualify as noteworthy as WP:POLITICIAN. The public records ruling of the Washington State Supreme Court exists because of this subject's insistence, and has since been cited by the California Supreme Court, making it national case law. Finally, Washington's largest police massacre (to clarify, 4 police were murdered), where the subject said the massacre was worth "$100,000 of free publicity" in a re-election campaign, resulted in nearly all trial verdicts overturned. This should appear in your new lede about noteworthy legal performances. Don't you think? Mcfnord (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that if someone could control their COI sufficiently that they wouldn't be an issue if they could only edit part of Lindquist's article, then they can control it for the whole page - limiting it to be conditional on the status of the article isn't viable as it ties a conduct dispute to a very specific content outcome. As said on ML's talk page, his prosecutor career doesn't make him notable (or clearly notable), but once he's notable (which demonstrates an article should exist at all) for another reason, some content can still be included (factoring in WP:DUE & WP:RS etc). Nosebagbear (talk)
 * Gosh, I just had a look at what the page was originally started as. The way it appeared at the outset looked like an actual, normal, unbiased wikipedia page, and not a focused attack page regarding his prosecutor career. Looks to me like the page was just fine before Mcnford got involved. CoalBear (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is also misleading. The page had a Law Career section when I arrived. There has been some disagreement about what it should say. You want it to say what the subject might want it to say, and perhaps that's understandable due to your appreciation of his fiction. Please learn to type my name correctly if you could. M-c-f-n-o-r-d. I thought it was a typo at first. Thank you and gosh. Mcfnord (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Support topic ban on both editors. As I see it, has an acknowledged and deep conflict of interest (a personal grudge) (personal resentment) regarding Lindquist, and absolutely should not be editing the article. Because Mcfnord has been editing the article as recently as September 4, I propose that Mcfnord be formally topic banned from the article itself and limited to making specific edit requests on the article's talk page. That being said, CoalBear also shows strong signs of a COI in the opposite direction, and seems to have a personal motivation to whitewash the biography. CoalBear does not disclose their COI. That is also unacceptable. The negative information about Lindquist is not a product of Mcfnord's imagination. The sourcing is solid, he had a very rocky nine years of service as prosecutor and was trounced in his 2018 re-election effort. A neutrally written description of his time in office certainly should be part of his biography. In this case, I believe that both Mcfnord and CoalBear should be restricted from editing the BLP and limited to making specific content suggestions on the talk page. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  19:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Mcfnord asked me on my talk page to change the word "grudge" so I am using "resentment" instead. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If you want to ban me too that's fine. Believe or not, I got on wikipedia to try and fix stuff, to bring more balance to pages of authors I love. As a fan I might be COI, but not so much that it would break my heart to be banned from this specific page. AS LONG AS you ban Mcfnord too. I just think it's crazy anyone lets him edit the page of someone he so clearly "resents," and that his additions have been allowed to stay. I don't want to whitewash anything, and I don't think this page should be extended confirmed. That would be a travesty for Wikipedia to leave this page as it is. It only shows the site at its very worst -- a venue for people to air out their hate. I think that since this is a biography of a living, breathing, person -- who isn't that notable at all -- it should at the very least reflect some fairness. There aren't really wikipedia pages of lawyers on here, and a city of 800,000 isn't that big. The cases sited in the page aren't well written, to explain them would take a lot of content, and they're only there because Mcfnord has a grudge (ahem, resentment). Lindquist is best known for his books, let the page reflect that, and ban nonsense editors like Mcfnord and even myself if you want to. Just make the page more fair for this actual living person. Please. That's all I have to say about it. This has gotten way too contentious for my appetite and is exactly the reason why newbies like me don't last on Wikipedia. I know this because it's been reported in major news sources :) CoalBear (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're like a hit parade of spin. I self-declared COI a few days ago knowing what limits that added. I've already made an edit suggestion. You're not declared a COI so fire up the misinformation and whitewashing. I'm going to enumerate the deceptions from the talk page, but I bet nobody cares enough to act. It's an experiment! Mcfnord (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Rapid era style changes to fast to be guideline compliant, all BCE-BC
IMHO is making changes from BCE to BC too rapidly to have checked to see if they are complying with WP:ERA. The fact that the changes seem to be only one way isn't encouraging. I'm sure some of these changes are correct but I can't see how anyone could do so many so quickly and check them properly. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I started undoing their changes, but stopped after a couple — they seem to be claiming to be undoing ERA changes by someone else. I'll wait for their explanation. El_C 19:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was able to do them fast because they're all pages which I had previously reverted such changes, so they were together in my history. Every year or so I open them up and see if they've been altered.  if you examine each change you'll see I only made such changes on pages where the page was BC/AD.  I marked most as minor because they were a couple of characters and in keeping with established guidelines.  Anything involving hefty reverts was marked, as you'll see on Template: Bronze Age, Iron Age, Puduḫepa and so on.  As for the ones that have been reverted, each was a BC page: Battle of Corinth (which literally has "BC" in the title) was altered to BCE by an anonymous editor in March; Temple of Zeus Olympia by an unregistered user in March 2018; and both Nebuchadnezzar II and Amphictyonic League each featured a few BCE dates in an otherwise BC page and so I can't imagine why they were reverted when it's obvious what I did. I'll be looking to reinstitute such changes once this is cleared up. Palindromedairy (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it was done in 2018, it can be considered longstanding text by now, no? El_C 19:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any "well, looks like he got away with it" clause for date reversions. WP:Silence is sort of like that, but not really. I see this as worth doing, as any editor does for whatever it is that they do, but not more than once a year or so. It shouldn't be on me (or whomever) to have to check pages every 6 months or 2 months or whatever to make sure nothing slips in before this phantom deadline is reached (though IIRC I tended to shrug and say "it's a done deal" if it was 2017 or so). Palindromedairy (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the changes are reverting someone else who changed the date format, but other edits look like Palindromedairy is unilaterally changing the date format. For example, in Neolithic Revolution, the first edit uses "BCE".  Palindromedairy, however,  under the guise of using a "single dating scheme" despite edit warring against other people who this very thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:ERA, "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article." I changed it to a single dating scheme and marked my edit as such (which is why the edit summary says "single dating scheme" and not "reverting date change" or something as my other edits sometimes do).  I've literally followed the guidelines. I don't change BCE/CE articles to BC/AD, and if someone gets to it first and makes a mixed page all BCE/CE, I've left it as is. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * At Neolithic Revolution there was a very early switch of that BCE date to "years ago", and then by late 2005 dates were BC; samples suggest it was always BC, or mixed, from then to 2019. In fact there seems to have been a jumble of styles, including lots of BP and "years ago", thoughout nearly all its history. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If the changes were on Christianity related pages or modern Western culture pages, I'd understand the use of BC/AD (similar to STRONGNAT?). But they're not and the changes are only in "one direction". This does not seem neutral prima facia.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very POV comment imo. Are you American by any chance? Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What does being American have to do with it? Sounds like you're not assuming good faith -- Rockstone   talk to me!   23:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also the issue of marking the changes as minor edits. In relationship to User:El_C's question, by sheer coincidence I brought up a related issue at WT:DATE. Doug Weller  talk 19:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously they are not minor. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They seemed minor to me; as I said above, anything I felt to be contentious I actually marked as such (my Contributions list is full of such notes). I can be more careful in marking all such changes in the future. Palindromedairy (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, very little on WP is always/safely regarded as "minor", certainly not, say, moving commas around! Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've checked a few now, & found one I disagreed with (which User:El C partly reverted) but most are fine. Iron Age is typical in having had mixed styles - this edit in late August BCE'd the lead but left the rest of the article untouched - someone should have a word with him. At Bronze Age Europe there were no BCEs, but someone had peppered one section with "B.C."s. But I thought the BC style at Amphictyonic League incorrect in terms of the history. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the thing is that you think that any undiscussed change, no matter how long ago, can be reverted on the grounds that without discussion there can be no established change. I disagree on the grounds of WP:SILENCE which is why I raised the earlier discussion I mention above, WT:DATE. And how is the comment by User:EvergreenFir "very POV"? Or American. Doug Weller  talk 06:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't quite think "no matter how long ago", but I do think for several years, depending I suppose on the busyness of the article. In fact, as the cases here show, very often drive-by edits leave a mixture of styles (I'm afraid all 3 of the reverts El_C mentions near the top did so - I've fixed them all). These are obviously more vulnerable to reversion.  I detected in User:EvergreenFir's comment the belief that BCE/CE is obviously the right and natural style to use, and a clear whiff of the idea that anyone preferring BC/AD is probably some sort of Christian fundamentalist nutcase.  This sort of mindset is extremely common among highly-educated Americans, including many WP editors - far more than anywhere else - and is the driving force behind all these drive-by changes. It is of course entirely contrary to WP's position, as set out at WP:ERA.  It is also rather ignorant; people holding it should ask themselves why the biggest classical and archaeological museums in the US (MMA, Cleveland Museum of Art, Getty, LACMA) & UK (BM, English Heritage, National Trust) still use BC, and why (from Common Era) "In 2013 the Canadian Museum of Civilization (now the Canadian Museum of History) in Ottawa, which had previously switched to BCE/CE, decided to change back to BC/AD in material intended for the public, while retaining BCE/CE in academic content. ".  The reason, as some institutions have explained, is that BC/AD is more widely understood and familiar; no doubt research has been done on this.  We should ask ourselves: Is WP "intended for the public", or is it "academic content"?  Maybe the answer varies between articles.  But the main factor in deciding styles, imo, should be the choices of the main editors rather than drive-bys. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I hope you stretched before making that leap. I don't think it's right or natural; it was a shift in anthropological and historical scholar's jargon to try to be neutral and not ethnocentric. It avoids centering all history around a Western cultural frame. Which, to me, is why it would be more appropriate to use AD/BC on Western articles. It also avoids the Christian-specific language underlying AD and BC. I find it appropriate to consider these ethnocentricities when studying history. At the same time, I don't begrudge people who use the system, just as I don't begrudge Japanese scholars who refer to European history in terms of Meiji (明治), Edo (江戸), Showa (昭和), or Heisei (平成) eras. As an encyclopedia, we need to balance between recognizing the common language used by English-speaking people and its Western roots, while also being sensitive to the fact that it may be insulting to non-Westerners to reference their history by a Western religious event.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you don't need to keep pinging me about this — you've done it three times already, not to mention a comment on my talk page. Again, I have no objection. Please cease. El_C 16:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Johnbod BP, when used properly, is not an era style but a scientific method of dating - see Before Present. It should not come into the era style debate. (unsigned)
 * I know, but "when used properly" is the kicker. Some of our drive-by editors inappropriately treat it as in effect an era style, and many editors don't use it properly. I don't even know how freely we should switch between "years ago" and either BP or BC/BCE. Is there a standard, or WP policy? Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with 's comments just above. I routinely, per WP:ERA, revert wholesale changes from from one ERA system to another, and when it happens that I'm reverting changes of BC/AD to BCE/CE, I've often been accused of having a Christian POV (for the record I'm not Christian). In any case the question of which nomenclature is best understood by our readership seems to be the right one (and I have to admit although I have a PHD, and like to think of myself as very well read, I nevertheless have to confess that the first time I encountered BCE/CE was when I first started editing WP fifteen years ago, and I remember being very confused at the time ;-) Paul August &#9742; 17:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Persistent incivility: Incnis Mrsi
I have chosen the title of this section to echo this ANI thread from seven years ago, because (after the end of a long period of low activity) absolutely nothing has changed. Here is a selection of diffs from the last six weeks (all but one from the last month): They illustrate the general pattern of hyper-aggressive, personalized remarks and widespread assumptions of bad faith, usually as the opening gambit in a discussion; but they are not comprehensive. Possibly, or  may want to add further examples.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * The discussion here
 * The discussion here
 * (which is in response to this)
 * (which is in response to this)
 * (which is in response to this)

Given the longstanding pattern of behavior in the face of unambiguous feedback from many different users about its inappropriateness, I request the user be blocked for a duration TBD. --JBL (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Having also encountered this user, both directly and while patrolling changes within WikiProject Elements, I will post some diffs as well.
 * - after I made a terminology mistake. They were correct in regards to the content concerned, but this has an aura of assuming bad faith; they also linked one of my edits out of context, seemingly making a hasty generalization.
 * - partially struck after a discussion; this one was resolved civilly, though.
 * - didn't look necessary, and was called out as such. was more involved in this exchange, so they can throw in their two cents if they'd like.
 * - inappropriate use of rollback; this is a content dispute, and thus contravenes WP:ROLLBACKUSE.
 * - deletionist paroxysms? AfD is not a war zone, even when one disagrees with consensus.
 * - another example of what describes
 * - archived in this diff was a dispute with DePiep at WT:ELEM (exhibiting behavior consistent with this pattern).
 * - clearly WP:SHOUTING, and could be interpreted as a personal attack. The title is also wholly inappropriate for a talk page thread.
 * I find that their comments are often correct in reference to the content concerned, but this attitude is at best non-productive and quite often egregiously violates WP:CIVIL. Even though I try to distance myself from these disputes, and not get involved in heated arguments with uncivil remarks or edit wars, I find it difficult to stay focused solely on content when working with this user. Although in my experiences the content issues were resolved, and I have seen them strike or neutrally elaborate on some comments, this ongoing pattern is evident. Nobody should be exempt from WP:CIVIL, no matter how knowledgeable and/or experienced they may be. I'd support a block (length TBD) per this ongoing pattern, also noting that it stirs up and distracts the communities at WP:WPMATH and WP:ELEM. ComplexRational (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Involved Comment. Sorry I haven't been able to comment until now, but I've been doing other stuff all day. I don't think there's much to be gained by piling on a bunch more examples, but I guess it's at least worth mentioning the first interaction with IM that I can remember, which was at Talk:Square root, where what I was doing was called "trash".  And even though I was missing something valid, I was expected to intuit what Incnis Mrsi was thinking.  And then, when I finally got a full explanation out of him, it was in a very condescending manner.  I think this serves as a good example of the root issues, which are not only incivility, but also either an inability or unwillingness on IM's part to communicate clearly.  Part of this is, I'm sure, due to English not being their native language, but that's not the whole story.  Anyway, the point is, that for me at least, this whole brew of incivility, condescension, poor communication, etc. makes it extremely frustrating to try to resolve any conflicts with IM (which for me, have been happening more frequently lately).  So I find myself just disengaging instead (I admit I'm not the best at handling incivility).  I don't really know the best way forward here, but this has been an ongoing problem (wider than I had realized than just with myself).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The “disengaging” thing is obviously insincere:
 * Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW admit substandard communication in the 3 • 3 incident. Unfortunally Deacon_Vorbis choose to reciprocate with bashing me over various unrelated pretexts, down to manual talk archival. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This reply by I.M. may catch some tu quoque flies, but does not address the complaints. Let alone nullify the complaints. Let me rephrase this example for clarity, in my own words: here Incnis Mrsi started an "RfC" by shouting a title, out of format and out of basic process. First sentence by I.M. said "The user Deacon Vorbis wages an edit war over it." Then follows "we see the RfC sabotaged by Deacon_Vorbis", "I defer to any solution by the “chemical community” which will deter wrecking and censorship [by Deacon_Vorbis]". "Is this the guideline against calling the present situation “edit warring”?" (meanwhile, when being pointed to WP:RFCBRIEF policy replying "The statement proper occupies one [div block] – it is brief"). In that same thread, it occurs to me that Deacon Vorbis and other editors were replying restrained while politely and helpfully to I.M., including clear warnings & suggestions. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC was valid. ’ll restart it when made fixes for &#123;{chem2}}, but currently can’t devote much effort to it because of requirements IRL. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not the issue, (nor is that validness an established fact btw). The issue is your attitude wrt other editors and posts in that thread. This is ANI, this is about you. You are evading any response to the serious complaints made against you. Tells that you do not grasp the issue, and so no improvement can be expected. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A correct statement is "there is a valid issue about which one could hold an RfC". The actual RfC question that was posed was obviously completely inappropriate; but that's true of so much of IM's conduct that it's not surprising that IM doesn't recognize it. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * which response do want to see? Certainly am under a charged cloud because of my neglect of the civility standard, but do you really expect me to bow in front of those eager to strip me of editing privileges? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A correct statement is "there is a valid issue about which one could hold an RfC". The actual RfC question that was posed was obviously completely inappropriate; but that's true of so much of IM's conduct that it's not surprising that IM doesn't recognize it. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * which response do want to see? Certainly am under a charged cloud because of my neglect of the civility standard, but do you really expect me to bow in front of those eager to strip me of editing privileges? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by User:DePiep
 * Recently I had had some strong interactions with User:Incnis Mrsi (IM), starting with WT:ELEMENTS topics (ComplexRational mentioned the same above). These were my initiating reverts; I note that three times I invited IM to discuss the change or get consensus:


 * 
 * 
 * 


 * This resulted in this WT:ELEMENTS thread (started Aug 13; all posts in there):


 * The thread illustrates the issue at hand: in between content arguments there are personal attacks, personal judgements on editors ("Who can be offended by [this change]"), casting aspersions ("not far from WP:OWN") and accusing editors of incompetence, judgemental replies ("Where in the hell is it currently relevant?"). I assume all these are covered under "incivility" per OP complaint/section title. None are content-aimed or helping wikipedia.


 * When called out on such an accusation, the replies are evasive and adding more indirect accusations (see this subthread re their "not far from WP:OWN"-accusation: not substantiating, not withdrawing, but repeating and even hiding the challenge from public view. Then starting a new thread #Is_the_kettle_black?, adding an indirect accusation once more  also in the es for publicity effect).


 * Also there is much deviation from content-based issues: When asked for clarification, no substance follows but deviation instead (e.g. "DePiep opposes it… but for which reason?" reply DePiep: "Those reasons are in my post above."; and here writing "moron's way" as an argument about work people have done here).


 * Of course we are supposed to ignore disruptive deviations and concentrate on content only. That would mean in a discussion: 1. mentally strike out their uncivilities, 2. reconstruct the remaining phrase into sense, 3. explain to other editors what the useful part is, and 4. reply to the remaining content-only post, (repeat 1-4 with follow up posts). That is too much asked of other editors: IM should not divert into incivilities in the first place. Even worse, diversions & incivilities prevents IM themselves to build a to-the-point reply, sound reasoning & cooperation seeking (for example, note how IM ends up re WP:CONSENSUS here).


 * Above it was discussed if it could be lack of understanding English by IM I reject that explanation. So far, I have met little or no spelling errors, wiki-techiques used are experienced (like applying templates). Then, their uncivil accusations and smears are smartly accompanied by an insurance escape and indirectness: "not far from WP:OWN", "... expects assistance in edit-warring?". I claim that IM understands very well what they are doing. Given the effects I mentioned above (distracting other editors, into chasing them away from constructive cooperation) IM cannot claim WP:INCOMPETENT as an excuse. The damage to other editors' contributions & discussions is too disruptive and, as WP:COMPETENCE points out, incompetence is no excuse for bad faith.


 * It must stop. IM is invited to understand the issue & policies they were referred to or even referred to themselves. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If development of chem2 resulted in moron-grade typesetting—namely, trailing subscripts like in not protected from wrapping—then what’s wrong about referring to this quality by such possessive? Please, don’t permit to shut up those who detracts incompetence under tangential pretexts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (You wrote: "moron&lt;br>'s way" (italics in source) . A moron is a person, so you were referring negatively to a person (an editor). You could have written "moronic way" instead. Still, overall, "moron(ic)" is a derogative judgemental qualification, not helpful in improving the wikipedia.
 * Anyway, glad you can agree with the other complaints in my post. -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I happened to be scrolling through ANI and noticed this section. Although it has no bearing on this discussion here, I'll note Incnis has recently been given conduct warnings on the Simple English Wikipedia and Meta-Wiki by myself. I do believe this is a serious issue, and I'm disheartened about their blatant incivility on multiple projects. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Although it has no bearing on this discussion here Actually, I disagree: I think it is very helpful for establishing just how widespread and consistent the problematic behavior is. Similarly, IM is helpfully providing further illustrations by their edits (and edit summaries) in the present discussion. --JBL (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there is a problem with the attitude of this editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Due to this? Still no reply, by the way. Yes my civility is (generally) substandard, but are all my detractors honestly motivated by improvement of Wikipedia? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * re: "Still no reply" you complain? Maybe that is because followed your 'advice' to Go elsewhere and did not return for an answer. One more explicit example of I.M. literally chasing editors away. -DePiep (talk) 07:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Where is a trouble? Xxanthippe has nothing to bring to talk:Dirac adjoint, but resolved a problem with another editor without (one else)’s assistance. Did anybody bully Xxanthippe away of the article or its talk? Rather in reverse, if anything of the sort. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, IM, that you wrote to an editor to Go elsewhere. On top of that, another trouble is that you don't get that as problematic behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What namely was problematic—on my part—in the incident above? Removal of a posting in the namespace 1 is a bad practice, making was worse than merely [accidental] removal, and consequently  asked the editor not to use Twinkle in such venues. The meaning is clear. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * re "What namely was problematic—on my part—in the incident above?" &mdash; 1. You wrote Go elsewhere. 2. You do not understand that is problematic. 3. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now realize why Wikipedians often don’t explain anything, just leaving default edit summary or doing things like  depending on level of privileges. It is safer to be not accountable than face whining about “collegial manner” by disgruntled people. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * … and we can see by a defender of civility. Removing without summary is safe; at least, it protects against pettifogging like that. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This has gone on for years, since 2012 or so, and shows no sign of any improvement. Incnis Mrsi is evidently incapable of any discussion, let alone the most minor disagreement, with other editors without using it as an opportunity to abuse and disparage them. They cannot say, "SVG images would be better for this diagram than JPG", they prefer "Don't upload this filth". They behave in just the same way at Commons.
 * They know that this is a problem – it has been pointed out often enough. So they're simply not interested in changing their behaviour. Accordingly, I'd support any sanction up to an indef block. We'd all be so much better off without them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Who “we”? BTW, the quotation is not exact – suggested not to upload filth in general, not restricted to JPG filth or a specific case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As for “not interested in changing”, that’s not true. have a strong incentive to accommodate to local norms due to en.Wikipedia’s de facto central position in this ecosystem. Some people would be certainly happy to see me listed as enemy, but it is not a majority sentiment, hopefully.  will not waste that much effort (as for the thread above) anymore on this site. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, one can really tell your desire to change; after all, it's not like you've been repeating the same behaviors while this discussion is ongoing or anything. --JBL (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, a user should know how WP:BRD works before going to push his/her stuff for the second time. At least, am entitled to right to express such opinion, and nothing is wrong with stating it in an edit summary given that, at the end, it was me who went to the talk page. The posting from 13:01 consists of quibbles to drown me. Surely  disrupted Wikipedia if that many users waste their time here instead of hunting crackpots. But this thread overgrew its usefulness for the people of value: four of five established en.Wikipedians will be glad to see me ejected, but such conclusion of infighting by productive users would also bring relief to PoV pushers, waste-makers, vandals, sock puppets, not to mention some quarters of “respectable” abuse. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This is still ongoing at Commmons:
 * "fixed consequences of atrociously poor categorization by the uploader"
 * "fixed incompetent provenance declarations"
 * An editor who can't stop attacking other editors over trivia like this, even whilst they're at ANI, is an editor who either cannot or will not change. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: appearance of here is related to several disagreements, but first and foremost to Steward_requests/Global. See also WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1017. Sorry for provoking these spillovers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is deeply surprising that people who have observed you engaging in exactly the same problematic behavior elsewhere think that it is relevant to this discussion. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * … and not surprising that people who read my “open a book… and try to realize what am speaking about” respond in their kind of so-called civility.  have a decent supply of WP:AGF, but already begun to question motivation of few, most active participants here. Isn’t it a grudge from 2012 in the case of JBL? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a decent supply of WP:AGF I am speechless. --JBL (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * re I.M. "Isn’t it a grudge from 2012 in the case of JBL?": No it isn't. All your problematic diffs here are from recent edits. For example this one suggesting BF. -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad or simply pointless… but people sincerely preoccupied with my poor civility would try to hammer me under restrictions—something that certain quarters of Commoners achieved—not argue about “correct” duration of an [unconditional] block. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But people sincerely preoccupied with my poor civility would try to hammer me under restrictions - do you see the problem here, ? No one is preoccupied with your civility, they're preoccupied with the disruption your chronic incivility causes while you do not seem to care or understand that this is extremely disruptive and beyond tendentious. Praxidicae (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But people sincerely preoccupied with my poor civility would try to hammer me under restrictions - do you see the problem here, ? No one is preoccupied with your civility, they're preoccupied with the disruption your chronic incivility causes while you do not seem to care or understand that this is extremely disruptive and beyond tendentious. Praxidicae (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

shorter than indefinite doesn’t actually matter a significant difference. A ruined career anyway, as have too broad scope of interest and too distinctive manner of editing to be able to start anew with a fresh account. Hopefully administrators understand this point. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a shorter block implies having to start a new account. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Some other person, blocked in en.Wikipedia for a year, may afterwards resume editing with a new account. The same person blocked forever will be probably created puppeteer and banned with a new account – so for somebody one year vs indef may really matter. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity,, did you already have to start working from a new, fresh account on some wiki anywhere? -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize that this is my homewiki, where I have over 90k edits, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you also seriously accusing me of bad faith editing for pointing out your publicly visible conduct issues across multiple projects? Do you understand the issues being brought up here at all because I do not get the impression that you do and are instead deflecting.Praxidicae (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * have no idea what is she about to say in the shorter than indefinite topic. It could make sense wrt the meta-wiki and global sysops subthread above. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What do global sysops have to do with anything here? This makes absolutely no sense. Praxidicae (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Concluding

 * In light of the discussion above, I concretely request that IM be blocked indefinitely until they are able to demonstrate understanding of WP:Civility and the numerous ways that they are in violation of it, and credibly commit to changing those behaviors. --JBL (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually it is not a good idea to indefinitely block on behavioral issues someone who has been around for 13 years, made 11K edits, and has never been blocked before.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually, editors with that level of experience are not chronically and grossly uncivil. (Separately, though not relevant to this discussion: your description of IM's tenure is very misleading, since they have only avoided being blocked for precisely the same issue by agreeing to take a 2-month break from editing in 2012, and were minimally active for 5 years beginning April 2014.) --JBL (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I.M. even in this ANI does not get the issue. So a block is in place (because otherwise, with no understanding or change of concept by I.M., no change of behaviour will occur). The 2012 ANI post re I.M., from which this one took its name!, may be relevent to admins. Length of block is up to others. In case of reoccurrence we will meet here at ANI again.-DePiep (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that IM should be be blocked for a year or longer for being unable to edit Wikipedia in a collegial manner and being unwilling to change his behavior. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC). (non-admin)
 * In light of the fact that a two-month break after the previous ANI seems to have done nothing to mitigate these concerns, I'd propose a minimum length of six months. I'd even settle with indefinite and an unblock condition of remaining civil and not shouting or belittling other editors, with a civility restriction enforcing this regardless of block length (i.e. coming into play after the expiry of the block). Unfortunately, given the behavior in these (and many other unlinked) diffs, and no evident interest in changing ways, a block seems to be the only means to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. (WP:BLOCKP points 2 and 3). ComplexRational (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose block Many of the diffs above do not show any incivility. The suggestion that there is much more is rather weak when you're already struggling to find some. Also, when you want to complain about another user being less than perfectly civil, don't respond to them in kind. Nothing rises to a level that we should worry about. Respect their expertise, remain civil yourselves, and you'll be fine. Almond Plate (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Since several editors have gone to the trouble of identifying behavior they find problematic, it seems appropriate to give more than hand-waving: could you identify many diffs above that do not show incivility? (I will happily admit that one or two show other charming tendencies like edit-warring, rather than specifically uncivil behavior.) --JBL (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I could, but I won't. It is up to you to present the diffs that do make your case. Your several editors' trouble doesn't impress me, especially with the canvassing and the importing going on here. If you provide diffs that don't support your case, that can be seen as disruptive, especially with the canvassing and the importing going on here and the disproportionate proposals. Almond Plate (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, if you just want to troll this discussion that's up to you. But for anyone to evaluate the validity of your comment, it would be necessary to indicate which of the diffs above you think are ok (just as to judge the validity of a complaint, it is necessary to have diffs of behavior that is not ok). --JBL (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This page's introduction says: "Include diffs demonstrating the problem". This report is missing diffs (or other identifications), even after being asked for them. This post is useless and to be ignored. -DePiep (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support admin action, including a warning and/or block per admin discretion; "something must be done". The incivility disruption is ongoing (diff, see edit summary, from the past 24hrs), and it doesn't appear this editor will be changing their behavior in this regard. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support an indefinite block this is yet another time sink. This is a perpetual and wide spread problem and while it's not enwiki's battle to fight, it's worth noting that IM is blocked for 6 months as of today on meta for incivility and attacks, they were warned again on commons for incivility, all while this discussion about blocking them indefinitely here, for incivility has been taking place. Praxidicae (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This, however, is a different project. We have no jurisdiction over Commons, nor does anything that happens there carry any weight here. (Not much to see there either though, although if I were to look closer, I might see indications of hounding.) Almond Plate (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the part where I said: while it's not enwiki's battle to fight or should I also point out IM has cast aspersions against myself and others for bring up their proven, perpetual incivility?Praxidicae (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * re "nor does anything that happens there carry any weight here": Fore sure it supports the notion that I.M. cannot claim ignoreance, misunderstanding or incompetence. That's not jurisdiction, that's an argument. -DePiep (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support a block, on incivility grounds, noting the various concerns raised by User:Joel_B._Lewis; User:ComplexRational; User:Deacon Vorbis; DePiep; Vermont; Xxanthippe; and Andy Dingley. While the user has acknowledged their own incivility they appear to be unwilling to accept responsibility for changing their behaviour. Sandbh (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting that I've blocked Incnis Mrsi on Meta-Wiki for a period of 6 months. It also seems that Incnis has made personal attacks in this section today towards editors. This is entirely unacceptable. Vermont (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, different venue. (But since you keep insisting on importing this, I've had a look. I see nothing in your meta diffs that warrants a block or even a warning. Six months is brutal.) Almond Plate (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a different project; see my initial comment about it being a cross-wiki issue a few days ago. However, if someone is exhibiting uncivil attitudes on multiple projects, it is useful to be aware of that when judging it on one project. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree there's nothing in your meta diffs that warrants a block or even a warning. For example, there's "overenthusiastic shoot-not-think boys and girls as stewards, not wise and experienced first-grade admins" and this ironic example: "Is the heavy use of pro-forms a mandatory part of [editor]’s English? Again I have to decrypt a phrase and infer some meaning from it, which possibly lie far from the intended meaning." – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 03:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * re "I see nothing in your [meta-wiki] diffs ...": But about this site & ANI report, you wrote: "Many of the diffs above do not show any incivility"  (you still have not identified those BTW). That implies you did see incivilities here. None of the two groups you elaborated on, so we still can't discuss your opinion. Does not help the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI Almond Plate has been blocked as a sock puppet. --JBL (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support a block (shorter than indefinite): Several examples of incivility have been brought up, which as isolated incidents may not major incidents, but the finger-pointing, accusations, and near-immediate loss of WP:AGF is very concerning. There seems to be a pattern of incivility, limited recognition of poor behavior, and combativeness. This is ignoring any issues on other wikis. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support indef - (Quality of contributions + competency in main-space) < Ill-effects of his perpetual incivility. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 1 month. --Rschen7754 02:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To add, I think that an indefinite block is likely in the future but I don't think that we are there yet. --Rschen7754 02:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

InFairness
is adding something about how Obama and Hitler both have "" to False equivalence. Is this some kind of alt-right meme or something? When I reverted him, he called me a at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. I'm not really concerned about being called a hypocrite (it's actually very mild compared to the things I'm usually called), but, given and, I'm a bit concerned that this may be an account dedicated to trolling. I don't really know much about trends in alt-right trolling, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could look at this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately, it's been around for a while. See these Google results for "Obama Hitler mama". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, Wikipedia, where you definitely will learn something new every day...whether you want to or will be any better off for it is more variable Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Judging by some of the comments at User talk:InFairness, and the diffs in the OP, the user is either trolling or lacks competence. Either way an indef should result from any future similar edits. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that perhaps we should not be judging a 14-year-old account on just two edits. Try thirteen.
 * Special:Diff/808589101
 * Special:Diff/772265972
 * Special:Diff/750337360
 * Special:Diff/672671061
 * Special:Diff/616608407
 * Special:Diff/544587173
 * Special:Diff/544679786
 * Special:Diff/252745635
 * Special:Diff/252745702
 * Special:Diff/763878905
 * Special:Diff/755984683
 * Do you still think that this is a person dedicated to alt-right trolling? Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I know riddles are a specialty Uncle G, but plain speaking is better at ANI. Apparently you have found 13 good edits? That's great. However the bad edits are very bad and some talented people find it entertaining to occasionally troll. That must stop. Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is  plain speaking, and you have avoided answering the simple question, perhaps because it is plain that this is not an account "dedicated to trolling". I think that we would have spotted that in 14 years.  Uncle G (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Eleven edits in the last 2.4 years isn't dedicated to much of anything. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 11:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Those two edits were poor quality, but this guy has been editing prolifically since 2005 and has written dozens of articles. I think it’s okay to admonish him to end the occasional trolling without permanently banning him. Michepman (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * prolifically since 2005 their last 100 edits go back to 2013! --JBL (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but if you look at his edit history holistically you’ll see that while his edit count has slowed down a bit in recent years he had well over a hundred edits in 2005, 2006, etc. and created a large number of articles in 2005 and subsequent years. That does not give him license to vandalize articles as he has been doing recently but I do think he should be warned not to do so before being indefinitely blocked. Michepman (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are we sure it's the same person and not a compromised account? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m definitely open to a compromise with this account to resolve the issue. From my reading, the core issue is that he has begun to occasionally vandalize articles in the main space. If he is willing to stop this, I’d definitely support closing this discussion and potentially even awarding a barnstar to acknowledge his 14 years of otherwise productive editing. Michepman (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood. When I said it could be a compromised account, I meant one where someone got the password somehow and it isn't being operated by the original owner.  That said, I'm not sure it isn't the original owner either. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 22:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ohh gotcha. I see what you mean now. The editing behavior definitely does seem incongruous -- I know does not see this as trolling behavior but I am struggling to come up with a legitimate good faith editor reason why this user would have included the phrase "murderous fucking bigot" in 1 article or vandalized a caption here in an article. If this user's account was somehow compromised by hackers, that might actually explain why his editing went from being normal a few years ago to being somewhat troll-adjacent more recently.  Michepman (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * please don't close discussions with which you are involved. You twice attempted to close this, even calling 's fix vandalism. – bradv  🍁  15:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum's WP:BLPCOI editing and comments at the Milo Yiannopoulos article
Milo Yiannopoulos is a controversial figure, and the Milo Yiannopoulos article is under WP:1RR because of the article's contentious nature. Because of this, we will sometimes get editors who have very passionate feelings about the subject, and these feelings can interfere with the editor's neutrality. WP:BLPCOI states, in part, "editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." In the case of the Yiannopoulos article, I feel that Bacondrum has a WP:BLPCOI and that it more often than not affects his ability to edit the article in ways that are in accordance with policies such as WP:Due weight and WP:Preserve, and guidelines such as WP:Lead. The following is why:


 * In December 2018, Bacondrum showed up to the article arguing that it was overly long because "Milo Yiannopolous has achieved nothing compared to say Albert Einstein who's page is of comparable length" and "It's like a rolling report by people trying to expose what a nasty little man he is...and he is a nasty little man". He also said "perhaps in decades to come he will be more noteworthy, but now he is not much more than a loud mouth twat. I only mention that I think the guy is a creep so you understand I'm not trying to change the article to be less critical, but actually to read and feel encyclopedic." In light of these comments, it became clear to me that Bacondrum's personal feelings about Yiannopoulos's noteworthiness was a reason Bacondrum had made mass deletions to the article, including reducing the lead so that it no longer adequately summarized the article. In addition to what I told him about adequately summarizing the lead, another editor weighed in to echo my comments on that matter.


 * As seen in the "mass changes" discussion, I stated, "All I'm asking is that you take care not to engage in mass changes, and that you first seek WP:Consensus here on the talk page for changes that are likely to be contested." He quickly made the discussion personal by bringing up my block log, and accused me of "rubbish[ing] Wikipedia or other editors' work."


 * In the "article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years" discussion, I tried to explain to him that "Regardless of how we personally feel about the subject, we should be as impartial as we can be and give the topics regarding this person their WP:Due weight. There are editors who feel that some of our Wikipedia articles on Internet celebrities are excessive and that those celebrities aren't worth our time. But that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Yes, we should avoid WP:Recentism, and there is material in this article that can be cut or downsized, but we shouldn't be editing as though we own a crystal ball regarding this person's noteworthiness or relevance." I then suggested that Bacondrum propose cuts on the article's talk page. He didn't. He went to cutting what he did not like, removing some valid material in the process. He then accused me of WP:OWNING the article. In that discussion, another editor tried to explain to him how notability and coverage on Wikipedia work. And a different editor also pointed him to "WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." On his talk page, he was also informed by an editor that WP:BLP applies to talk pages and to not make derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos.


 * Fast-forward to July 15, 2019, where Bacondrum drastically cutting the lead was brought up again, this time by a different editor after Bacondrum's latest attempt to make it shorter than it should be. In that discussion, Bacondrum stated, "I'm not trying to whitewash, to be completely honest I think the dude is a piece of Nazi scum." The "Nazi scum" aspect was redacted by Swarm after this ANI thread on an unrelated matter where Swarm referred to his edits as "unilateral and substantial deletions of controversial content."


 * Fast-forward to September 2019, yet another discussion about the lead. I'd reverted Bacondrum on removing the "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships and that his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men." piece, stating, "Why do you think that we shouldn't include his statement that he's not a supporter of pedophilic relationships and why he says he made the comments? Per WP:BLP, it should be there. We shouldn't leave the accusation there unchallenged." Although Bacondrum conceded that we should state "Yiannopoulos has said that he is not a supporter of paedophilic," he questioned including Yiannopoulos's statement that he was "merely attempt[ing] to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men." It soon became clear why. In Bacondrum's own words, he feels that Yiannopoulos is "a habitual liar who was "desperate[ly] backpedaling" and that "verifiable claims matter, and the veracity matters tens times more when the subject is a proven habitual liar," and that "At the end of the day, he is a pathological liar. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out down the track that he is a protestant heterosexual with no Greek ancestry."


 * After Bacondrum's September 2019 derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos, I stated, "Keep in mind that this is a BLP. So, per WP:BLP, comments like 'a habitual liar like Yiannopoulos,' 'desperate backpedaling from claims' and 'he is a pathological liar,' and other derogatory personal opinions on Yiannopoulos, should be avoided. As for 'an insult to survivors,' some survivors of child sexual abuse, especially male survivors of child sexual abuse, have tried to downplay such harm, whether with regard to themselves and/or others. So Yiannopoulos's claim that his 'statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men' does align with that." I then expressed concern on his talk page that he has a WP:BLPCOI and that "I think that your strong/passionate feelings about Yiannopoulos is partly why you still want to downsize the article, even after you've recently significantly downsized it." I stated, "I think you should really consider your WP:BLPCOI regarding the Milo Yiannopoulos article." In addition to the response seen there by Bacondrum, he came to my talk to accuse me of "shifty tactics" and owning the article for expressing my concerns about his WP:BLPCOI.


 * Even as recently as this edit, he claimed that he "was not defaming the subject" because of some businessinsider.com.au source he linked to. Regardless of whatever he linked to there, he very clearly made derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos very recently. And despite his retracting a part of it here and stating here that he will "be more careful about the language [he uses] in the future," I have no faith that Bacondrum can be as impartial as he likely should be, or at least should be trying to be, when editing this article or that he won't make more derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos in the future. I believe that he only struck through a piece of his comment and stated that he will "be more careful about the language [he uses] in the future" because I told him on my talk page that I would be bringing this matter to ANI. Before that, he was at my talk page going on about how I'm supposedly engaging in "shifty tactics" and owning the article.

I'm not sure what the solution should be. If editors feel that Bacondrum continuing to edit this article is fine, I'll just have to accept that. But I felt that I should bring this matter to the wider Wikipedia community. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm very disappointed in Bacondrum's behavior here, which is pretty much what he did on Alt right, where he removed huge sections of the article without discussion, and then fought tooth and nail about them againswt multiple editors. After that dispute we had a friendly reconciliation, so I wish I didn't have to say this, but Bacondrum seems to leap before he looks and to make extensive BOLD edits without really good reasons behind them: they appear to be almost entirely based on his personal view of things as seen from Australia. It's beginning to look to me -- sorry Bacondrum -- that his innate behavior is not a good match for Wikipedia's consensus-based model.  I would very much like that to not be true, so I ask Bacondrum to come here and explain his behavior as described by Flyer22 Reborn, and in relation to his previous behavior on other articles, including the battle he's fighting now to remove the well-sourced "Alt-left" section from Alt right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have acknowledged my past mistakes and I agreed not do it again. I have not violated the 1RR sanctions, I've discussed the changes I want to make in a polite and civil manner, I have not edit warred, I've not made a single POV edit...the only thing I did wrong was call the subject a "pathological liar" in the talk section, which I acknowledge I shouldn't have done, I retracted it and appologise for it (I'm human, I make mistakes). These two editors have both taken issue with me in the past and I see this ANI request as unfair, unreasonable and at this point, over such a small disagreement I consider this a clear case of harassment. I've acknowledged my faults and learnt my lessons - I attempted to make peace with BMK and Flyer22 and have been civil with them, to no avail. They have both repeatedly accused me of being a POV editor in violation of policy. I think this warrants a WP:Boomerang Regarding WP:HARASS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS. I'm trying to be civil, but they are making it all but impossible. I've made mistakes in the past, learned and changed my ways - one little mistake that I retracted and apologize for does not warrant this level of hostility or sanctions, IMO. Bacondrum (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * On what grounds do you speculate that Flyer22 Reborn should receive a boomerang? Aside, of course, from attempting to deflect blame from yourself? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally see this as a content dispute and nothing more. I think Flyer22 is just mad that I got a significant number of edits through that he or she objects to and is seeking to punish me for it. Please look at my recent history and understand I acknowledge past mistakes and I have not made any POV edits, not edit warred, not been uncivil and have been making good faith edits since. Bacondrum (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As for BMK's "that his innate behavior is not a good match for Wikipedia's consensus-based model" this is coming from a guy who edit wars and makes personal attacks ad nauseum and has been blocked something like ten times. Again I'd argue that this should WP:Boomerang. The guy is almost a fixture on this noticeboard. Bacondrum (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 13 times. In 14+ years. 13 times, in 255,807 edits.  That's 1 block for every 17,441 edits.  You've been blocked 2 times, and you have only 4,575 edits, one block for every 2,287 edits.  So, in point of fact, I've been blocked at a rate that's 7.5 less frequently than you, so I don't think I'd be thrpwing that around, with yur record.  You are responsible for your own behavior, no one else.And, again, what are your grounds for calling for a boomerang?  That you don't like me?  That I post on AN/I a lot? (Not really, my percentage of Wikipedia-space edits is 9.5, while yours is 7.1, not so very different).  That you're annoyed that you have to justify your editing?  What's your reasoning? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * <Small>How dreadful! You seem to have caught a terrible case of Editcountitis. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, it's just that I am vulnerable to claims that I post too much at AN/I, and showing that my participation here is proportional to my overall edit count is the best way to counter those charges. I may post here more than most people, but I also make more (many more) article edits than most people. It's a canard that is used against me often, especially when there's nothing substantive that I can be attacked with. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not that it will appease these two, but I acknowledge I should not have called the subject a pathological liar, I apologise for it and it won't happen again. Bacondrum (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , is there an area of the encyclopaedia you'd be interested in editing in aside from these contentious political articles? I do agree there's WP:BLPCOI here with your edits as it's clear you're not able to edit this article neutrally, but there's plenty of areas of Wikipedia where I think you could make a positive contribution. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a non-neutral edit that I have made to the article? Please be kind enough to point at least one non-neutral edit I've made, if it's clear I'm not able to edit this article neutrally it should be easy to demonstrate my bias editing. Bacondrum (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You boldly removed a lot of references, and then for some reason decided on the talk page there's "citation over kill," though as a general rule of thumb everything on Wikipedia needs to be referenced. This diff is arguably non-neutral, as is . I don't know why you're continually intent on removing content from articles - my primary concern about neutrality isn't with any one particular edit or POV-pushing, but rather that it seems as if you're removing information from articles on people you don't like because you think we've over-covered them. If you see issues that need to be cleaned up, please identify them on the talk page and gain consensus on them, as you did with the RfC. SportingFlyer  T · C  07:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In what you just described, I did absolutely nothing wrong. On the talk page I've said somethings I shouldn't have said, I accept that and apologise - other than that, I've done absolutely nothing wrong - I've been Bold, when reverted I took it to talk and discussed, I've not edit warred, I've been civil and collegial. I've done absolutely nothing wrong in that regard. Bacondrum (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's "biased" editing, not "bias" editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus, now you're harassing me over a typo? Bacondrum (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I was correcting what has become a very common grammatical error, which I see more and more here and elsewhere on the Internet, and which is one of my bete noirs. If you say it was merely a typo, then I take you at your word.And, BTW, "harassment", like 'vandalism" has a very specific Wikipedia meaning. You can read about it here.  I'd be careful about throwing it around too casually. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The plural of bete noire is betes noires. I wouldn't usually trouble to point this out, but if you are correcting someone else's errors... RolandR (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note, it looked wrong when I typed it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just 3 days ago Flyer22 had this to say about my edits (keep in mind that i've not edited the article since): "You have significantly improved it, and it does seem to live up to C-class. But I'm willing to listen to what other cuts you are aiming for and what WP:OR you are speaking of. I just ask that you propose the cuts here on the talk page first. There is no rush, and you've already significantly downsized the article. I'm fine with you summarizing quoted material without discussion." As you can see there's a huge discrepancy between that and what he or she now claims about my edits. This is harassment. I will not make negative comments about the subject again, you have my word. I want to contribute to this article and I personally agree with Flyer22's earlier assertion that I have "significantly improved it". Bacondrum (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said above, please be careful about throwing around "harassment". Criticism of your editing, with supporting evidence, is in no respect "harassment". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Bacondrum stated that I have "repeatedly accused [him] of being a POV editor in violation of policy." What is he talking about with regard to the wording "POV editor"? Perhaps he can provide diffs for this assertion? The harassment and personal attacks claims are obviously without merit.


 * Bacondrum stated, "I'm trying to be civil, but they are making it all but impossible." How? By pointing him to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as what WP:Lead states and his WP:BLPCOI?


 * Bacondrum stated, "I think Flyer22 is just mad that I got a significant number of edits through that he or she objects to and is seeking to punish me for it." If this were the case, then I would not have stated, "You have significantly improved [the article]." If I had objected to all of Bacondrum's latest big cuts, I would have reverted and made my case on the talk page (just like I've reverted him and made my case on the talk page before). This is not about a content dispute. It's about Bacondrum editing based on his personal opinions rather than what our policies and guidelines state and him not being able to refrain from making derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos. If one has valid reason to make cuts, then cut away. But to cut because you don't like the material and feel that the subject doesn't deserve an article as big as Einstein's? That is a problem. Bacondrum having made some good edits to the article doesn't mean that he's not still making problematic ones, such as having cut all of the Gamergate material, which another editor had to salvage in a smaller form. Bacondrum doesn't understand WP:Preserve. Or, if he does, he doesn't care. This is the size of the article now. Look past the headings (which can make an article look bigger than it is) to what is in the sections. I get the impression that Bacondrum is aiming for the article to be barely bigger than a stub. And it's all because of his feelings on Yiannopoulos's noteworthiness. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Shifting goal posts now? This is what I mean by harassment. Three days ago you were saying, that I had "improved the article significantly" I've not made a single edit since you said that. I've not argued for anything near reducing it to a stub, that's an outright lie. Bacondrum (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a personal attack, I've edited in good faith and been mindful of my personal bias. "I get the impression that Bacondrum is aiming for the article to be barely bigger than a stub. And it's all because of his feelings on Yiannopoulos's noteworthiness." This is a clear and obnoxious violation of WP:PERSONALATTACKS. I've worked to improve the article and any insinuation to the contrary is deeply insulting. Bacondrum (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"You have significantly improved it" - Flyer22_Reborn 09-09-2019 (one day after the last edit I made to the article in question) Bacondrum (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not "shifting goal posts" in any way. You keep using the "Flyer said I significantly improved the article" statement as some "get out of jail free" card. I already stated, "Bacondrum having made some good edits to the article doesn't mean that he's not still making problematic ones." And Simonm223 stated similarly below. I told you at the end of this section on the article's talk page. "Looking at this version of the article, it appears to me that you've cut enough. There is a little bit of material that can be summarized instead of including quotes. But you have significantly downsized the article. The goal certainly should not be what the goal was in the 'The article is way too long for a person whom history will likely forget in a few years' discussion. And this is for reasons stated in that discussion. And by 'goal,' I obviously mean downsizing the article because of what one personally feels about Yiannopoulos's noteworthiness or relevance." So my concerns expressed above are the same ones I've expressed on the talk page. Above, I stated, "Look past the headings (which can make an article look bigger than it is) to what is in the sections." For most sections in the article, there is not a lot of material in those sections. So what else am I to think when you continue to speak of cuts and wanting to reduce the lead, which, in its current state, does adequately summarize the article? You don't understand what WP:Harassment or WP:Personal attacks mean, just like you don't understand WP:Preserve and WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As political movements are one of my preferred edit topics I've run across Bacondrum a lot and frankly their edit history confuses me. At times, they've made WP:BOLD edits that I actually supported as improving WP:DUE and WP:NPOV in contentious areas, while at other times their edits are just as bold, but entirely perplexing, removing large chunks of text, declaring significant things irrelevant and generally coming across as haphazard. I don't think this matter is as simple as a WP:BLPCOI issue. The article talk on arbcom sanctioned far-right figures has always pushed the bounds of both WP:BLP and WP:CIV and, in the case of Yiannopoulos, there are actually WP:RSes that support some of Bacondrum's more POV talk page comments (such as his history of dissembling and his involvement with nazi groups).
 * But that being said, I certainly don't think Bacondrum's comportment has been perfect. I don't think they understand the line between WP:BOLD and WP:RECKLESS well, and I think that they should demonstrate far greater caution in mass-deletion of content. The recent RfC about Gamergate at Yiannopoulos is confusing nearly to the point of disruption and I think it centers around a post-hoc justification for one of these deletions. My proposal for a solution would be to impose a time-limited restriction on non-minor deletions unless a clear consensus has been achieved at talk (somewhere between 3 to 6 months) along with a formal warning that, should they not abide by this restriction, or should they return to bad habits after the expiry of it, they will face a more severe penalty. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fair, I'll wear that. I can see my faults and think that's a fair criticism. Thanks for being reasonable, and I'll endeavor to do better in the future. Bacondrum (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would probably agree with Simon's suggestion on the restrictions on non-minor edits without consensus, based on patterns. This is not yet at a point of major behavior problems (no EW/reverting, etc.) but should be cautioned that large-scale edits on pages on controversial topics should probably be discussed first rather than BOLDLY made. But I will add, related to the content side, that I think Bacondrum is right that the article on Milo is far too long for what he actually has done. (insert my usual tirade on NOTNEWS/RECENTISM here)' which has caused unsavory figures as seen by the media to get drastically far more coverage comparatively, which ends up making article that highlight every complaint the media has taken with these people. These types of bios should not be seen as scarlet letters to gather everything bad that can be said about them, and editors should take caution to focus on facets that will have enduring important to who Milo is years down the road. That's not to whitewash any negative stuff, just that there's no need to document everything an RS speaks negatively of him. --M asem (t) 14:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem, again this is the current state of the article. Like I noted above, for most sections in the article, there is not a lot of material in those sections. So exactly how much more should be cut? And based on what policy or guideline? What in the sections is not due? And should the lead not adequately summarize the article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Without spending a bunch of time heads-deep into sources "Remarks on paedophilia and child sexual abuse" reads like a section purposely there to shame Milo. I'm not saying it should be removed, but reads as a laundry list of every time something Milo may have said something that inferred paedophila is listed. That's a RECENTISM issue, related to trying to apply UNDUE in the state of the "now". Just because something he said got media attention doesn't make it long-term appropriate. Think about how you'd be writing this section for the first time if it was 20 years down the road, Milo long disappeared from public view into the tapestry of this period. Would that section be how it would be written, assuming you otherwise had access to the same sources? Of course not. This is where I think Bacondrum is coming from, in comparing this to Einstein's article, which there is not reporting every little thing that happened but a broad overview like a tertiary source should. --M asem (t) 20:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem, I've never supported including everything in that section. And I did ask Bacondrum what more from that section he thinks needs cutting. He stated he "reckon[s] that [the] section would be fine [after the 'Yiannopoulos's comments were widely characterized as endorsing paedophilia or pederasty' line was re-added with a piece making clear that Yiannopoulos is technically correct about the definition of pedophilia.]" All that Bacondrum had focused on cutting from that section was the "Yiannopoulos is technically correct about the definition of pedophilia" piece, which was only there after an RfC deemed it appropriate. He also stated, "[T]hat's one section where most the detail is due IMO, after all those comments are one of the only reasons anyone has ever heard of him." When he said that the section is fine as is, I disagreed in my mind, but I did not voice my disagreement. As for WP:Recentism, I often do bring up WP:Recentism, including in this July 2019 case regarding Michael Jackson's legacy after the Leaving Neverland documentary. In that discussion, I, for example, stated, "we will have to wait years to see the full impact." So I understand what you mean about that. We don't fully agree on where  Bacondrum is coming from. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should say is that in light of what is being asked for here at ANI, Bacondrum's statements about the length and size of Milo's article are inline with guidelines like RECENTISM, or at least within that ballpark that discussion of their points should not be taken as a POV/behavioral issue, and something from a content side more editors involved on that page should be aware of. I've been on that side where I'm trying to argue related to policies and guidelines and have been told that I'm pushing a POV, hence my concern this is what's being done here, and I am just hoping to have this lead more editors to be open to discuss with Bacondrum valid changes to the article without presuming they are trying to whitewash it by removing information, while at the same time Bacondrum be very aware that massive BOLD changes prior to discussion will draw attention. --M asem (t) 22:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then we disagree on a number of points regarding Bacondrum, considering that his beliefs about things like what is due for inclusion and how and lead length have repeatedly been out of step with WP:Due and WP:Lead, as noted by others. Like I made clear above, he isn't even in agreement with your viewpoint on the pedophilia/child sexual abuse material, and it's clearly based on his personal POV. Also, I've never viewed his edits as whitewashing attempts. I think him wanting to have the lead of the article state "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting paedophilia" without any statement from Yiannopoulos on the matter saying "he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships" is evident that this is not about whitewashing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you please copy this part into perhaps 2 dozen articles! ''These types of bios should not be seen as scarlet letters to gather everything bad that can be said about them, and editors should take caution to focus on facets that will have enduring important to who [BLP] is years down the road.  It's very clear when the subject of a BLP (and sometimes non-LP or just an organization) is written by those who dislike it rather than from what could be called an archaeological POV.  Sadly it is often more important to put in inflammatory quotes etc vs trying to help readers understand the picture.  Springee (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Only 2 dozen articles? We have something like 185 million BLPs, seems like that should be copied into most of them. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't only be BLPs that need this - thank goodness we don't have yet have a separate article on "Sharpiegate". However, I also know my views related in this RECENTISM area are not universally shared, I'm just expressing that I think some of the conflict in the current content discussion at Milo's page should be considered in this light.--M asem (t) 17:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree with the views expressed here more, I see the same problem on many of these new/newish far right articles, huge amounts of undue detail, lousy prose etc. Seeing as how I'm essentially no longer able to improve the Milo Yiannopoulos or the Alt-right page because I tried to remove too much guff at once and I'll be sanctioned if I keep it up, I'd strongly urge you all to look at these pages and help improve them, they are drowning in undue detail (well, Milo less so now). The Alt-right article is a shocker, full of tendentious details and teeming with RECENTISM. Bacondrum (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 1
WP:TROUT the following people:
 * Flyer22 Reborn: For filing the complaint over something that's seems to have been settled.
 * Bacondrum: For prior remarks and for future remarks that he hasn't typed but was probably thinking about (humorously pick WP:AGF out of the trash can)
 * Beyond My Ken: For further inflaming the situation with snarky remarks, but then backing off replete with spelling errors
 * ONUnicorn: Because he was the last to reply + had an excellent suggestion!
 * Buffs: because he likes fish

In all seriousness, this feels very much like this is a litany of points that has been brought up in AN when it really didn't need to be. It feels like a grudge that is festering. Everyone go back to your own corner. Take a deep breath and relax. Then keep your future remarks collegial. All of you are better than this and I've seen it in the talk pages (yes...I'm admonishing myself too).

Now, I am off to read other parts of Wikipaedia for no raisin whatsoever! Buffs (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support a thorough Trouting of all involved Buffs is right, this really didn't need to make it to ANI. Let's all take a breather, remember to be civil, and go grill some fresh WP:TROUT Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Given what SportingFlyer and Simonm223 stated above, how do either of you figure that I "[filed] the complaint over something that's seems to have been settled"? What has been settled? How is pointing out WP:BLPCOI and WP:BLPTALK about a grudge? Things were going okay-ish with Bacondrum until he started making derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos yet again. He's already had two chances twice before to stop making such comments. Because of his view that Yiannopoulos is "a habitual liar who was "desperate[ly] backpedaling" and that Yiannopoulos is "a pathological liar," Bacondrum has felt that we should just have the lead of the article state "Yiannopoulos has been accused of being an apologist for or supporting paedophilia" without any statement from Yiannopoulos on the matter saying "he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships." To have the lead formatted like that is a BLP problem. It's not like Yiannopoulos is a convicted child sexual abuser. It is not as though Yiannopoulos has been caught with child pornography. With more discussion, Bacondrum finally agreed to retain Yiannopoulos saying "he is not a supporter of paedophilic relationships." But now he questions including Yiannopoulos saying "his statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men." He objects because there is no evidence. I've told him that this material "does seem due to me in a BLP context because [Yiannopoulos is] explaining himself. Whether editors or readers believe him is irrelevant. It's covered in detail below and the lead should adequately summarize the 'pedophilia/child sexual abuse' matter." I also told him, "As for people saying that they were sexually abused, there often is not evidence that the abuse took place" and "false allegation of child sexual abuse is rare, especially when coming from the person who says they were abused," and "some survivors of child sexual abuse, especially male survivors of child sexual abuse, have tried to downplay such harm, whether with regard to themselves and/or others. So Yiannopoulos's claim that his 'statements were merely attempts to cope with his own victimhood, as an object of child abuse by unnamed older men' does align with that." What to include in the lead of a BLP should not be based on whether or not we think the person is a pathological liar. Furthermore, regardless of whatever reliable source has called Yiannopoulos a Nazi scum or a pathological liar, although I've seen no such sources state so, it doesn't give us a pass to call him such on the article talk page. What confidence do either of you have that Bacondrum won't continue to make derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos? How many chances does he get? Considering Buffs' "Bacondrum: For prior remarks and for future remarks that he hasn't typed" comment, he doesn't have any faith at all that Bacondrum won't continue to make derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos.


 * Looking above in this thread and at things like this comment by Joel B. Lewis and this statement by Bishonen, I can't help but feel that the "trouts for all" viewpoint is more so about feelings toward Beyond My Ken and should be disregarded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * and Hahaha, yes I'll cop a well deserved trout slap. Looks like Flyer22 might need a couple. Bacondrum (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Come on, blind Freddy can see you've got a grudge, this has been unnecessary nasty and personal. Lighten up, cop a trout WP:DEADHORSE. Peace. Bacondrum (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course you would say that. I expect you to say it the next time you are brought to ANI as well. I've noticed that the above comment aligns with your typical response to any concern regarding your behavior. But I won't say "I told you so" to editors the next you are brought here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus, you just don't let up do you? Bacondrum (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2
After reading this thread, I support what Simonm223 said above: My proposal for a solution would be to impose a time-limited restriction on non-minor deletions unless a clear consensus has been achieved at talk (somewhere between 3 to 6 months) along with a formal warning that, should they not abide by this restriction, or should they return to bad habits after the expiry of it, they will face a more severe penalty. I think multiple editors have made clear that this is an ongoing pattern of behavior that should be addressed. Also, even if Bacondrum has done some good work, that does not mean they are without BLPCOI on Yiannopoulos. Just saying everyone behave! won't fix anything, and the bad habits can easily resurface. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to wear that, assuming this proposal means restrictions on non-minor deletions applies to all, not just me. Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Have all shown a WP:BLPCOI on this article? No. Different editors agree that you have shown you have one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but you've clearly got a grudge. We've clearly been involved in a content dispute, it's hardly fair that you are given different editing conditions in this context. Bacondrum (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware that you perceive valid criticism of your behavior to be a grudge. I stated above, "Things were going okay-ish with [you] until [you] started making derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos yet again. [You've] already had two chances twice before to stop making such comments." How many chances should you get? As for your statement that "it's hardly fair that [I am] given different editing conditions in this context"? Do you understand how this site works? I mean, truly? It has often seemed that you do not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And it's not like I brought the "derogatory comments" matter straight to ANI. I first addressed it on the article's talk page. I then took the matter to your talk page. And, well, I documented above how you responded. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus wept. Bacondrum (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would be fine with this thread being closed with Bacondrum being admonished to watch his WP:BLPCOI and to refrain from making any more derogatory comments about Yiannopoulos. The thread serving as a warning is fine with me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's an about face, thanks for calling off the hounds. I'll gladly accept that. Thanks for suddenly being reasonable. Bacondrum (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not an about face. I stated from the beginning, "I'm not sure what the solution should be. If editors feel that Bacondrum continuing to edit this article is fine, I'll just have to accept that. But I felt that I should bring this matter to the wider Wikipedia community." Others here have agreed with me about your problematic editing. It's simply that there is not yet any consensus on what to do about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding personal attacks
I accept reasonable criticisms made of me. However, BMK and Flyer22 have clearly gone well beyond that, as other editors have pointed out. I have been subject to a significant number of personal attacks here. Are personal attacks now permitted once we enter and ANI? If not are there any consequences or will these two be permitted to continue personal attacks whenever they complain about me? Bacondrum (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * More ridiculousness. And "as other editors have pointed out" is clearly false. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Clearly false? "It feels like a grudge". Jesus wept. Bacondrum (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your statement that "other editors have pointed out" that my comments have "clearly gone well beyond" reasonable criticisms is false. One editor in the first proposal section stated "It feels like a grudge that is festering." And I noted why that editor's comment is without merit. You not taking this ANI thread seriously is more evidence of your problematic viewpoint on this matter and other BLPs. Like I stated, you'll be back at ANI again for your problematic editing, and it won't be because I brought you here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Vodafone India IPv4 vandalism
The range is infested with vandals and otherwise poor editors. IP-only range block seems to the only workable response. BTW doesn’t anybody know a LTA with similar signature? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Tedentious editing at Battle of Karbala
I have been working on Battle of Karbala for quite a while to nominate it for GA, and the effort consisted of almost a complete rewrite of the article from POV riddled gibberish into something that falls short of FAC only in prose. This is a religiously sensitive topic and various opinions by various author exist, and conscious effort has been put into portraying opinions as opinions. Recently, there has been effort to rollback the improvement, especially by, who has a previous record of POV-pushing and tendentious editing (this is not casting aspersions, evidence of previous behavior can be supplied if needed) is now again after inserting POVs and factually inaccurate claims. ,. <i style="color:turquoise">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:teal">Wikiposta</i> ) 21:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My recent edits to the page that AhmadLX mentioned are not simply tendentious opinions, but rather facts sourced with multiple references. The first edit mentioned by AhmadLX includes information from two books published by Oxford University Press. The second edit concerns the size of an army in the mentioned battle; sources list two possible sizes of the army, but AhmadLX seems to believe that listing both sizes is "tendentious." Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you will present something as a historical fact because it appeared in a book published by Oxford? Then what about other 48 books listed in bibliography also published by Oxford, SUNY, Brill etc? Are all the conflicting views to be presented in the lead as facts? The source of the army strength cites another source (Aghaie 2004) which doesn't contain the claim. On the other hand, 4,000 figure is cited by all the primary and secondary sources on Islamic history including Encyclopedia of Islam and virtually every other source. You will write 30,000 because it appeared in something completely unrelated to the topic [Discourses of (De)Legitimization: Participatory Culture in Digital Contexts] while ignoring the scholarship on the topic? -- <i style="color:turquoise">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:teal">Wikiposta</i> ) 22:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I gave two sources for the size of the army. Even if a book was about a certain topic, if it contains information relevant to the topic at hand, what is the problem in using it? Further, even if you did not want to use the two sources listed cited, then the fact that multiple sources note the figure could make it noteworthy. If you look, you could also notice that older versions of the page also provide both figures. That said, how exactly is having two possible (sourced) sizes of the army "tendentious"? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright both of you, stop going at each other, and remember to be WP:CIVIL. Step back for a bit, think, and let some other folks examine the discussion before posting here again. Now, from what I see, this is still mostly a content dispute. A content dispute that neither of you appear to have discussed prior to coming to ANI. So I highly recommend you open a new talk page thread on the issue, and talk it out first. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Discussion with this user normally turns into mountains, not walls, of text, like this. <i style="color:turquoise">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:teal">Wikiposta</i> ) 00:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't endorse AhmadLX's edits. Before Snowsky Mountain appears up, he did the same thing to me! AhmadLX needs to engage in talk page discussions instead of making reverts. That said, Snowsky Mountain is also encouraged to bring his objections to the TP. -- M h hossein   talk 12:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not seek your endorsement. -- <i style="color:turquoise">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:teal">Wikiposta</i> ) 13:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Content dispute ANI is for urgent or intractable behavior issues. This is a content dispute. While folks may not be interested in talking this out, that's how the process works. Go back to the article talk page and discuss it. If you find that your discussion is hitting walls of text, or that you can't agree, you can always ask for a third opinion, open an RfC, or ask for formal dispute resolution. Now, if in the course of discussion there are behavioral issues, you can come back to ANI. But I believe in y'alls ability to play by the rules and collaborate, and hope this doesn't have to come back here. My other advice to ALL involved parties: keep your answers short and concise, keep it WP:CIVIL, and remember that you may have to compromise.  Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Content dispute. This is a clear content dispute that has received ZERO discussion on the article's talkpage. Please don't come to ANI because you disagree with the content of someone's edits. Please don't repeatedly accuse an editor of bad faith and "old tactics" via edit summaries. Treat every edit and every editor neutrally, and discuss content, not editors. Please don't edit war. Please go to the article talkpage and arrive at WP:CONSENSUS regarding the various content in question. I will say one thing: Snowsky Mountain, this was a fairly massive change and in my opinion should have been discussed on the talk page prior to making it (and the text should go back to the immediate status quo ante until there is consensus for it). Now please all three of you go to the talkpage and discuss content, not editors. Utilize any form(s) of WP:DR necessary. Someone please close this thread now. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A content dispute? How is clear violation of NPOV and POV pushing supposed to be a content dispute? How would you "discuss" with somebody who specializes in pointless discussions which go nowhere and only result in mental fatigue? This is a chronic problem and this user is only here to damage the encyclopedia by writing religious BS all around the articles related to Islam, and should be indefd. It is inappropriate to jump in and jeopardize matters one has literally no understanding of just so that it may potentially be counted as plus point in any future RFAs. This is an admin board and the issue was brought here for admin attention. However 7 days on and their indifference and disinterest in this is appalling. As if this were some issue of some Arabpedia or Islampedia and not of this encyclopedia and hence none of their business. I thought adminship was not a cuteness, fragility or incompetence contest. Seems it is on all three counts. 1100 of them and can't handle very basic of their functions; attending to issues brought to their attention. Jimbo bless this site. <i style="color:turquoise">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:teal">Wikiposta</i> ) 17:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with complex page moves of user pages
has been moving their user talk page around, presumably in an attempt to change their user name - they have moved the page several times to various unregistered user names (to User, not User talk), and the resulting redirects have been fixed by EmausBot so it's now impossible to revert the moves. I reverted the most recent one, but admin help is needed for the rest. I will of course post a notification of this discussion to Probity22's real talk page, but that will unfortunately mess up the restoration process even more... Probity's old talk page history is currently located at User:Jgvcbl. --bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've gotten it all sorted with reverting the page moves, merging the relevant page histories, and deleting the redirects. Please let me know if anything doesn't look right.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you need assistance with how to change your username, please see the directions at Changing username. After reading that, if you still need help, you can ask at Help desk.  Regards,  -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ed (Edgar181) and @bonadea Thank you very much for your help and assistance. I was unaware of the protocol regarding unregistered user name redirects, and inadvertently created them in an attempt to change the user name. The issue is now resolved thanks to you. If possible, I request you to please remove this notice now as no further action is required. Thank you again. --

Personal attacks, WP:Civility
I am sorry but I have no choice to make this report (nota bene, I've waited if the correspondent editor retreats or at least apoligize for his untenable accusations, but unfortunately this did not happen.)

We have a discussion on a content issue, where Jac Hodec unfortunately made as well an ad hominem personal attack

Quote:

"I'm sure that if Wikipedia existed in the 80s, you'd have Soviet communists arguing that Pravda is the only reliable source of information on the Soviet Communist Party, and that all accusations by the hostile Western media and their internal allies should be disregarded as propaganda."

I responded him and pointed out this should be retreated imemdiately or to apologize because even if not my personal views would be deep anti-Communist or my family would not be presecuted by the Communist, such personal attacks and incivilities are harmful in our community and deteriorating from the topic with such personalizations as well is heavily unprofessional.

Suprisingly by his answer, he did not mea culpa even a little but openly stated:

- I apologise for nothing

and repeated the same nonsense personal attack:

- ''The whole premise of my point is that the arguments being forwarded by Fidesz and by proxy repeated by New00100 and yourself are the same as those that were made by the Communist regimes against their outside critics"

This such disgusting, that I still cannot come out of the schock, since all of my arguments were factual, professional and served accuracy and WP:NPOV and I proudly stand for them and anyone may check them, practically this is as open accusation of lying, just because Jay Hodec does not like I have an opinion and a first-hand knowledge and experience in the politics of Hungary, that anyway I live on my own skin and on the contrary Communism taught Hungarians how to identify, debunk and fight agains propaganda or manipulation, shall it come from any party... But what concerns me as well, in the discussion he pinged in as well a sockpuppet "", but since I know WP:Civility and WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:AAGF, I hope just by mistake he did this...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC))


 * The first of these comments is an analogy about style of argumentation (and also perhaps about countries with state-controlled media), the second is about the form and nature of your argument. Neither of them is a personal attack.  --JBL (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Joel B. Lewis, unfortunately my arguments or their nature does not have any similarities to any "Communist regimes", on the contrary, I am scientist with a high level mathematical and logical expertise, and my argumentations and their details may be decomponated such way as well, try me if you want, but any comparison that was performed above is above all level of a civilized and moderate discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC))
 * It's still insinuating bad faith. The sentence before the first quoted sentence was "I must also point out that arguments put forth against the right-wing to far-right designation by KIENGIR and New00100 in this section are eerily reminiscent of proclamations made in Soviet propaganda denouncing the adversarial mendacious imperialist capitalist media of the West."  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the perceived weakness of an arguement or proposition (ie that it is a "poor" or "bad" arguement - and why) does not intrinsically imply that the person making the arguement or proposition did so in bad faith. However, characterising a rebuttal as an "accusation of lying" does intrinsically imply bad faith and might fall to WP:POT. Also, the statement: just because Jay Hodec does not like I have an opinion would appear to be an assumption. Disagreeing with the opinion of another is not the same. Such a statement is personalising the dispute, and would appear to be attacking the person through attacking their perceived motives. (edit confict) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cinderella, the point is there is not any weakness of my arguments on my side - if it is, please demonstrate them somehow - that bad faith is the proposed analogy here with the Communist regime (that would imply lying/twisting and other horrible things) that evidently does not hold, on the contrary would take the discussion away from the point, and yes, it may seem an "accusation of lying", like I would do it deliberately. My "assumption" does not qualify that heavy weight I received, I recognize I should have added at least "appear to be", I am sorry for this. Please also have in mind, he just declared the third time of feeling NO apoligize on the talk page and I did not start personalization towards him, so excuse me...(accusing with Communist alike crimes is such a casting aspersion that are really may be considered as "redflag").(KIENGIR (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Firstly, I have not and am not commenting on the actual strengths or weaknesses of arguements in the TP discussion. The analogy being made is between "arguements" (ie this is the same sort of arguement as made by ...). It is not asserting similarities between those making the arguements - ie it is not equating you with being a communist. This would be a syllogistic fallacy. To the second part of the allegation being an "accusation of lying" and now "accusing with Communist alike crimes", the analogy is explained and does not assert or suggest either accusation. It is simply not evidenced by the TP posts. There are several premises missing for a logical conclusion to such an effect. The allegations appear to be an erroneous conflation rather than a matter of insinuation or casting aspersions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cinderella, if someone two times reinforcing that an argumentation is alike with the Communist regime's and insisting what other editors would do if WP would exist in the 80's and openly saying they would support the horror regime is an offensive and shocking assertion and implying those things I draw the attention. Not I am the only one who noticed the very bad faith charachter of this -even if the original contributor would mean attacking just arguments, this is definetly not the proper way for it - to say nothing of is very unprofessional and aspectacularly lame and loud trial to deteriorate the discussion from it's root, especially when my arguments have zero analogies that the accusator introduced and at the time of the discussion he did not have better tool to attack in such a way, i.e.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
 * That: an argumentation is alike with the Communist regime's and insisting [added for emphasis] what other editors would do if WP would exist in the 80's, is not an unreasonable observation except in the way it has been paraphrased by editorialising (per emphasis). Openly saying [empasis added] they would support the horror regime, is a misrepresentation in many ways. They have not said any of what you infer and to represent it as such, might be construed as a personal attack. What they said, is: I'm sure that if Wikipedia existed in the 80s, you'd have Soviet communists arguing ... You are a self-professed logistician. As such, I had hoped that you might have studied my comments more closely. Not I am the only one who noticed the very bad faith charachter of this - your evidence please? Personalising an arguement into a personal attack can cut both ways, with conflation being the converse course (ie I take your comments personally v asserting you are ... or you did ...). Insisting that these have been made as personal attacks has the potential to WP:BOOMERANG. You have received an apology to the extent that the posts were not intended to be perceived as you have done. This would appear to be a positive step forward. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cinderella, see EvergreenFir's opinion. Yes, it is a step forward, but seems after realizing the very happenings, I disagree it would be anyway close to boomerang, since I did not do anything on such weight like he did, you are criticizing partially of my observations and summaries here, that is not part of the original incident/root cause. Regarding logics, there is no any resemblence to my argumenation to that one the editor tried to compare or make an analogie, since my argumentation may be decomponated into logical variables and a proper inference may be done, and it does not lead to contradiction or falsity in such manner, that his assertion would imply (simply we may argue of mathematical satisfiability on a logical statements with universal quantors and variables, if we really try to enter in scientific/advanced logic, however I'm qualified on this in academic level, not a self-invention). I am sorry you don't feel and see how stigmatizing and prejudicative was his assertion. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC))


 * The statement with which KIENGIR takes issue was part of a larger disagreement that must be viewed in context. Here are some of the statements I was referring to:

"The problem is all of these trials are coming from only those news and media concerns, individuals who in the past eight years as well attacked Fidesz and the Hungarian Government, many times with groundless or exaggerated accusations with a huge double measure comparing to other states where the same or worse happened, but just because they did not share conservative right-wing views and disagreed on more high-level political questions, they were not attacked at the same manner." - KIENGIR

"Sorry, the problem is regardless some media goups are officially regarded "independent", there are those groups who consistently attacking/labeling/accusing the party with some designations that does not hold (regardless what it is, if there is a chance it is done, even if the epithes are varying...mostly the left side and media groups nationally/internationally who traditionally criticizing and labeling right wing parties, or their policies (even if the right/left designation in some other countries have no interpretation based on different political heritage, but the direction and idea have common directions)...Hungary and it's government is recently a target mainly beucase of it's anti-immigration policy and opposition to the some European policies (European United States vs. Federalism of strong national states, etc. in scope of the forthcoming European Parlamentiary Elections). Fidesz factually has no connection to any far-right agenda, not even commited such. Thus such opinons may only represented as an opinion of some circles." - KIENGIR

"This is funny how the hysterical leftists & their far-leftists friends happen to spam "far-right" when new antisemitic acts took place in France. Moreover, it shouldn't be forgotten that those same leftists tolerate the islamo-leftism & radical Salafist movement & mosquees in European countries (especially on the West). You should stop look for scapegoats on the right-wing side & behave like real adults with a free will by questioning yourselves. And to end it all, fascism is the intolerance of point of views which is typically characterized by the leftists again nowadays by censoring EVERYONE who got anti-immigration views (Illegam Muslim wave), national conservatism & nationalist views (as people who actually love their country & opposed to multiculturalism that doesn't work at all) of "racists, xenophobes" etc. Actual censorship took place by banning people like Candace Owen, Sargon of Akkad (Twitter) etc. from the big social media techs companies, to hide their embarass. Fascism originally didn't have a specific political position. Before spreading your mainstream media fake news & your defamations, go read some decent alternative media. You should wonder WHY mainstream media actually got very poor ratings & why they're so unpopular, & why there are more & more people who are mistrustful of them. And finally, you've ironically become what you desperately claim to fight: https://ukusablog.wordpress.com/2016/11/05/the-nazi-party-was-a-left-wing-liberal-elite-progressive-political-correctness-movement" - New00100

"[...] the opponents of the governing party make every effort to maintain defamation, thus every such attempts should be reverted, Wikipedia cannot be the battleground of the recent pre-election campaigns, shall it be Fidesz or any other party." - KIENGIR

"Communists Socialists are only good on lying (i.e. 2006 protests), crying & bitching. I'd like to remind those ignorants that the MSZP got Communist roots, that it is a party formed from the fall of Communism to succeed that same Communist party. If those immature kids got time to spam their shit propaganda, they should spend it on changing Jobbik position "from center to far-right" due to how their current leadership is swapping MASSIVELY to the left liberal block, as it was stated both by Fidesz & the new right-wing party "Our Home Movement"." - New00100


 * While making the analogy, I also had in mind (however, I failed to point this out in the comment in question, for which I apologise) additional comments levied by the two editors:

"yes many of the English sources coming from opposition media are often twisting the words or qualify the real happenings differently as they happened." - KIENGIR

"Political position changes: We don't need your "far-right" change that comes from mainstream media & whose usage frequency is highly questionable" - New00100


 * Additionally, New00100 |1 and KIENGIR|2|3 used as reference to refute the right-wing to far-right designation the following statement by government spokesperson |4 (quoted here in part):

"“A campaign of disinformation against Hungary has been going on for eight years; it has been built on a narrative that is perfectly suited to ensuring that people who want to find out about Hungary from traditional media get a totally different picture of the country than is the reality”, State Secretary for International Communications and Relations Zoltán Kovács declared.

Speaking at an event to launch the report published by media observer Médianéző entitled Still Against a Headwind - Hungary’s International Media Image 2018, Mr. Kovács said: “It is pointless trying to reposition ourselves against a narrative that has already placed us in the corner, and which has painted an image of us that we know very well from the international press. The most and best that we can do is to stick to the narrative that we tell about ourselves, he added.

“The story and statements we tell about ourselves (…) are definitely closer to reality than the narrative that is being spread about us, for instance in the Western European press”, he said. “There is no better proof of this than the three consecutive two-thirds majority victories at the parliamentary elections, and the fact that the Fidesz-KDNP party alliance has been leading the popularity lists continuously for thirteen or fourteen years”, he added.

“The Government’s efforts have been aimed, and are aimed, at providing opportunities. We have made nothing mandatory, (…) we have opened up opportunities that the Hungarian people can take advantage of if they would like (…), and if those work, then everyone can take a step forward”, Mr Kovács stressed.

“If something didn’t work, the will to correct was always present in the Government”, he noted.

According to the State Secretary, during the past two to three years, and particularly since the migration crisis, a marked turnaround can be seen in what the press actually thinks about itself. “Western European papers, opinion formers and publicists are engaging in politics. They have become the primary tools and bearers of those political statements that they believe to represent the Western European majority”, he said.

“This is not the case, and the divide that exists between Western opinion formers, left-wing liberal politicians and ‘consumers who have a sensible view of reality’ is opening to an increasing extent”, he stated."


 * Lastly, I would like to present the full paragraph of my reply that KIENGIR referenced:

"Some of my ancestors were also maltreated during the communist era. What's your point? Why do you think I'm using the Soviets as an example, because I agree with the discredited Kremlin line? The whole premise of my point is that the arguments being forwarded by Fidesz and by proxy repeated by New00100 and yourself are the same as those that were made by the Communist regimes against their outside critics; the arguments that are now almost universally ridiculed and dismissed. If you'd like a more contemporaneous example, take the Venezuelan government. My assessment stands. I apologise for nothing. Please abstain from using appeals to emotion to undermine legitimate criticisms." - Jay Hodec


 * ... And part of his following reply:

"[...]NO way, I refuse this again - and I can speak obviously my own behalf - NO, my arguments are not by any means same of any "Communist regimes" arguments and you commited a very big mistake insisting this again, since you again try to deteriorate from the point! I did not say or agumented that would not be true, or would not be factual or neutral (while the Communist regimes have generally twisted information, lied, manipulated and caused a horror to the people), thus you assesment does NOT stand, it is your personal and mistaken opinion, a shameful and offensive one. It is not may fault that there are some media opinions that have overexaggerated opinions that are many times far from the reality (and may be "universally ridiculed and dismissed" as well in some particular cases and the Venezuelan Government and Fidesz have zero connection to each other, cannot be compared by any means) [...]   [...] "Please abstain from using appeals to emotion to undermine legitimate criticisms." -> This you should address to yourself, when you started to deteriorate from the topic and create a pseudo West (East?, North? South?) conflict and with an unprofessional way you made a horrible accusation, insisting a false analogie with the Communists. This is definately not as "legitimate criticism", since all my arguments are standing and are factual and struggling for ultimate neutrality." - KIENGIR


 * Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Jay, did you notify the other editor you mentioned?
 * I provided the diffs to the community, including many that you present here on our behalf, you can be sure, the whole context they will check, don't worry about this, they can see the talk page as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC))


 * You mean New00100? I'm not sure, you're free to ping him if you want.


 * Look, I'm really sorry you feel this way about this issue, however, my intention was never to attack your person or impugn your character per se, and retracting my comment because of how you feel about it would be disingenuous on my part because I simply do not believe that I have done anything to offend you. The core of my argument - and I may have phrased it too forcefully since I'm writing the replies on the go, but nonetheless - is that the argument put forth by some governments that most internal and external criticism is rooted in political animus and pure political power-games and propaganda is deeply problematic and has a rich history of disingenuous use by abusive political forces. I was trying to illustrate this contradiction in your argument by appealing to a more notorious historical example, and one that you may likely find particularly jarring since it's in many ways the ideological polar opposite of the one in question. I hoped this would illustrate the arguments you advance is fraught with issues, and that one should always be weary of adopting it, even if one may view it more favorably in certain circumstances due to e.g. personal proclivities, societal factors, etc.


 * Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I mean New00100. Excuse me it is your obligation to notify the user about this discussion, since you mentioned the user, per our policies.

On the further, even if you claim it was not your intention and you do not believe that you offended me, I explained several times why it is an obvious and insulting offence, I am sorry you still don not see this. About your description of the core of your argument, I know this phenomenon, but it has completely zero connection to my argumentation. I perceive, experience, research, assess like a machine with targeting the infinite neutrality possible. Anyone may check any of my argumentation, not just generally but many discussion when we went into the details, simply nobody may show any evidence I went against factual things, on the contrary I identified mistakes, inacurracies is many contents, as I am interested in an accurate and neutral encyclopedia, as everybody should.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC))


 * Am I supposed to ping him here, or on the talk page? Is there some guideline that mandates this?


 * "that bad faith is the proposed analogy here with the Communist regime (that would imply lying/twisting and other horrible things)"


 * No, no. I'm sure some Soviet communist supporters actually believed the party line and parroted it faithfully. There are plenty leftists that genuinely believe that the Hong Kong protests are a CIA propaganda ploy and that concentration camps in the Xinjiang region are a fabrication by the "Western" media, likewise with food shortages/human rights abuses in Venezuela ... I'm not impugning your character, I'm impugning your argument.


 * "Please also have in mind, he just declared the third time of feeling NO apoligize on the talk page and I did not start personalization towards him, so excuse me...(accusing with Communist alike crimes is such a casting aspersion that are really may be considered as "redflag")."


 * I do not feel I have wronged you in any way. How can I apologise if I do not even understand what part exactly you feel offended by?


 * I'm not accusing anyone of "Communist alike crimes". I'm saying that the Eastern Communist states (and their supporters) labelled all criticism in "1st world media" as ideological propaganda (either mendaciously or fully believing), and that Fidesz appears to be following the same approach. If you find the former troubling, you should also reconsider the latter.


 * Facts are a difficult thing. I'm sure that Michael Parenti would find our position on the Communist states deeply counterfactual.


 * Regards. -J Jay Hodec (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're required to notify the on their talk page - you can use ~ to do so.  Pinging in not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jay,
 * I do not feel I have wronged you in any way. How can I apologise if I do not even understand what part exactly you feel offended by? -> Still this is the major problem, since none of my arguments are analogous with believed the party line and parroted it faithfully thus impugning my arguments with this is ridiculous & unprofessional. I just draw the attention to inaccuracies, corrected mistakes, supported neutrality, but you've made harsh accusations towards to editors in a an unacceptable way. Your major problem is since my arguments holds, you seem to only try to draw mistaken analogies an appear them in a negative manner, however - as it has been demonstrated more times - on more degree your analogie is failed.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

What I see on the talk page is you taking immediate offense to somebody comparing the demand that preferential weight be given to sources that favour Orban's party to a hypothetical demand that statements about the Soviet Union in the 1980s be sourced to Pravda because you, personally, don't like communism. None of the difs you presented suggest Jay Hodec has ever engaged in personal attacks, and nothing in WP:CIV requires an apology for an imagined slight. With that said there's pretty clear evidence that you tend to escalate matters when disputes are ambiguous. For instance here you were engaged in a dispute about content in Ultranationalism and broke the WP:3RR brightline restoring your preferred version. Your next edit was to warn the other user (who was at 2 reverts by my count at that point) that they were edit-warring if I've misread the article history please feel free to demonstrate it, but this sort of behaviour seems somewhat like WP:BATTLEGROUND while I can find little of that sort of behaviour in Jay's previous history. And so I'll reiterate, I'd suggest you should withdraw this complaint and try to have a thicker skin when editing in articles related to far-right politics. They do tend to be rather... heated areas, as I know from extensive personal experience. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and I'd doubt the good faith of a person arguing that Victor Orban's party, widely referred to as a far-right party, is not far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Simonm223, did you entirely read all te discussion of the talk page, that is still ongoing and have been discussed also without me more times in the past? How could you doubt my good faith? Because I recognize mistakes, falsities, inaccurate information and serve ultimate NPOV? Can you demonsrate that any of my statements on the matter was not true or observable? Could you make a difference between "widely referred" and "factual matters"? Did I deny that some sources refer in such manner to the party? NO. The discussion is about something else.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Yes I read it. And then I said what I said. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'd concur with that you should probably withdraw this complaint or face the risk of a WP:BOOMERANG. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, then I have to disagree with you and reject your doubt on my good faith (that is by default). However, factual matters are independent of anyone's faith. Sorry, I don't see this justified, since I did not engage with any personal issues to the editor in the talk page, that he started, I ask you from you a more neutral approach and seriosity. Anyway we were discussing afterwards, he reinforced he had no intention to hurt, bu he has to see what he did is very unprofessional and avoidable. With Cinderella we were discussing on the potential interpretation here of what happened regarding as well everyones's post-reactions, but the complaint was about what happened on the talk page, please do not mix the two, anyway not having even a minor equal weight.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
 * Eta This statement here actually does seem like a personal attack. That you made. Toward another editor, who you described as holding radical left views in response to user page infoboxes. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you still do not feel that accusing improperly someone's argumentation and compare to inappropriately to former regimes ones (that have well-accepted negative qualifiers are associated and may be interpereted offensive to reflect it to editors) is unprofessional and a deterioration the discussion, instead on commenting on the subject? Your summarization on this issue your own opinion, that I disagree.


 * On the other case sorry, I did not broke any 3RR, on the contrary the user broke several WP:Rules I did not even one, the resolution is ongoing, as well the user engaged himself in many NPOV issues. It is quite striking you accuse in this issue where I am fully innocent, please analyze more thoroughly WP:BRD, WP:NPOV, the frame of edit warring (necessarily after two reverts), I immediately entered to the talk page that the user ignored, moreover he argued is amisleading way disregarding all the rules (Informing Wikiprojects of problematic issues is recommmened by Wiki officials as has been discussed years ago, it is not any means a personal attack, but an NPOV concern, since the page blanking have been made instantly before the problematic edits). This is such a crystal-clear case, despite you target me in your summarization as someone who'd have guilt. Unaccaptable and after this your neutrality towards this issue is highly dubious, and what you did right now is a true WP:BOOMERANG. (yes, you heavily misread it, the user made 3 reverts next to it's bold addition, it in total four, a deliberate edit warring after multiple warnings, with full ignorance of any resolution process, WP:Battleground stands for him, while I have followed the well-established process with good faith in accordance with administrator recommandations, without harming any rule, sorry!)


 * Please before making such comments, investigate properly the happenings/issues, beucase you hevaily failed to to that precisely and properly (especially counting the number of reverts, or the knowledge or application of basic WP policies), but I think after this huge fiasco, it is better if you don't turn this discussion away from the real topic/issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC))


 * With regard to the Ultranationalism edits I'm reviewing the history here and what I see is that you reverted at Jeff605 at 08:26, 09:47 and 10:36 while Jeff605 reverted at 08:53, 10:13 and 11:20. I will concede that I was wrong that you sent your edit warring warning when they were at two reverts. Your warning was at 11:36. However that doesn't change that you did, in fact, breach the WP:3RR brightline first and did, in fact, engage in personal attacks against them at Wikiproject Hungary per my previous dif. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And regardless, the central point of my statement remains, you have engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour including personal attacks with regard to far-right politics in Eastern Europe, while Jay has not. As such, your inflated complaint about a personal attack suggests you're trying to forward your POV through WP:AN/I which is frowned upon. I'd Support a mild boomerang if anybody feels it appropriate to propose one in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Simonm223, now you demonstrated you don't understand what means "breaching WP:3RR ans as well the BRD process". Jesus Christ...read please WP:BRD, WP:3RR as well what it means. As a consequence your further argumentation cannot be taken serious, you've totally "lost the ground". The editor you referred after the second revert should stop any activity further on and engage on the talk page, since the official warning get's always later on if the editor do not follow earlier referred WP policies in the talk, when the deliberate state of edit warring get's clear. I entered the talk page even earlier than recommended.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC))


 * I mean, I actually noted the precise times of your reversion. There is nothing in WP:3RR about the first revert not counting. Nor does an initial edit constitute a reversion. Furthermore I would suggest that use of even mild expletives such as immediately above is doing nothing to support your case here and would recommend you tone that down. Finally, WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement while WP:3RR is, in fact a rule. As such, WP:BRD does not provide an out for WP:3RR. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And of course, your claim that Jeff605 was edit-warring (when clearly two were tangoing) is neither here nor there for the personal attack you made against them in this edit. And that is what I find principally significant to this action. Jay did not engage in personal attacks against you. But you did engage in personal attacks against Jeff. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your argumentation does not justify you or disprove my proper conduct of the issue in accordance with the relevant rules and administrator recommendations. Still you cannot count properly, that is a problem, and still you don't interpret and understand WP:3RR properly, that was not breached by me. Per WP:BRD I may conduct a few legitimate reverts, even reinforced by the talk. Moreover, please stop accusing me about personal attacks that I did not do against anyone. Your accusations and lack of AGF, AAGF towards me seems more and more strikingly apparent.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

You are, in fact, mistaken. WP:BRD does categorically not give you the right to exclude your first revert from WP:3RR counts. You did in fact breach the edit warring brightline first. Unless you are saying that some of the edits in the edit war that led to your personal attacks against Jeff were unrelated edits. They certainly doesn't appear to be but if that's the case I'll strike through anything I've said which was factually inaccurate. As I've said before, the most significant point here is that you engaged in personal attacks against Jeff while Jay did not engage in personal attacks against you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * For the record, the statement I'm saying is a personal attack is he openly advertized his radical left views and involvement on politics. Now as has been discussed many times, even if Jeff believes themself to be a radical leftist (which I honestly doubt based on the infoboxes presented) your use of those infoboxes to attempt and drum up support against their edits on another page definitely constitute a personal attack and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am confirming that KIENGIR did not, in fact, breach 3RR. In terms of 3RR, they have made two (continuous) reverts at Fidesz and three reverts at Ultranationalism. El_C 15:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I missed that and will strike through those statements accordingly. I thought I saw a 3rr back and forth at the time stamps I mentioned previously. Apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , please explain to Simonm223 how many reverts needed to breach WP:3RR, since he still cannot countr properly, neither professionally examined the rule, although he seems to have a long WP career. Also explain to him to notifiing a Wikiproject of a problematic POV issue is not a personal attack. Also inform this user if he does not stop the improper rallying against me along with fundemental problems of understanding of basic WP policies and increasing by every comment he is accusing me with personal attacks against Jeff- yes now in plural - than he will be hois by his own petard, if what happened until now would not be enough. To your attention more, the issue this user is referring have been already forwarded to an admin. Thank You (and excuse me pingin you in, but this starts to be a comedy)(KIENGIR (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC))
 * El_C, thank you, and excuse me I did not notice the intermediary edits. Getting really tired of this crossfire against me...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

I have struck through my statement that you broke WP:3RR - however I stand by that you engaged in personal attacks on Wikiproject Hungary. And I stand by that Jay has not engaged in any personal attacks against you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, as well your opinions I understood. However I have to add I disagree with you on the two matters. Regarding the notification of the Wikiproject, a raised a POV concern to be examined, and did not attack Jeff's person by any means. Regarding Jay, the issue is already overdiscussed. It is good that he made clear he did not wanted to hurt, but I uphold his proposed and comparison was unfair and sudden and may be interpreted in an insulting way, that should be ignored in any WP discussion. I think we should stop here, let other's share their opinion, your's became entirely known.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC))

Agree with Simonm223 that there was no personal attack, and think this should just be closed. If KIENGIR won't drop the stick, maybe closed with a warning. Grandpallama (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. --JBL (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I used the Soviet example as the most notorious/well known example of a regime that controlled all internal media and then proceeded to smear all external critics as untrustworthy and motivated by ulterior motives. (I in fact considered listing a couple other notable examples right off the bat, but chose to limit myself to one for the sake of conciseness.) Any human rights abuses or political disagreements one may have with the regime are besides the point for the sake of this argument, and should therefore not - at least I don't think - be taken as a personal denigration/smear by association.


 * Regarding any errors I may have made editing the Fidesz page or possibly other pages ... I added a significant portion of content and had a number of arguments with KIENGIR, most of which I remember vaguely at best, but most centered around the reliability and proper interpretation of source content and its subsequent presentation.


 * I'm generally reluctant to start new discussions on Talk pages if disagreements could be hashed out through successive argumentation in Edit descriptions. I always justified my reverts/contested changes. I'm not sure if there is an exemption to the 3RR/edit warring when making 3+ reverts while trying to arrive at consensus without opening a talk page discussion, but if I had done so, it was with the aforementioned intent.


 * Since the above discussion is quite convoluted, if there are any other issues with my editing, I'd kindly ask for objections to be voiced clearly, possibly in a separate paragraph.


 * Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Harassment by edit-warring SPA
is edit-warring at using youtube as a source from someone called TimeGhost History. I have warned the account on their talkpage about RS, PAs etc., a few days ago, but today he started the edit-warring and left a base PA on my talk, and multiple PAs on the edit-summaries at the article: edit-summary attacks on the article ex 1, another edit-summary attack ex 2. Can someone please block this account? Thank you. Dr.  K.  00:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I decided to go with an indef for the rather egregious personal attacks (after warning) as well as other troubling conduct. But if there is a convincing unblock request, I would certainly give it due consideration. El_C 00:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, El_C. Dr.   K.  01:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hide and cross out IP address
A person has the right to want to disclose their location and information and respect their safety and privacy. Hide this IP on their edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8801:3400:2508:F81C:50E0:7BDE:7EAB

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African-American_studies&action=history

Do this

(Username or IP removed)‎

changed visibility of a revision on page African American studies content hidden and username hidden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 私は子犬が大好きです (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit in question has already been removed. The fastest way to get any edit removed is to email the oversight team. I will note however that IP geolocation is pretty inaccurate. Your IP can be geolocated to a city, but not much closer than that. Random folks on the internet can't just find your house through your IP. If you believe you are being stalked, you should speak to the authorities. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

To any admin, the original IP has been blocked and talk page locked, and this ANI edit is the only one 私は子犬が大好きです has made, so sock possibility is high. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Identical pattern of vandalism from three accounts
While looking through the new pages feed, I came across these accounts: All three accounts have the exact same pattern of edits: creating a user page and talk page, adding a sequence of letters to their sandbox until they have reached 10 edits, and then creating a redirect that is pure vandalism (Pedophile state, Hates her mother, and Blatant cheaters, respectively). I'm not sure if any administrative action is necessary, but I haven't encountered a situation like this before and would like to get a few more eyes on it. Should a checkuser perhaps be performed to see if these accounts are operated by the same person?

Pinging the admins who deleted the redirects: and  – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. All three put the exact same content on the user page, talk page, and sandbox.  ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 22:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Astra1999 & CIR
Hi, Since being here has made edits such as this, this, this and this,

They've also repeatedly replaced car images with theirs here (top left images), here (3rd and 4th images), and here (last 2 images),

On 1st August, They was blocked for 31 hours by for their disruptive edits,

Astra continued to replace images and generally be disruptive so I gave some friendly advice which went ignored,

On 1st September, they were blocked for 72 hours by for the exact same reason,

After the block they had resumed their disruptive editing and so I gave a final warning however this has fallen on deaf ears like every other warning and message they've received,

I get the impression Astra is a young person who doesn't understand what they're doing wrong at all so IMHO they should be indeffed as per CIR?, (They certainly don't appear to be here to vandalise or troll .... there just doesn't seem to be any understanding or knowledge that they understand anything that's being said), Warnings and blocks don't seem to achieve anything,

Thanks, – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 19:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Could I also ask that their alt account User:Astraboy1999 is blocked too - They've made no edits here with it but they have over at Commons and so if blocked they'd obviously start using that one, Thanks, – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 19:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Come now, Davey2010. These things happen at ANI — sometimes nobody's job gets done by nobody. I've blocked indefinitely. Thank you for reporting. (Posting inside the archive templates so my comment isn't lost when this gets archived.) Bishonen &#124; talk 19:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC).

Undiscussed moves-copying-merges of set of Brexit related articles
has on 11 September 2019 performed a series of moves and merges on a set of Brexit articles in a short period of time between 14:35 and 17:30 on 11 September 2019 without seeming to give proper attribution by per WP:CWW including creating the article Ratification of the Brexit withdrawal agreement copied from Brexit negotiations with attributions whatsoever. While WP:BRD is a good thing when pursuing undiscussed over a series of related articles the result should seem likely to a reasonable editor to be possibly contentious. has helped move back one article and has suggested  to raised at ANI at Talk:Brexit negotiations. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my suggestion of a reference to WP:ANI was just to ask for an administrator to undo the page move (subsequently resolved by Muboshgu, so no longer needed). Per WP:BEBOLD, Ssolbergi's actions were unwise but not in bad faith. I would not support a request for sanctions at this stage. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @ thankyou for clarifying you position and I apologise if I misrepresented you. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also please delete Ratification of the Brexit withdrawal agreement. It is content moved from the negotiations article, and that move have now been reverted. I think we then have reverted all the mass moves now. I will write a message on 's talk page about this. ― Hebsen(previously Heb the best) (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , deleted. – Muboshgu (talk)` – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this warrants any investigating ...
I saw this edit pop up on another user’s talk page. It may be a joke, thought someone would like to know. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Better diff. D7a894f1d (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I added nowiki tags around the {sockpuppet} template that the IP editor left on 's talk page. Also, D7, I have to say I found your contribs to be unusual, particularly your 20th edit creating Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nerlo123, which is a sockpuppet blocked today. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  22:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I removed the section from Magitroopa's Talk page and blocked the two IPs for a few days. As for D7, highly unusual for a new user to be making the kinds of edits they are making, but there's no particular harm in having created the cat.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This page is too large and busy for me to track and load. This issue looks resolved so I’m signing off, ping me if I’m needed. Thank you for looking at this! Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth Holmes
A dynamically changing IP from Finland (ie. same user) has been conducting a forum discussion here theorizing that the "mainstream media" is run by "feminists" and this is why Elizabeth Holme was successful. I have reverted this as it is unsourced (unsourceable) bigotry and a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NOTAFORUM - this isn't a place to promote original unsourced conspiracy theories. The IP has reverted multiple times over a 24hr period with warnings in edit comments. I also requested a talk page semi-protection. -- Green  C  12:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Now semi-protected but removal from the edit history might also be an option if someone thinks it appropriate. -- Green  C  13:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You are not being honest. I did not say that the mainstream media is run by feminist. This is what I said:


 * "The feminist desperation for female inventors (see reactions to the recent Forbes article that listed the 100 top inventors in the world, 99 of them men) and STEM heroes boosted Holmes's profile in the liberal mainstream media, with no regard for objectivity, balance, healthy doubt. At last there was a female that could be ranked alongside the likes of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Holmes exploited and capitalized on this blind adoration and advocacy the fawning feminist mainstream media heaped on her. She leveraged her position as one of the most revered feminist icons in the world. Without the desperate, ideology-driven search for female heroes in STEM, her story would not have been possible. There should be a section in the main article on this. It's a crucial part of the full story."


 * This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a clear fact, easily sourced from hundreds and hundreds of media articles before WSJ blew the lid on her fraud. How is it "bigotry" to note these three facts, that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly pro-feminist, that there is desperation for female heroines and role models in STEM, and that for years this boosted Holmes's profile in the mainstream media. Here's a woman and a feminist noting the same and discussing it: https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2019/02/levy-the-era-of-exploitative-feminism


 * Quote:




 * "I remember sitting at my kitchen table over a family dinner, listening intently as my mom enlightened me of the story of Holmes and her groundbreaking company. In line with how the media was portraying Holmes at the time, my mother unconsciously spun Theranos’ narrative as a gilded story of female achievement and innovation — a feel-good account of a woman breaking through the glass ceiling and designing something better than any man had ever produced."




 * "It’s sad, but undeniable, that it has become unbelievably profitable for women to exploit feminism for the pursuit of wealth and fame. As a woman, I am hesitant to phrase the acts of Holmes, Obokata, Sandberg and others in such blunt terms. Indeed, these individuals’ acts of capitalist exploitation perpetuate the stereotype of the ruthless and immoral careerwoman, set in dichotomous juxtaposition to the dim, but caring housewife.


 * At the end of the day, it was wrong of these women to abuse the willingness of the media and public to fall in love with the story of a successful female. Nonetheless, I also argue that it was wrong for so many of us to be so eager to worship at the altar of these powerful women in the first place.


 * The three women discussed above are simultaneously the engineers and products of an exploitative feminist dynamic."




 * Just one of countless such articles. If you do a Google search Elizabeth Holmes feminism, you can find countless more on the theme, the feminist icon, the woman of the year, that disappointed her admirers and what to learn from her media portrayal. Here in Finland I accidentally came across at least half a dozen heroine-worshipping stories of her prior to fall 2015, i.e. she was everywhere. She was a global feminist icon, most of the publicity was because of her gender. That is a part of her story, that is part of the public phenomenon and the story of her and of Theranos. Not the full story, but part of the story.


 * How to include this in the main article? There should be a section of considerable length on her public/media portrayal prior to the WSJ article. As it now is her being a revered feminist-icon for her couple of years of glory never happened, if you go by the main article. Erased from the annals of wikihistory. You can't omit such a crucial part of her story if you aim for neutrality and objectivity. 37.219.202.169 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And you proudly offer this WP:FORUM [personal attack removed] on this noticeboard, IP user, for more better attention, together with a "quote" apparently from nowhere in particular? And you have persistently edit warred to keep it on the article talkpage? Interesting. Of course we don't like to semi talkpages, and I note that User:Lectonar, sensibly, only semi'd for three days. But might it be possible, as an alternative, to block the range of the disruptive person for some time (as long as possible, for my money)? It's a /17, unfortunately. I took a look at the range contributions, and far from all of them are disruptive, so I didn't block it. Could somebody smarter than me please see if there's a way to block several smaller bits of the range? It really sticks in my craw that this [personal attack removed] should enjoy immunity from all sanctions simply because their range is so dynamic and so big. ? Anybody? Bishonen &#124; talk 18:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC).
 * I disagree that the range is too wide to block for a short period of time, so I've blocked 37.219.0.0/16 for one week. I've also removed all of the IP comments below me.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, thank you very much, Beebs. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Beebs, there's also another range involved:, which supported 37.219.xx on Talk:Elizabeth Holmes, as well as , which has vandalized this ANI thread. Obviously the same person as 37.219.xx. Their range, so far, is 176.93.160.0/19, though I suppose it may well grow if there's more input from them. Would you like to block those as well? Bishonen &#124; talk 21:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Sure, I'm easy, range blocked for one week, although two of the IPs in that range were already blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Another problematic IP range
An IP range originating in France is being used by an editor exclusively to complain that WP:NONAZI is stifling free speech. They tried to delete elements concerning fascist appropriation of free speech (which was derived from the Paradox of Tolerance) here and then went to article talk to complain about this.

Now that alone wouldn't merit attention, but the IP range has recently progressed to making racist statements here. Since the behaviour has escalated from complaints about free speech to actual explicit racism I figured it was time to mention that this IP range is being used for WP:NOTHERE reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A workable range block seems unlikely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well that IP is blocked now for racist commentary. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The ranges are always a painful subset. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Arksneat & TfD
User:Arksneat is persistently removing a TfD notice from Template:Locked userpage; even after. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked. After edit warring to remove a deletion template, moving User talk:Curps to a nonsense title, and editing administrative categories about blocked editors, I think it's safe to say this is a returning nuisance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Openmy
Four Five separate users     have now written on this users talk page about WP:NOPIPE. In addition to having been reverted with these same concerns. They have been reminded that they are required to WP:ENGAGE in conversation. Yet they continue to make edits in this same manner (as of yesterday ), and are refusing to ENGAGE.

I believe this user is not here to build a collaborative project, as is obvious by their refusal ENGAGE. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note I have edited my original post because I realized another person mentioned the same thing to this user 4 years ago. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd say a short block to get their attention might be warranted. But if they refuse to WP:ENGAGE, I'd say a WP:NOTHERE indeff is warranted. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Range Block needed
We have multiple IPs vandalizing political bio articles in the US.



There might be more. As soon as one is blocked, another IP takes its place. It's happening so rapid fire in how the address changes, might be more than one individual involved. All are targeting bio articles of past Democratic Party office holders. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I added the ip links here for you. <b style="background:#0000ff;font:Helvetica;padding:0.4em;font-size: 80%;border-radius: 2em;margin: 0.25em;"> Cards84664 </b> (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the IP addresses above are all on different networks. If more show up, it might be possible to find range blocks eventually, but they're too spread out right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

User inserted non-RS Scientology source for tenth time, after prior ANI and sanctions alert
, an eight-year-old account with less than 100 edits, has repeatedly added the same non-reliable source to multiple articles. The first four times on 14 August:   (Bridge Publication) fixed

Upon removal as a non-RS, user promptly readded without discussion on 15 August:.

User was reported to ANI and alerted to discretionary sanctions, and on 20 August, the material was removed from the four pages by admin User:JzG as a non-RS. 

On 31 August, the user re-added the same source for a ninth and tenth time. Feoffer (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support a block Thank you for such a clear presentation of the situation. Perhaps a short block will bring this user's focus to the goals of WP, not a personal endeavor. Buffs (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose a block - There is no consensus that this source is unreliable and in fact, discussion is ongoing at the Talk page for L. Ron Hubbard. I think this is a simple content dispute that does not require admin intervention. Requests for admin sanctions should not supplant the normal editorial process, even if DS are in place. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  16:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the issue isn't the adding of the source, but the perpetual re-adding without discussion when objections are indeed noted. This is a violation of WP:BRD. Buffs (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The flip side of the coin is that the users who claim that CESNUR is unreliable source are not really participating in the discussion either. From what I can tell, the users who had been immediately reverting Iamsnag have not been engaging in discussion about the source (unless it's happening somewhere that I'm not seeing), with the only exception being Feoffer. And Feoffer made only two comments, and has apparently decided to come to ANI instead of replying further. So the lack of discussion seems to be present on both sides of the fence here. I would really prefer that this be hashed out among the involved editors instead of resorting to ANI. ANI should truly be a last resort. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  19:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Iamsnag12 knows the source is controversial, repeatedly adding it ten times in such a short period suggests WP:NOTHERE, though that's for others to say. Feoffer (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please note that this has been found to be a sockpuppet/sockpuppeting account and isn't a new user. Request you reconsider your opposition. Buffs (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - I'm disappointed that he turned out to be a sock. Given that he's blocked, though, my position on a block here doesn't matter anymore. I still think the editing conflict here was too minor to support a block. Socking? Yes. The dispute as presented at ANI? No. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  16:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair nuff! Buffs (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something and I don't think I am since I checked the edit history, the user was not notified of this latest ANI thread as required per the box all over the place. I won't do this myself as I'm on a mobile device. Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good catch; notified. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also the editor concerned has not edited since 31 August. Finally AFAICT 3 of the first 4 diffs are the addition of the journal of CESNUR. One of them seems to be some Bridge Publications book so I'm not sure if its inclusion is a mistake. Back to CESNUR I won't comment on its reliability except to say it may be unreliable for the stuff it supported with those 3 diffs but reliable to support the claim a long past BLP person received an honorary degree. And even if it isn't, the Daily Olkahoman was added as well for both of those latest diffs. I'm not sure of the reliability of the Daily Olkahoman but it doesn't look like it was disputed in any of the early diffs and I'm unconvinced just because someone made some mistakes in the past means they need to open a talk page discussion before adding a completely different RS on what seems like a relatively uncontentious issue. I'd also note if those 2 latest diffs are a problem because the Daily Olkahoma is not an RS I'm unsure why they remain. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The fourth CENSUR addition has been fixed. Upon discovering the additional insertion, I reached out to an admin for a sanity check and  was referred here.  Feoffer (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you taken this to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Fram was railroaded! 21:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

As the person who is under discussion, I have raised this issue on my talk page regarding why CESNUR is disputed and never got a response and it seemed like my material was blocked without explanation that it was allegedly unreliable, yet no reasoning was given. I had not readded, rather because no reasoning as to why it's supposedly non-RS I reversed the reversal on mine as I thought it might be a troll (just as had been assumed with me). I was subjected to being accused of and asked of being a Scientologist which I explained that I am not nor am I associated with their other groups - which even if it was a problem in the past, does not change the content of my submissions.

Additionally, one of my edits (on the Charles Manson page) was already approved which itself was reverted - but because it was assumed that I have ill intentions off of the bat and I was accused without any recourse or explanations as to why CESNUR is supposedly non-RS. Moreover, the links provided to CESNUR actually provide photographic copies of the evidence/material/documents cited. Also had added a different CESNUR article elsewhere and not to the same articles. Additionally, the bulk of my sources are not from CESNUR, as discussed. I was under the impression that the sources cited were read by the editors/administrators to see if there's validity to them vs. dismissed outright based on origin. Iamsnag12 (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support block, Clearly WP:NOTHERE. They're at it again and edit warring. Such a narrow focus in edit history and their refusal to accept that their edits have been contested repeatedly, over years. This behavior suggests that this editor may not have been completely honest about their connection to Scientology. They need to learn about consensus and edit warring, POV pushing etc. A temporary block has helped me see the error of my ways in the past. Bacondrum (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to Iamsnag12 or someone else? Because looking at Iamsnag12 editing history: I see they have 2 edits back in 2011 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_income,_no_asset&diff=prev&oldid=429989366] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_income,_no_asset&diff=prev&oldid=429989495]. Neither of these seem to be well sourced, but neither of these seem to be related to Scientology in any way, and while I'm not going to check what happened to their edits, it's a little silly to suggest these 2 edits were "repeatedly contested". They then left 3 talk pages comments over 5 edits in 2018 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sequoia_University&diff=prev&oldid=854283452] + [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sequoia_University&diff=prev&oldid=854418062] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sequoia_University&diff=prev&oldid=854418142] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sequoia_University&diff=prev&oldid=854418261] + [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sequoia_University&diff=prev&oldid=854426152]. I haven't looked in detail at these comments but they don't seem to be the sort of comments that are extremely disruptive and nor that is there a great sign of them "refusing to accept their edits have been contested repeatedly". Taking part in talk page discussions is of course one of the things we generally want from editors, even if in this case it seems to have been partly forced by semi protection. All their other edits are from July 2019 or later. And their talk page was created in 2019 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iamsnag12&oldid=910812750]. So where on earth are you getting "refusal to accept that their edits have been contested repeatedly, over years" (emphasis added) from? Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like the reaction to Iamsnag has been disproportionately harsh and a prime example of WP:BITE. Editors have made only minimal efforts to interact with him, instead preferring to seek resolution at ANI. Just not an appropriate way to handle such a minor problem in my opinion. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  16:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to Biting the Newbie, user is a not newbie: "I've not recently joined I've been on since 2011. Also, I've posted elsewhere and had other usernames too which tried to merge under this one, not sure if those work but I can point to those edits if needed".
 * With regard to disproportionate harshness, I will say this: nothing in Requests for arbitration/Scientology suggests actively inquiring about editor's personal beliefs, as was done to this user . While the suspicion is certainly understandable given the problematic behavior, it seems unhelpful to directly inquire in that way.   Wikipedia is not the inquisition or the thought police and the project should keep a laser-like focus on problematic behavior.   Feoffer (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe he's not a newbie so to speak, but I still feel that sanctions are inappropriate given the circumstances. This was a low-grade editing conflict that ended over a week ago. Although misguided, I can see why he might have thought that discussion on his own talk page was the place to have the conversation about the source, and when he got no response he proceeded on. That's a wrong belief, but I can see how someone might have it. He now appears to be discussing the sourcing and hasn't made a controversial edit recently. Rushing to a block would be inappropriate. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Just saw Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsnag12; user appears to operating multiple 3+ year old accounts. Be on the look out for organized efforts related to Scientology, CESNUR, or Sequoia University Feoffer (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 and uncivil behavior

 * Note 1 :my two correspondance with this user are at [this revision], and [this revision], as the user removed it all from their talk page.
 * Note 2 :much of the content of this is based off of my initial [post here], which I deleted when I saw the user apologized to the person they were singling out.

On 14 August, I noticed Davey2010 had reverted an edit by to Jake Paul which removed alot of cruft and unsourced content, re-adding all of the poor content. I reverted the readdition of the content and I left the user this message: "Hey, I know it may not have been your intention, but you should pay closer attention to what you revert. Your reversion at Jake Paul re-added a huge amount clearly unacceptable material, including two entire sections of unsourced content, which was also poorly written fancruft. The edits by User:FaZeBlueThunderShocker, while not described well, were very helpful in removing alot of that. Please pay closer attention in the future! :)

I did a little digging and then noticed Davey2010 seemed to be singling out by following their edits across Wikipedia and reverting them: Actually, I'm now noticing you happened to revert another edit by the same user and claim it was "unsourced," when it was very clearly sourced. What are you doing?

I did some more looking and realised Davey2010 had inappropriately given many warnings to for "vandalism," which were not warranted:''Hmm the more I see your editing patterns, the more concerned I am that you are abusing your editing privileges. It's not appropriate to have warned User:FaZeBlueThunderShocker with a final warning and you definitely should remove that. (Note that you cannot immediately use a final warning when there have been no other warnings issued or instances to be noted.) Secondly, you warned them for vandalism, but their edits clearly aren't vandalistic, they aren't even disruptive. Actually, you shouldn't have even warned them at all since the edits were valid. Please see Vandalism, specifically Vandalism and the subsection "For beginners." While you're at it, please also see Please do not bite the newcomers.''

The response from Davey2010 was to remove my post and call me a dick, in breach of WP:CIVIL: [| Mistakes happen, and I would've apologised right here had you chosen not to be a dick about about it.]

I posted my initial post here because I assumed the worst but upon seeing that a few minutes later that Davey2010 had issued an apology to FaZeBlueThunderShocker, I removed my post to ANI as seen above. [Here is the apology and action which Davey2010 took]: Hi FaZeBlueThunderShocker, Apologies for the reverting and warning which I've now struck, It looked like you were vandalising and blanking content which is why I reverted but indeed you were actually removing unacceptable content (thanks for doing that), Unfortunately I only ended up having 4 hours sleep yesterday and then the day went wasn't great either but that still isn't an excuse to not pay closer attention to what I'm reverting so again apologies for reverting and warning you yesterday, I hope you stick around and continue editing :), Happy editing."

I removed my post to ANI because of this, and instead issued friendly reminder to Davey2010's talk page [here]: ''Not matter how annoyed you are, you need to keep in mind that personal insults are against WP:CIVIL. There are two sections on this, one explicitly devoted to edit summaries. Thanks!''

Davey2010 responded by removing my comment and telling me to ["Fuck off."]

The user, who has been editing here for 8.9 years now, needs to read up on alot of Wikipedia policy, and in regards to the last incident, WP:CIVIL, especially Civility, which clearly states: "''Review your edit summaries before saving your edits. Remember you cannot go back and change them. Here is a list of tips about Edit summaries:
 * Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess your changes accurately.
 * Use neutral language.
 * Remain calm.
 * Don't make snide comments.
 * Don't make personal remarks about editors.
 * Don't be aggressive."

- R9tgokunks   ⭕  20:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how his reversion of a repeatedly blocked editor above is uncivil, the fuck off, maybe but meh. Praxidicae (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, a load of stuff happened around the 14th August which involved Davey reverting an editor and then apologising to them after you had posted on Davey2010's talk page. Five days later, on August 19, that editor was indefinitely blocked as a sock.  You then didn't edit from 14 August until 10 September, when you posted an ANI report about an edit that Davey2010 had made on the 14 August.  You then decided to lecture him on his talk page about civility for that edit from 27 days previously, which he was very unsurprisingly irritated by.  And now, another three days later, you decide to bring it to ANI again?  I think not. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fish supper? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps dinner Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Black Kite has summed it up beautifully, In short:
 * I was OTT with the way I dealt with someone, I immediately apologised to that editor when it was pointed out the editor wasn't a vandal, R9tgokunks came to my talkpage lecturing me about CIVIL to which I left a slightly snarky edit sum (Mistakes happen, and I would've apologised right here had you chosen not to be a dick about about it.), A month or so later (this month) they file an ANI report and then deleted it soon after and again proceeded to lecture me to which I replied "fuck off",
 * This all started because like I say I treated an editor like a vandal when they wasn't and like I said I immediately apologised to them when it was pointed out I was wrong .... so why in gods name are we here? ....,
 * I will just add had R9 come to my talkpage in a non-lecturing way I would've happily admitted fault to them and apologised to them too,
 * R9 really has made a mountain out of a molehill imho. – Dave | Davey 2010 Talk 20:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Praxidicae's "meh". You say you "issued a friendly reminder" because of Davey2010's use of the word "dick" in an edit summary. It might could also be seen as a fussy reminder, especially since you posted it nearly a month after the offense. What was your reason for going back in history like that? I would have been pretty aggravated myself by such a delayed ambush. Please don't perpetuate this further. If I had been you, I would have just fucked off from Davey2010's page as requested, rather than going to ANI. Just sayin'. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC).
 * Not to pile on, R9tgokunks, but while the editor you were defending wasn't vandalizing, the fact they have been blocked for the past three weeks for sockpuppetry should have made you think twice about filing a report involving them today. Even if this had been filed in mid-August, I'm not sure this rises to the level of an ANI report since Davey2010 did apologize. Blocks for incivility are not common on Wikipedia and the behavior has to be much more egregious and extensive than one "dick" and one "fuck off" to cause an admin to lay a block on an editor for this reason.
 * R9tgokunks, if it helps you at all to come to terms accepting this, please know that everyone who responded to you here has probably been called worse over their time editing on Wikipedia so it is not that we are unfamiliar with being cursed at. We've all been told to "fuck off" (or worse) so it is not just something you have experienced. It's just behavior that one usually shrugs off unless the personal attack is persistent or if the language is racist, sexist or anti-semitic. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Permit me to note the irony that the OP, the same person who rebuked Davey2010 in somewhat patronizing fashion for not being careful enough about what he was reverting, initially posted this a few days ago and then removed it because he realized that Davey2010 had already apologized. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Another never-ending dispute
An edit war between an unregistered editor and I has now become a 3RR dispute. Before I request or recommend a page block, I would like to get feedback on the issue in dispute and opinions on a page block request.

The article in question is List of battles fought in Ohio which includes the Kent State riot. The unregistered editor has repeatedly blanked the section and started the edit war by creating a section entitled "Block Spacini from this page" (please see Talk:List of battles fought in Ohio. I feel that I responded appropriately to this by pointing out that other riots are included in not only the List of battles fought in Ohio page, but on other pages entitled List of battles fought in X-state for example (noting specifically the Tulsa race riot (Oklahoma) and Columbine Mine massacre (Colorado). I even asked that the editor stop blanking until a discussion and then a dispute resolution discussion could be had. Today this was met with, "Kent state has been removed again pending its approval. Any content can be viewed in the history if needed to be seen during conflict resolution. Misleading and incorrect info does not need to remain on the page until then."

4.53.195.98 is taking a very narrow view of what constitutes armed conflict/battle and is, I believe, taking a political position that the student protestors at Kent State were unarmed. It is simply not true that they were unarmed, although it is true that they did not have firearms. That is, I feel, a discussion that needs to be had solely apart from this page block request as part of the 3RR discussion, although it is important to note here as 4.53.195.98 has accused me of perpetuating "false information", deliberately misinterpreting the definition of a "battle", and whether or not the "murder of protestors" falls within the definition of a battle by reverting his blanking of the topic from the list page.

4.53.195.98 is also unnecessarily repeating points that do not support his stance on this issue. Claims are being made that are ahistorical and even contradictory to points made in the Kent State shootings page. I simply cannot understand why this one riot/massacre is causing so much distress to 4.53.195.98 when other list pages, including the one for Ohio, has other examples of riots/massacres and they're not being reverted or requested to be reverted.

Finally, this edit war was started by which is, I believe, a strawman sockpuppet account for 4.53.195.98. Thank you. Spacini (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute. Go to Talk, provide reliable independent secondary sources that describe this as a battle and place it on lists of battles, and you're good. Otherwise, well, sometimes the anons are right. Guy (help!) 22:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Without reliable sourcing, we can't call that a battle. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See my comment on the article talk page. (Executive version: Kent State should not be included, Spacini should not be sanctioned.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, detailed discussion should take place on the article talk page, where I have commented. I find it somewhat disconcerting that chose to pipe Kent State shootings to Kent State riot, which looks like POV pushing to me. It was not the rioting of previous days (widespread in the aftermath of the invasion of Cambodia) that was notable. It was the massacre of four students, two of whom were not even protesters, that makes this event notable. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  23:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Anthony22
Just recently, after a long discussion, a topic ban was levied on Anthony22. During that discussion, Anthony22 made an implied threat to sock if he was sanctioned:


 * "What good is it going to do to block me from editing? All I have to do is register a new account with a different username? Blocking me is the equivalent of putting a Medeco lock cylinder on the front door but leaving the back door open."

Today, on their talk page, Anthony22 reiterated their implied threat to sock in greater detail:


 * "Topic bans and blocks can very easily be circumvented. A person can use the account of a family member, co-worker, friend, schoolmate, or another person to continue editing. If I were to continue editing in this fashion, you could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am the culprit."

Anthony22 has not made an article edit since 6 September, several days before the sanction was levied on him. I am concerned that today's repeating of the implied threat to sock and his lack of editing adds up to the possibility that Anthony22 has actually been socking, either with an IP, a new account, or a borrowed account. Unfortunately, if that is true, there's no way to file an SPI, because while the master account is known, the sock is not.

I do not know how to resolve this dilemma. Do we just wait until someone comes across an obvious Anthony22 clone by happenstance, or do we take him at his word at how easy it is to get around his sanction and take steps to stop him from socking? And what does that mean? Should Anthony22 be indef blocked, or should a CheckUser take the available evidence as sufficient to take a look into things?

Just in case the latter is the case,. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've warned Anthony on his Talk page not to make any more threats.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Beyond My Ken. The probability that has made good on his repeated threats to sock combined with the wide-ranging and difficult-to-search-for nature of his disruption justifies a checkuser to find any socks and/or sleeper accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * So, let's get this right, you want to checkuser an account because he said he would sock, there is no evidence presented of any socking, if such a checkuser request under guidelines is allowed I would be very surprised.Govindaharihari (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if anything would convince a checkuser to take a look, your objection here would be the thing that would do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. They would need evidence of Vandalism; Sock puppetry; Disruption (or potential disruption) of any Wikimedia project; and Legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing. - if they or you can show evidence of such then carry on. Anthony22 has made 35000 contributionns from this account, the last content contribution was a few days ago after thirteen years of contributions here. this request to indef him or checkuser him without any evidence is undue excessive imo.Govindaharihari (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Its already been shown than Anthony22 is disruptive, that's why he had a topic ban placed on him. And a threat to sock is pretty serious business.  I'm not a CheckUser, so I cannot say exactly how serious such a threat is considered, but A22 has made it twice now, elaborating further on how it could be done in the second threat.Remember, Wikipedia is a private website, and no one has a right to free speech here, we have only the rights that the community and the WMF agrees to give us, and if those standards hold that threatening to sock is a sufficient condition to run a CheckUser, then I assume that one would be run.Of course, Anthony22 could just be blowing off steam, I don't know -- none of us know what going on in his mind, except that he's certainly thinking about how to go about socking, whether he's doing it or not.  That we know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I just checked CheckUser policy, and I don't find support for Govindaharihari's "They would need evidence" claim. That page says


 * "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, spamming, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects."


 * "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." (Emphasis added)

We know that Anthony22 disrupted the project. The topic ban prevents him from further disruption of that type -- any further edits of that nature would be a "violation of the policies". We know that he is of the opinion that his edits are good, not disruptive. We know that he is of the opinion that he could easily engage in sockpuppetry to make further "good" edits, that we would be unable to detect the socking, and thus that the topic ban is useless. And we know that, unlike the case with a WP:SPA who goes right back to making the same edits to the same page, the nature of his disruptive edits makes finding him engaging in sockpuppetry with a search unlikely. In the opinion of at least two editors (Guy Macon and Beyond My Ken) this is "a valid reason to check a user". So far one editor (Govindaharihari) disagrees. The final decision will be made by someone with the checkuser right, all of whom are very familiar with the rules saying when it may be used. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, a CheckUser, has issued a warning to Anthony22 that if he threatens to sock again he risks being blocked. I think for the moment this is a sufficient response, the danger having been brought to the community's attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User archived active discussion
User archived active discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAndroid_10&type=revision&diff=914534633&oldid=914534622 This goes against wikipedia's policy of civility, dispute resolution, and to communicate. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It may have been accidental, as OneClickArchiver lives up to its name. That, or since the discussion seemed to be going nowhere and hadn't been commented on in a week, it was an intentional archiving. That hardly breaks policy. If you feel the archiving was wrong, just open a new section on the talk page and keep talking it out. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a week since a reply to that thread as it was archived on the 8th immediately after the last comment was left which was only a few minutes after the comment before. And the editor involved said 'archiving' in their last comment suggesting it was not an accident. You may be confused because the whole thing happened 6 days ago. Which may be fine if attempts to discuss it have proven futile and there is need for administrative attention, unlikely as that would be. But that isn't the case. There has been no attempt to discuss this archiving anywhere before this ANI that I can see. So why on earth is this at ANI? If there's something that "goes against wikipedia's policy of ..... dispute resolution, and to communicate", it's bringing someone to ANI for something that isn't so egregious it requires instant action, without communicating with them about the alleged problem first. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion and the user shut down the discussion. Are you suggesting to repeat that cycle so that user can again have his fun by one click archiving?  An attempt was made here that went no where. Thank you for looking into this matter,   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The user needs to be reminded that if they want to participate in a discuss, then that is their purview, but eliminating a discussion is uncivil. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Walter Gorlitz cares little for the opinions of other editors. This is habitual behaviour. Not necessarily instant archiving like this, but certainly he has a long record of seeing himself as a gatekeeper on a number of pages and no other views will be accepted. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the active discussion Daniel?
 * What I see is a request from me about whether bullet lists are necessary after you were reverted three times for inserting it. The three different editors all gave different reasons. I stated three different reasons why it wasn't a good idea: 1) a summary isn't necessary, 2) USEPROSE 3) references do not belong in a lede. You did not enter the conversation. A fourth editor stated that it was pointless and indicated that there were three other articles where you had done this. I did not recognize that you then entered the conversation and two days after your edit war ended and no one else discussed, you asked what the next steps were. I stated it was essentially a dead issue, you kept arguing that it was needed, but did so subjectively ("I find a list is the best way") and one of my reasons. I pointed that out, added that we were talking about "that new operating system" and stated the article should discuss the new features and the lede should summarize it and suggested that if you wanted a summary, that you should add one. You then missed the point entirely and wrote, "Are you saying the article isn't about what's new, but about the entire O.S.? There is a different article for that." I had clearly written that the article was about the new features in Android 10 but you seemed to think that only the Android Mobile OS was the operating system and I spent the next several edits trying to get you admit that it was indeed an operating system. You completely ignored the fact that I had asked to provide a prose summary. You were not, at that point, trying to discuss adding a summary to the lede, but instead you were trying to make a point about something immaterial. During that discussion, a fifth editor came in and wrote that "Having a bulleted list in the lead is ridiculous" and your response was to equate a bullet list with a summary. Meanwhile, the second-to-last thing I wrote in the discussion—trying to bring us back to a summary in the lede—was to make it clear that Android 10 was indeed an OS and that you're free to write a summary of the article, but to do so in prose. I then wrote, "Any further discussion that tries to be clever or obfuscate an actual discussion will result in prompt and merciless archival of this discussion." Your response to that was to stay on the "is Android 10 an OS or not" rabbit trail and not discuss how you'd create a summary, and then claimed that I disagreed with the article, which makes no sense at all.
 * Meanwhile, you were forum shopping (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Is_there_something_in_this_guideline_that_prevents_use_of_a_clear_concise_list_of_features_when_talking_about_update_to_a_operating_system?) where you were being told essentially the same thing. Having seen that and seeing that the discussion on the actual article was not getting anywhere, I archived it. I could have closed it, but I didn't. Your next forum shop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Grid#What_do_you_think_about_archiving_active_discussion?) resulted in telling you it wasn't a bad thing.
 * I do not understand why you're getting bogged down in the minor issues. I also get the feeling that English is not your first language, and that may have something to do with why you're focusing on the wrong things in discussions. In short, I don't understand why you think bullets are most clear, and why you won't write in prose, but at least four editors do not want that on the Android 10 article and if I just sat back, you'd be told that same thing. I repeatedly said that if you wanted to write a summary of the new features in prose, you could, but—and I did not clearly state this on the talk page—referenced details about new features should be discussed in the body of the article and only a summary should appear in the lede.
 * So to summarize: summary in the lede is good; referenced details in the body; bullets should not be used in the summary. That's what the discussion on the talk page should have been about, not putting words into other editors' mouths, and not getting caught-up on points not germane to creating an article about Android 10. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Walter Gorlitz is trying to muddy the waters by making this discussion into something else. For active discussion it is first link in this section.  You reverted minutes after my comment.  There was no forum shopping.  Users are encouraged to discuss.  First was the Android 10 talk page.  Claim was made that it violated MOS:USEPROSE .  Best place to discuss if that is on Manual of Style/Lists.  And a pointer was placed.  After discussion was uncivilly shot down on Android 10, as encouraged by dispute resolution, another discussion was started about incivility.  Very far from forum shopping.  User is being condescending by suggesting that English is not my first language.  User is taunting me with this edit after he shut down communication on article talk page.
 * Again this is not about content dispute. This is about incivility.  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not about civility though, it's about you not understanding the topic and staying on it. Talk about muddying the waters. There was no active discussion, there was you dancing around the fact that no one wanted bullet points and refusing to write a summary in the lede using prose and you refusing to acknowledge that. I probably should have walked away and the discussion would have gone stale, but this had the same effect. Feel free to open a new discussion but I'll not join unless you offer something salient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again the user is trying to change the topic. This discussion was brought up because of your incivility.  You need to acknowledge your incivility and undo your uncivil action(s). Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I acknowledged that I should have left it in-place and ignored it. It was unconventional. I don't know that it was uncivil. This discussion should not be at ANI though, but you're new around here, so I think that's why it's still open. As for undoing it, not possible. I did, however, state you could start a new discussion. I take it you read that and are ignoring that suggestion just like you ignored the suggestion to create a summary in the lede using prose (from five different editors and climbing). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Captain Eek, perhaps you'd care to explain this one too, where you used OneClickArchiver to close an open discussion on this page: ?
 * There is never a reason to do this on a page with auto-archiving on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness, my bad. I did not look close enough, as I believed the discussion had been closed. I did not see that a new section had been opened, just that Bbb23 had closed it as a content dispute. I'll take a trouting for that, and someone is absolutely free to undo the archiving. I'll abstain from this thread too in that case. I'll also be much more cautious with my use of OneClickArchiver in the future. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Walter Gorlitz has a long history of hiding issues on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&curid=59539493&action=history Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That talk page does not have auto-archiving. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec w/ closure) Walter Gorlitz is under no obligation to keep comments on his talk page and can delete them at will per Talk_page_guidelines Buffs (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Cast-iron cookware
Hi all - two editors, User:Roxy the dog and User:Andy Dingley are reverting my edits, claiming they are untrue. They removed sourced information, and I even provided a more detailed source on the talk page. They then refused my multiple attempts to figure out the answer and figure where they're coming from - they haven't even provided a single source to back up their claims, after four attempts just on the article talk alone. Instead they mock my inquiries because it's "basic eleven year old school science"; "you're going to look silly"; that they're "much more concerned with [my] own competence to edit here, in the light of [my] basic ignorance". ɱ (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been correctly notified of this thread. Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The editor concerned here should revise their basic highschool thermodynamics. There is also no reason whatsoever, other than just to waste others' time, to move this discussion from the article talk: to ANI.
 * If you're one editor telling a number of others that black is white, or that reality doesn't work the way they all think it does, then it's time to look at your claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "High-school [originally 11-y.o.] thermodynamics" is not the issue here. ANI is about user conduct. I have been simply trying to rationally discuss the issue, giving a credible source, and you have been continually mocking and insulting me. ɱ  (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Here (p. 59-60) is another excellent source that disputes your 'basic knowledge' that cast-iron is excellent. In both conductivity and heat capacity, it is average at best. Mass of the pan is also important, a reason why cast-iron is often chosen, but a steel or aluminum pan of the same mass will retain heat better than cast-iron. ɱ  (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If "ANI is about user conduct" (and it is) why are you continuing the content dispute here? That source and the reasoning about the quality of pans should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay fine, I am just continuing the conversation, showing that I want to find the answers, unlike the other two here. ɱ  (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As well, I should note that these two editors have repeatedly reverted my and User:GliderMaven's unrelated edits, in apparently uncareful attempts to restore their preferred article versions. ɱ  (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ɱ's discussion with Roxy just popped up on my watchlist, so I may weigh in on the matter if you don't mind. Roxy's behaviour is clearly unhelpful, as he shows no intention to settle the issue and instead resorts to unnecessary personal attacks (yes, accusing someone of a lack of competence without providing evidence does constitute WP:PERSONAL - see WP:WIAPA). Furthermore, they did violate WP:3RR with these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4.


 * However, while Ɱ does show intention to settle the issue and is willing to discuss the issue, they have also violated WP:3RR and are editing back new information without consensus (furthermore, there are currently two editors, user:Roxy the dog and user:Andy Dingley opposing their changes and only user:Ɱ supporting the changes, so it doesn't seem like consensus for Ɱ's changes will be reached).


 * Both users have violated the WP:BRD cycle several times, and both should try and discuss the issue first before edit-warring. However, as that doesn't seem to be happening, I am proposing that user:Roxy the dog receive a short block for violating WP:3RR and that user:Ɱ receive a similar block as WP:BOOMERANG to stop the edit war, and we'll see whether further action should be taken if the edit war continues. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  16:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: user:Andy Dingley has now joined the edit war as well. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  16:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am restoring cited content, reverting bad-faith edits, during multiple fruitless attempts to talk rationally and exchange evidence. If you think I should be given a block for that, the system's clearly pretty messed up. ɱ  (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do personally believe that the system does require some improvements, and I have fallen victim to it in the past, but, as it stands, you have violated WP:BRD and WP:3RR, which is punishable with a block. It is indeed unfortunate that one of the two users that don't agree with you isn't even willing to properly discuss your proposed changes, but that doesn't free you from abiding by Wikipedia's policies (WP:CONSENSUS) and not editing in any new information without having gained consensus for it first. If you don't like these policies, you might propose a change to them elsewhere, but WP:ANI is not that place. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  16:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well you fail to understand consensus: it's not a vote based on number of bodies. Even in a deletion discussion, if 20 editors vote one way without providing any evidence or rationale, the 10 editors who do clearly state it rationally, clearly, logically, and truthfully will succeed. Andy's and Roxy's opinions based on "11 year old school curriculum" mean nothing here. ɱ  (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that better than anyone. I was literally topic-banned chiefly for claiming consensus (where there was one), because some users, including administrators, could not understand than consensus is not a count of the number of votes, which forced me to edit-war, which eventually gained me my topic ban. However, here, you are trying to edit back new information without ANY consensus. As it stands, the only editor that supports your edits is you. Neither Andy nor Roxy need consensus to justify their reverts: you are the one proposing the edit, and so it is you who needs to convince the other editors that your change is worthy of being implemented. As of yet, you haven't done that, and so you should not be restoring your edits. It's really simple. Take a look at WP:BRD. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  16:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As well, you're the first one to even mention edit-warring. Clearly Andy and Roxy don't care enough about rules and are continually doing that, and I won't let them simply get away with it. I am bringing them to ANI here for removing cited information, failing to provide sources, failing to discuss issues rationally and civilly, and insulting and mocking me repeatedly. What do you think of those issues? ɱ  (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do agree that both Andy and Roxy are being disruptive, but so are you. Someone else's bad behaviour doesn't justify your own bad behaviour. Also, failing to provide sources and removing cited information are not behavioural issues if the user is editing from consensus or status quo (which they are). And the other two elements that you have included only apply to Roxy the dog and not Andy. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  16:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They are breaking many more rules, I was mostly attempting to keep 'citation needed' tags in place, something that only vandals and bad-faith editors remove. Edit warring to keep maintenance and citation needed tags intact from irrational editors isn't problematic. Like I said - they have no consensus over this topic, and both were failing to talk rationally and were insulting me, actually. ɱ  (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "They are worse than me" isn't a good argument at all. You're still edit-warring, no matter for how good a cause, and edit-warring is always problematic. Also, please WP:Assume good faith; assumption of good faith is literally why Wikipedia exists. Finally, they don't need consensus over this topic - you do. You are the one proposing the change, and so you are the one who should gain consensus for your edits to be justified. Once again, see WP:BRD. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  16:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One of them just caved in and started citing sources, though they're still edit warring, reverting my two good edits out of what appears to be WP:Ownership. ɱ  (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked deeply into this discussion, but when you state that "temperature is a measure of heat", Ɱ, you've placed yourself squarely into WP:RANDY territory. Temperature is, loosely speaking, a measure of average molecular speed, and is measured in Kelvin; heat is a form of energy, and is measured in joules, an entirely different unit. Andy is correct: by equating the two, you've shown that you lack the subject matter grounding to usefully contribute to a rational discussion of this subject, regardless of whether you or anyone else is following the forms of rational discussion, civility, etc. I recommend you drop the point. Choess (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, don't be like that. Even if you believe they've made a mistake, that's just ONE mistake. One mistake doesn't suddenly make an editor incompetent. By calling Ɱ a Randy, you are essentially launching a personal attack. Furthermore, as Ɱ has rightly stated, WP:ANI is about discussing behaviour - not content. Please stay on topic and do not create conflict where it's not needed. Lastly, heat, loosely speaking, is the total random kinetic energy of the molecules, so temperature and heat really do measure very similar things. Calling someone who says that they measure the same thing (when they do actually measure similar things) incompetent is overreacting at best. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  16:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're just insulting me further, thanks for not addressing the issue at hand and actually continuing being awful - the issue being people mocking me for not knowing "middle school science" and then finally citing sources that are wrong. ɱ  (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an extremely rude response, I'm surprised you're an administrator. I am trying to figure this out rationally, people shouldn't expect me to have a master's degree in physics, but I have found that some of what Andy/Roxy were stating is factually inaccurate. So thank you for the boost of support. ɱ  (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:EXPERT: "No editor is exempt from fundamental Wikipedia policies; in particular, the policies of no original research and verifiability", "Experts, of course, can be wrong; and different experts can reasonably disagree on the same topic.", "Wikipedia does not grant additional powers or respect to subject-matter experts."
 * "Experts do not have any privileges in resolving conflicts in their favor: in a content dispute between a (supposed) expert and a non-expert, it is not permissible for the expert to "pull rank" and declare victory. "Because I say so" or "because I have a PhD from Harvard" or "I wrote the most-used textbook in this field" are never an acceptable justification for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise. All editors, whether they are expert editors or high school graduates must cite reliable sources for all claims. Likewise, expert contributions are not protected from subsequent revisions from non-experts. Ideally, if not always in practice, it is the quality of the edits and the reliable sources upon which they are based that counts." ɱ  (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Ɱ, not everyone saying you are wrong is being "extremely rude." Count me as another person urging you to drop this and go back to trying to persuade people to your point of view.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have to say, though, user:Choess did call Ɱ incompetent because of what they believed to be one mistake. That is quite rude, in my opinion. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲  J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  16:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, no, I don't have to say. Perhaps I come from a more contentious background, or am just a congenitally disagreeable sort.  Either way, we'll have to agree to disagree on this!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll agree to disagree! O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?  17:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * RANDY based on one largely-true comment is obscene, I agree. ɱ  (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ɱ may find my essay at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. Close and send back to article talk page. Edit warring reports should be posted at WP:ANEW, not here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. There is more than enough incivility to require administrator intervention if it doesn't stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It's about user conduct, as stated many times. ɱ  (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again ANI fails to do anything except scrutinize the poster's behavior, with little to no analysis of the reported individuals' behaviors. Consider this another useless report to add to an already useless system (though it did spur Andy to finally begin finding refs and improving the article a little). ɱ  (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There's some incivility on the talk page and edit warring on the article. Both should stop. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for edit wartring, I had not realised, and I was going to thank Oldstone for noting it until I realised why he was stirring the pot. He is the subject of a community imposed topic ban which I heartily endorsed at the time, and still do. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 22:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruption by Guy Macon
OK, this is just sheer disruption. Will someone uninvolved please revert it, and maybe griddle him a nice trout. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:STATUSQUO says:
 * "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting.


 * If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.


 * If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles). Note that this process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place." (Emphasis added)


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Two "thank you" notices in the first few minutes after making that edit. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither from me, I might add!!;) -Roxy, the dog . wooF 18:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Were they for saying that heat and temperature are the same thing, that Harold McGee is "dubious" as a source, or just for breaking all the references in the lead? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Re: "breaking all of the references" (one reference, actually), see below. Re: heat/temperature and McGee, those are content disputes, and you have been around long enough to know that ANI only deals with behavior. You know, edit warring, incivility, bogus complaints against users who did the right thing at ANI -- that sort of thing. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there have been enough reverts already. I've fully protected the page for two days.  Use Edit fully-protected when there's a consensus on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * NinjaRobotPirate, I was in the middle of searching through the edits and restoring any that were uncontroversial and not part of the edit war. I am fine with it as protected, but would you be so kind as to fix the citation error in the lead? Just reverting my final edit would be fine. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Editor creating a string of hoax articles
User:Homer Simpsons666 has been on Wikipedia since February 2018. During that time he has created a very large number of hoax articles about tramways and railway lines that he has made up. His talk page shows the many that have been deleted. I've just gone through and tagged the recent batch as WP:G3 hoaxes as well. On one of the very few occasions this editor has interacted with anyone, he admitted that the articles are indeed fake:. It is clear that Homer Simpsons666 is not here to help build an encyclopedia, and no amount of deleted articles and talk page warnings will stop them. Could an admin review this, please? My suggestion (for what it's worth) is this user should be indefinitely blocked. Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if they are hoaxes - Rowntree's Halt existed, for example - but he has learned exactly nothing about how to write a Wikipedia article. Guy (help!) 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * He's playing games in the virtual world and mentioned Grand Theft Auto 5 as the source. Blocked as NOTHERE.
 * Thanks Berean Hunter. On the question of Rowntree's Halt, yes it was real, the hoax is "These years we will reopening the whole line from york railway station including new railway stations and new railway junction will be can be opened as electronic railway track too details will be available this week. Work Start 15th July 2024 GTM. Work finish: 27th December 2030. Cost: £51,000,000" That's obviously untrue, he's not spending £51M with his friends on re-opening that station! We already have an article on Rowntree Halt railway station. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer disruption
For the past few months, basically every other edit to Dave Meltzer has been vandalism. Meltzer is notable for being perhaps the most prominent journalist to cover professional wrestling, which now falls under sanctions per General sanctions/Professional wrestling. A discussion about this issue on WT:PW previously said that a request for page protection was declined. Can an admin here put something in place to make the page history more stable going forward? Thanks.LM2000 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding any discussion on WT:PW which references a RFPP for the Dave Meltzer article. I found this, but RFPP is mentioned, not (apparently) even applied for. Am I missing the pertinent discussion? Killer Chihuahua 22:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a BLP, it's getting persistently vandalised (particularly, it seems by a dynamic IP with a point to prove), so there's no problem with semi-protecting it, which I've done. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In the linked thread, ★Trekker said on August 12 that a page protection request had been denied. Thank you, Black Kite.LM2000 (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits to get extended confirmed.
This user is doing unconstructive edits like removing redirect links, and adding again. He did all these edits to get included in extended confirmed users. Admin should look at his contributions to decide and block him for unconstructively vandalising the Wikipedia. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 06:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you know that's why he's doing it? <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 06:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Also,, you are required to inform people you bring to ANI about the discussion. Why didn't you? <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 07:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you seem to be too eager to get credited on and in hurry to increase your points as a new editor on wikipedia cuz u seem to be Edit warring since u added sentence 'removing redirect links, and adding again' can u please show me where i did that removing and adding unnecessarily? for further details please check my user page since i am a part of WikiProject Red Link Recovery i am trying to do it as my duty. Jhummu <sup style="font-family:Segoe print;color:#B22222">Shiv-o-Hum!  07:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Editcountitis at best and gaming the system at worst. EC requires 30 days and 500 edits, so quite possibly there wasn't a need to rack up the edits so fast, but again, all of this is speculation. We should explain to the editor that removing red links is not helpful and splitting edits to increase count is not helpful either. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 07:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Nanda sai karthik
Can someone block this editor? See Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan: Revision history. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. El_C 06:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil
, despite having a lengthy block log, is still engaging in personal attacks, including using "autistic" as an insult.

Related: --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive239
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive983
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive954
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive918
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive874
 * I'm seeing this as a move towards indeff, rather than being actionable. This reads more as a grudge, and opening old woulds, some of which are very old. Also, why now & today? Reads more like an arbcom case rather than an an/i. I stand 100% over my comments at talk bus stop, where in I advised a fellow Visual arts editor to drop the stick and not be baited and was instead baited. To note the *The Cloisters* discussion ended with myself and Beyond my Ken reaching an amicable consensus and taking the page to FA. All in all, this all makes no sense, unless you consider the plaintiff had some of the very old diffs ready and waiting. Ceoil
 * This has no merit.....seems like a vendetta...Ceoil is an important and articulate content editor...Modernist (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You are actually excusing persona attacks because the person doing the attacking is a content creator? WP:UNBLOCKABLES. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the original post looks like grudge mongering, which is forbidden by WP:BATTLE. However, calling somebody autistic is out of bounds. Ceoil, would you please redact that word. The rest of the comments are just colorful criticism.  If you agree, we are done here. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I retract, Jehochman, yes it was unnecessary. I was being overly dramatic to convey a decade long approach, but that said stand over my argument in context. Ceoil


 * Ceoil has doubled down by posting new personal attacks aimed at me. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * yea, you are going to upset contributors if you repeatedly go around creating unbeneficial reports like this . Govindaharihari (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My 2c as the target: While there is plenty of NPA vio there, starting with "fool", I don't expect the community to suddenly start enforcing NPA now and I've learned to ignore empty ad hominem insults, which say a lot more about the issuer than the target. Kudos to Guy Macon for taking ANI action where he doesn't have a dog in the immediate fight; we could use more of that; but this one isn't going anywhere. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  15:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ...which will never change, so long as those of us who believe in the fourth pillar continue to allow the sweep-it-under-the-rug crowd to carry the day.The "autistic" insult was the worst, but not the only personal attack Ceoil made in that thread, or since that thread, or even since this report was filed. Immediately after removing "autistic", Ceoil's next two edits are to Jesus's Guy's talk page, calling him "dishonest" and "coward". Just as we would not allow an editor to continue editing if they routinely ignored WP:V, or WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR, so should we not allow editors to continue to edit while routinely ignoring WP:CIVIL. A change in behavior by Ceoil should be a prerequisite to their continuing to be a part of this community. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 15:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes Levivich, its commonly known as reacting to being poked by out numbering antagonists, aka baiting. I note you are taking this grudge from my wife's talk page...for shame. Ceoil
 * Why should it change? It is only a small group of campaigners such as yourself who make such a big deal of it. Most of us have thicker skins and/or realise that tempers will flare from time to time. We can't even decide what is civil, so whinging about sporadic accusations of incivility by people who actually do most of the ground work here isn't particularly useful. If you want a social website, where you can make lots of friends, try Facebook - although even there you'll see lots of vitriol etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * talk
 * This was not tempers flaring, nor a momentary lapse, nor an understandable loss of patience.
 * The first insulting post directed at Mandruss took five edits to construct: each one more insulting than the last:    . "Fool" was added in the fifth edit. This shows a deliberate and careful effort at drafting a personal attack.
 * The second insulting post directed at Mandruss took seven edits to construct, again, with the edits increasing the level of personal attack:      . "Autistic" was added in the sixth edit, and then Ceoil came back in a seventh edit to change "you autistic" to "your autistic".
 * A third insulting post directed at Mandruss took five more edits to construct:    . That last one, complaining about "your bludgeoning superior approach", was the seventeenth personal-attack edit.
 * After all that, they made the other PAs against me and Guy that I referred to above. This is routine incivility, on multiple pages, towards multiple editors. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I rather think you and Guy are inviting feedback. Lets be honest about what is happen ing here. Guy is punting, you are being dishonest and trying to get at Kafka Liz through me. Thats vindictive, and if you get called then maybe next time wear big boy pants. Its clear Guy's approach is entrapment. Ceoil
 * I would have thought taking multiple edits to construct something, certainly to this degree, is the very definition of someone's temper flaring. It's the equivalent of spluttering. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'd say that's the exact reason we block editors: to stop them from continuing to make such spluttering edits, when they cannot stop themselves. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not a case of an uninterested observer. Guy has been waiting for an opportunity to get Ceoil banned. If persistent, this behavior is called headhunting, and is itself sanctionable conduct when extreme. Guy, thank you for raising a valid concern about the word “autistic”. Ceoil has agreed to fix it, and hopefully we won’t be back here again. Please consider that our goal is to help every editor be their best self, not use their weaknesses to set up their downfall. Jehochman Talk 15:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Evidence, please. Please show where I have had any prior interactions with Ceoil. I didn't know he/she existed until I noticed the WP:NPA violations above and searched for previous ANI reports. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a review of WP:CIVIL is required, as it seems to be brought up often that it's being unevenly applied to editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Goddday's primary concern is about standardising image size, a trivial matter, but why he is posting here - he sees the opportunity to eliminate a perceived foe. It seems fantastically shallow, but that is obv why he is posting here. This is the easy picking baggage you carry if have a block log like mine (that even most the then involved admins is undeserved). Ceoil
 * ...and right there is another personal attack by Ceoil. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 16:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude I'm just calling that all might not be as it seems and that some (including you) are using CIV to further unstated aims. Again, for shame. Ceoil
 * I've been around the topic of WP:CIVIL on many occasions. Have always been in favor allowing editors to 'express' themselves. Political correctness isn't something I would promote. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any "grudges", and such allegations need to be substantiated or at least explained. The original post on Bus Stop's talk page seems innocuous and valid, and not remotely something that would prompt that subsequent, protracted campaign of egregious personal attacks. I'm inclined to block unless there's actual convincing proof that this is nothing but an existing conflict between these two or three users, but in that case, an IBAN is probably warranted if it's descended to such blatant name calling. Swarm (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That has been tried umpteen times in the past and ArbCom have had words to say about it, too. We've also had noticeboards such as the Wikiquette (or whatever it was) that have come and gone. Uneven application is in the eye of the beholder and it just happens that we have a few very vocal, quite new contributors who are going ape shit about it. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Swarm is inclined to block, omg, go on then, do your worst. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OMG, let's block the man who admittedly cannot spell (there's um, a word for that, but I don't want to shame anyone, unlike the rest of you), for ... um ... not being able to spell. So happy to see that Levivich can count the number of edits it took. Victoria (tk) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Doubt anyone would really question a NPA block here. Fairly simple tl;dr, Ceoil repeatedly attacks editors and reasons their attacks to be the product of "baiting", AGF can only extend so much. If getting baited is an issue and you need to attack editors to make your point, it is impossible to be part of an online community like Wikipedia and work productively (WP:CIR). --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 16:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Like 70 featured articles and that's not productive?? Fuck this place and all you people. Victoria (tk) 16:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Victoria. QEDK, why not sort out the fucking baiters? You're putting the cart before the horse. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I admire the tenacity you put into your first interaction with me anywhere Victoria, but I can see the apparent issue so let's put it clearly here. And replying to you too Sitush, I will admit baiting is not okay, but nor are personal attacks because if you need to use personal attacks while interacting with a person, then maybe you should not be interacting at all. I think there is a definite issue with the fact that you think personal attacks are justified anytime in the first place, accidents are fine, but here, a pattern has been demonstrated and saying you got baited is well ...pointless. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 17:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is there is an incredibly low blow (not from Ceoil) right here on this page, and I don't think an ANI report justifies crucifying someone. There are better ways to go about these things but generally bludgeoning, something along the lines of how many zombies can I kill in this video game, is the status quo in these threads. I don't like it. I don't like that just because Ceoil was rude everyone else gets to be rude too. Why? Aren't we better than that? Any of us? I'd like to think so, but it's been really really hard since June. The writing is on the wall in terms of detoxification and whatever it takes to pull the weeds, then fine. But in the end the product, the encylopedia itself, and the people who create it for free, suffer. Victoria (tk) 17:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you apparently don't have a problem with the use of "autistic" as an insult, which statement was the "low blow" with which you do have a problem?  – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  17:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * +1 with QEDK, I think a NPA block is quite reasonable and in line with our policies. It's greatly disheartening to me that there's a sizeable and vocal crowd of editors who will go to any length to justify retaining editors who do good work regardless of how many other editors they drive off in the process. Sam Walton (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems fairly open and shut doesn't it. Civility is something every editor is required follow regardless of the situation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Swarm. If I'd seen Ceoil's "autistic" comment (along with the multiple other attacks on other editors on Talk:Bus stop) I would have blocked them immediately. I note that they have not yet redacted it, either. Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Swarm, unless he redacts the usage of autistic soon-enough with an apology. Minutes back, I misread an edit-summary that he had redacted it; such stuff is way beyond accepted boundaries in this century .... &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 17:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I suggest that these two folks disengage. If they are both on board, it would not require an interaction block.
 * Obviously, we need them to act on WP:Civil and to promise on their honor to keep the peace.
 * This is all old business, and much ado about nothing. Name calling is a waste of everyone's time, as is repeated trips to WP:ANI. Sincere mutual apologies for ill considered over reaction would go a long way toward putting oil on the waters.
 * I apologize for getting involved, and mean no aspersions to anyone. I am simply proposing a truce.
 * Good editors are hard to find. And keep.  Both of them are important and consistent content creators.  Good behavior is important, as is good content creation.  Editor retention is an important value that cuts in all directions here. The least restrictive alternative that keeps them both on board is a win for them and the good of the project.  That is my cherished hope.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Which two editors? There are not two editors making personal attacks at each other here; there is just one editor in all of these diffs. Mandruss said nothing in that talk page thread that was uncivil, where as Ceoil made multiple attacks at Mandruss and others. (Guy Macon also has not said anything uncivil to cause Ceoil's attacks against him.) This kind of false equivalence and everyone's-at-fault thinking is part of the problem. Only one editor in that talk page thread was chasing away good editors–the one using "autistic" as an insult (among half a dozen others). – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can fix the blame.
 * Or you can fix the problem. I proposed doing the latter for the good of the project.  But I can't make anyone sheath their swords.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I commend to you the analogy that one person has a sword, and you're arguing "arrest them both, for the good of the community". We can't fix a problem if we don't identify it correctly. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich 17:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds very nice, but you can't fix the problem without fixing some blame. The "Can't we all just get along?" approach has been tried for many years as an alternative to behavior policy enforcement, longer than I've been around, and the countless threads like that one are the very predictable result. I'd like to say that Wikipedia will be what a majority of its editors want in which case editors like Levivich and me just lose and that's too bad  but the truth is that Wikipedia will be what a majority of editors who frequent this page want. And that subset is anything but representative of the community, as an enormous number of calmer, gentler, more reasonable editors avoid this page in droves because they can't stomach the persistent hostile tone here. That situation is what the behavior policy is designed to prevent. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  17:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to address Mandruss. Sorry man I personalised. We are perennially at odds on modern art images, and too often talk past each other. The conversation to date has been all (us) or nothing (you), lets try and find middle ground, maybe via a third part, and maybe an admin here could suggest. Ceoil
 * Perennially at odds? I recently had a brief content dispute with you about the use of upright with images in a single article, and I deferred to you. Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall one other similar interaction years ago, and I'm fairly certain I deferred to you there too. In what universe did that "history" remotely justify your calling me a fool, even if regretted after the fact? (That and more remain unstricken, so you don't regret them much.) Apology accepted through your second sentence, but please don't frame this as anything but a complete failure to AGF and moderate your own language both of which are blockable especially if they are part of a long-term pattern. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose blocking any editor who has contributed to this thread. Instead, let’s try to help each other instead of grossly uncivil activities like block shopping, tag teaming and headhunting. Ceoil, please redact the remark we agreed you’d redact and then let’s all move on. Jehochman Talk 17:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Post-close discussion

 * While I happen to agree with him that a block for Ceoil might not be helpful just now (it's been a hard few weeks for Eric's crew and I feel we should cut them some slack) I'm getting more than a bit tired of Jehochman declaring discussions suddenly over and imposing his supervote. Cut it out. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This one was a peach. Jehochman casts aspersions  and then closes the thread. The target of the above ANI report went to an admin's talk page, who responds, "be careful...I’ve been trying to thwart any efforts...", and then promptly closes the ANI report. It's almost insulting in its obviousness. – Leviv<span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(45deg);bottom:-.57em;">ich  18:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * lol at the description of the number of edits it took to mold the insults, with 'fool' not added until the fifth edit. Comic gold. Hey everyone, maybe realize that everyone here is editing and creating one of the finest human endeavors in the species' intellectual history. Assume good faith works, and luckily everyone involved is used to being insulted by this time in their Wikipedia career. I haven't followed the case, but it seems a recent indef of a popular editor who played a little with a couple of socks is causing some loud hurt. Someone please lessen that ban to a reasonable month or two, and cake all around. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Terrible close. Move to reopen. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 18:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that you either substantiate your accusation against Guy Macon with diffs or apologize. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have discussed it with Guy. We are squared up and I struck some of the stuff above. Jehochman Talk 01:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This entire thing is a mess and probably needs to be shut down, but not with an involved close. Lepricavark (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * shameless linkspam: Yes, by all means let's get one of our WP:UNIVALVED or WP:UNEVOLVED admins to make the close. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the autistic comment still hasn't been retracted IMHO this should've still remained open, The damage has been done and reopening this now would be pointless and would no doubt create more drama, Knock off the autistic comments and comments such as this and everyone will live a happier life. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is the second time I've reverted a premature close by Jehochman. I don't want to make a habit of it, but this one was clearly involved and inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it was retracted, if not redacted. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:7&amp;6=thirteen "The very definition of a strawman, in fairness well done, but used to further a campaign of harassment and baiting based on shallow and ungentlemanly reasoning. Your autistic, single purpose career here is similar to anti-matter, adding nothing, disillusioning many; you are not respected. Ceoil (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)" (emphasis mine). – Davey 2010 Talk 19:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you ought to read what you're linking to as he didn't even remove the word .... – Davey 2010 Talk 19:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now removed, I would suggest someone closes this so we can all get back to improving the project. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Davey2010 Huh?  I would be affronted if you had been understandable. But enough, already. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "But enough, already." ... Enough of what ? ... Pointing out you didn't even bother to read the diff you were linking too ?, I believe I stopped typing here once Ceoil had removed his comment so therefore your "enough already" and "ping" are pointless and serves nothing other than to further fan the flames here. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the retraction was contained in the edit summary, which you missed. Cheers.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's like me calling someone a prick and then saying in the editsum "I retract it" .... means sweet fuck all if I haven't actually removed it or struck it out so no I hadn't missed that at all.... – Davey 2010 Talk 22:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Would you all please quit the grandstanding. We don’t do votes for blocking. I’m not involved in the underlying dispute in any way, contrary to Mack’s baseless, unconscionable, grievous calumny. 😁 Jehochman Talk 19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just stop, you're making it worse for yourself. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 19:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, INVOLVED or not, blocking or not, it's clear this was not a cut-and-dry force-close with no action situation, and this routine in which old guard admins perpetually enable toxic behavior coming from power users is getting tired. If you don't wish to block users like Ceoil, don't, but don't cast aspersions against people who come here with complaints, and certainly don't attempt to unilaterally force-close complaints after doing so. I will defer to the apology here, but with a warning that continued personal attacks will result in a block. Swarm (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Music proekt
Could an admin take a look at User:Music proekt's edits (e.g. edit warring to repeatedly remove a deletion tag)? DexDor(talk) 19:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Music proekt (talk · contribs · logs) for ease of reference. Going to take a look myself right now.  Killer Chihuahua  20:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * CU blocked. Confirmed to several globally locked accounts.  I'll report to the stewards. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Lovely, that was my next question. Thanks, NRP. Killer Chihuahua 20:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Belarusian music chart "LF Top Songs"
This page is not related to Alex9777777, please do not delete the category!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles there is, then let it be and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Belarusian_music_chart_%22LF_Top_Songs%22 The world is equal for everyone, the category has the right to exist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The chart has official pages -> https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x Please respect the work of other people and do not delete the category!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music proekt (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Potential BLPTALK issue on User talk:Ericacbarnett
It would be inappropriate for me to take action in respect of this matter as I had previously edited the article in question, however, in this edit Ericacbarnett accuses (on their Talk page) a living person of "a long and public history of personal attacks ... against me". I believe this might warrant being deleted per WP:BLPTALK but, again, I'm involved and am not a good judge of the matter. If it is determined to be a BLPTALK violation, I'm certain this is an unintentional excess by a new editor and no further action beyond deletion of the offending passage is necessary. Chetsford (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I get where you're coming from, but this is a BLP subject complaining about a biased source. Pretty sure BLP would also mandate that we take such a complaint seriously and allow the user to fully articulate and substantiate it, so that it can be assessed and considered by the community. ~Swarm~  {sting} 22:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Swarm. I think that's a good and valid point. With that, I have no objection if someone would like to close this thread. Chetsford (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of admins privilages at Farsi Wikipedia
Hello there, an admin with the name of

https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:Arash.pt

Blocked my account and removed my comments without any proved reason and he denyed to answer me. My account is darya2019

Please, consider this situation. He disuses his admis previlages. Regards Darya2019 Darya2019 (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We cannot help you as the English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over the Farsi Wikipedia (or any other Wikimedia project). Your only option is to follow their local process for unblocking.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Spidey Sense Tingling
I got a very odd message on my user talk page recently - this user has never made any other edits and came to me with something... about copyright... at Ghengis Khan - a page I occasionally work on. I pointed them to help desk, but I can't help but feel like there was something off about the request I can't put my finger on. May be nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It sounds like he's asking about licensing, but he doesn't know the term in English. I'm assuming English is not his first language. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  17:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean probably. But it was very odd they asked me in particular - or that they created a wikipedia account specifically to ask me a question then provided an off-wiki contact method for response. Like I said. Could be nothing. Or it could be some sort of phishing thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't email anyone I don't trust completely, even via Wikipedia's email. I left a hopefully helpful message about reusing Wikipedia content on their talk.--  Deep fried  okra    17:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wasn't comfortable helping them with that as creative commons licensing is not a specialty of mine. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Luckily, I have a permit that covers all licensing issues. A copy can be found here: [] May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  19:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We'll see how far that gets you on Wikimedia Commons. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Offered help on user's talk page. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Smells like undisclosed paidediting
See Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Does the whole noticeboard smell? Did you leave something out, Uncle G? Bishonen &#124; talk 19:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC).
 * whatever was posted here originally has been relocated there as a result of this edit. --JBL (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have blocked the emitter of the smell. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC).

Request Ban of Reddragon7 per NOTHERE
is a disclosed paid editor who has created and submitted many drafts through AfC which I have come across while reviewing submissions. They disclose being a freelancer and accepted jobs through the website "WikiPresence" which not only offers to create Wikipedia pages, but also offers to create press for such. I asked them previously about using references that don't mention the subject they are writing about as well as unreliable sources such as Medium. The response I feel was canned and normal of a paid editor who is WP:NOTHERE. To be clear, there are paid editors who can follow the rules, but I don't feel Reddragon7 can do that. The reason being is that the majority of their submission through AfC are being rejected for things like advertising, notability, and referencing (the last one I rejected was for WP:REFBOMBING which included sources that didn't even discuss the subject of the draft title). Submissions which constantly don't meet Wikipedia guidelines causes extra work for those of us reviewing drafts at AfC and would request a ban of this user since they can't seem to get that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not review and correct submissions that are paid for and don't comply with guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked at their paid work. There are two problems: First, they accept commissions from subjects that are extremely unlikely to be notable (such as this one and thisone, and about 2/3 of his attempted articles.  Second, whether or not the subject is likely to be notable, most of the references used are straight PR, from obvious PR sites, such as this and this, or at best clearly promotional  pieces on magazine and web sites that let promotional  interviews be published. Almost all the references used besides such obvious promotion, are notices about funding or the subjects own site. Only one of their paid articles has been accepted, MGC Pharmaceuticals,  and, in my opinion it should not have been, and I have listed it for afd.
 * This editor is doing harm to Wikipedia,--and also to his unsuspecting clients. Any of them who might actually merit articles will find it much harder to eventually get them afte the spam that this editor is writing with their money are removed from WP.
 * Unless there are objections, I intend to block. The ordinary processes of G11 and G13 will deal with the article drafts.
 * The editor has written some acceptable articles for WiR, andhas done acceptable editing in other areas. Butthe harm that is being done outweighs this. I don't think a topic block would be sufficient, for it would encourage sockpuppettry.  DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry is likely to happen with blocked paid editors I agree. Is there a way to do a global ban on the editor and the company they work for so we can simply delete their creations if found to be socks or meat? If these are through a company, they will likely give it to another employee if this one is banned. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No objection here; I would support a block, for precisely the reasons outlined above. Getting this user to make the correct disclosures has been an uphill struggle, and at the time of writing they still had yet to disclose their affiliations via Upwork. Improving Wikipedia is very clearly a secondary concern to Reddragon7, falling in far behind their primary motivator of "making bank". Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水  07:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a block is the correct action in this situation. Our editors' time is valuable, and maybe even more so with AFC, where article creators should be attempting to create acceptable articles in good faith - so as not to waste others' valuable efforts. The standards cannot be ignored while crossing fingers and hoping for a pass - rather than choosing to not submit and waste other people's time out of consideration. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It makes me very uncomfortable to mandate a person disclose accounts from other sites to avoid blocking. Even in the case of a paid editor. That said, an editor offering to create paid articles (as opposed to an employee whose job it is to monitor an existing article) needs to have a good grasp of notability. It is indeed disruptive to the project if a disclosed paid editor repeatedly fails at getting articles through AfC. That might be in the letter of the rules, but not the spirit. I see a litany of AfC rejections and no indications that these rejections were unfair or contra to policy. I would support a topic ban from paid editing or some sort of non-trivial block (one month?), in order to give us time to clean-up AfC submissions with the next block being an indef (or community ban). There's enough rule following and promise to make me rather have him in the tent than out but that's a pretty fine line. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to add to what's already been said the fact that some drafts they have created (such as Draft:British Herald and Draft:Realtor.ca) have previously been created by editors who were blocked for undisclosed paid editing (prolific sockmaster and, respectively). I'm not implying that Reddragon7 is a sock of either of those, but it shows that they are more concrned with what their clients want to add to Wikipedia, than what is appropriate content here. Another red flag is the way Reddragon7 has created new drafts with "alternative" titles rather than work on existing declined drafts: Draft:Voximplant1, cf Draft:Voximplant ; Draft:Techrock1, cf Draft:Techrock ; Draft:Jared Canon about a person called Jared Cannon, cf Draft:Jared Cannon which was recently speedy deleted as spam ; and Draft:Greg Fleishman which was created after Reddragon7 had edited and reverted their own edit to Draft:Greg Fleishman (entrepreneur). They haven't been explicitly asked not to do that, but it's an underhanded tactic that also indicates WP:NOTHERE. I'd support a block. --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That sums up why I think the company as a whole should receive a community block. The company was likely hired by these individuals and they are just using freelancers to shotgun these drafts into AfC, hoping they will be carelessly approved or cleaned up by an unsuspecting volunteer. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it feasible to block the company as a whole? If so, that might be a good solution. RedDragon7’s contributions so far don’t seem malicious or dishonest, just inept, but I agree that it’s a lot of work to clean up these articles continuously and I’m worried that he might cause an otherwise worthy article subject to be banned. Michepman (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to block the company, because then it will be simpler to deal with puppetry. But I would not necessarily assume that if two paid editors worked on an article for the same subject, they're certain to be puppets. I've seen cases where the long interval shows that after the subject failed with one editing firm, they tried another. When they're closely related in time, as with these examples,  it indicates an attempt to defy our policies. That makes this not only inept editing, but NOT HERE.  DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. I'll just trot out my usual motto: the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource, and is not to be squandered, as has been happening for too long with Reddragon7. As for blocking the company, I'm not sure how we'd do that, but if it's feasible, I'm for it. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC).

I know I'm coming in late, but from a practical standpoint you would want to community-ban the company and/or all its present and future employees. We've de facto done this before with Wiki-PR (WP:Long-term abuse/Morning277) and Leo Burnett Tailor Made/The North Face (WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011). —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">A little blue Bori</i> v^_^v  Fram was railroaded! 04:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:AIV
May we get some administrative attention over at AVI? Thank you. Lupin VII (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed the header, I assume this is what you meant? Praxidicae (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, no. More so the page being backlogged. Thanks for doing so anyways. Lupin VII (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Lmatt and Disruptive Editing
Recently, an old user that was more dormant until this year, has been making many disruptive edits to controversial pages TERF and Transgender as follows:
 * Edits to TERF (note: active RfC for LEAD wording active since prior to Lmatt's edits)


 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (1)
 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (2)
 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (3)
 * (User Paused Edits For Few Days After Twinkle and Manual Warnings)
 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (3)
 * Remove Well-Sourced Paragraph (Claiming WP:FRINGE)
 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (4) - Incorrectly redefine "TERF" as term instead of acronym
 * Remove Sourced Paragraph (Claiming WP:UNDUE
 * TERF edits added after initial report
 * Rewriting Coinage Section (1) (After WP:UNDUE claimed removals above reverted)
 * Rewriting Coinage Section (2) (After Reversion of 1)
 *  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 22:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Edits to Transgender


 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (1)
 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (2)
 * Removed link to Transgender_rights
 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (3)
 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (4)
 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (5)
 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (6)
 * (RfC Created About Lead On Talk Page Talk:Transgender)
 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (7)
 * WP:LEAD Rewriting (8)

and I have warned the user on their talk page many times about disruptive editing and tried to influence them toward the consensus-building processes (Talk/RfC). However the user appears to have ignored most of the discussion methods and continues to disruptively edit.

I decided to list the incident(s) here because of multiple issues. Not only has Lmatt's behavior disregarded consensus standards, some edit wars have occurred, and considering both pages are controversial gender-related articles, the behavior likely violate current ArbCom sanctions regarding gender-related disputes. In addition, Lmatt's ECU status precludes easy page-protection limits or reversions. As such, I request admin intervention for the foregoing reasons.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 14:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I did not know about the RfC before I saved my edit to the lead section on Transgender. reverted the edit and warned me on the talk page about making any further edits to the Transgender lead section. After  gave me some helpful guidance on my talk page I have tried to bear WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY in mind and explain my edits to TERF on the talk page. Lmatt (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is best on controversial articles to gain consensus or explain before you edit. Regardless you have even continued to edit more today even after all the edit warring warnings and RfC establishments. This morning you deleted first and discussed later. Regardless, I would like an admin to weigh in.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this edit on Transgender, which I would have self-reverted had you notified me of the RfC, I have avoided making any reverts on controversial gender-related articles and I have not edited any wording being discussed in an RfC. Lmatt (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, except for this one and this one, you mean. Right? Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that. My comment used the wrong diff. This doesn't affect the point I was making which was the edit was 7 minutes after the RfC was created (which I did not know about). Lmatt (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this edit on Transgender, which I would have self-reverted had you notified me of the RfC, I have avoided making any reverts on controversial gender-related articles and I have not edited any wording being discussed in an RfC. Lmatt (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You just reverted me here on TERF, albeit on a relatively minor issue. It looks like you were blocked less than a week ago for edit warring on 8chan, and you started editing on TERF almost immediately after that block expired. That's not a great look, and it seems like you should have a pretty firm grasp of the rules around edit warring before you start templating other users for edit warring. Nblund talk 21:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made some comments on this revert on your talk page. Even though this was a good-faith contribution, it was technically 1R and I will self-revert if you post a unconstructive user warning to my talk page. Lmatt (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you think the purpose of a template is, but as I explained on my talk page: I already explained the problem, I shouldn't need to template your talk page to get you to follow WP:BRD, especially when you're already here claiming to have stopped making reverts. Nblund talk 01:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Could someone explain ECU status is? Lmatt (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It means Extended Confirmed User, see: User access levels. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You have accused me of disruptive editing but you do not appear to have provided any evidence other then a list of my contributions to the articles Transgender and TERF and your personal opinions some of them. Lmatt (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (to word this civilly) Evidence of your disruptive editing literally surrounds us. Ranging from a smattering of articles to user's personal talk pages. It's not just me. Look at what users have said here. Look at those who've reverted your edits this past week. Look at those who've tried to warn you in article and user talk pages.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 04:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Lmatt, good faith is assumed to begin with, but at some point, people might wonder if it's starting to look like WP:GAMING the system. It kinda feels like you're edging, purposefully or not, towards a tipping point, or perhaps already at it, beyond which lies WP:DUCK. This is a good time not to quack. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See, Lmatt, here's where it gets challenging for me. You get called here about disruption on some controversial pages, and you're engaging here, and seem to have tapered off or stopped at the two articles mentioned. Fine.  But in the meanwhile, you've been edit warring today at User:Flyer22 Reborn's Talk page in violation of WP:OWNTALK, at 15:41 Sep 15, at 16:27, and at 19:45, with three different editors reverting you (including me, once).  This just doesn't look good, especially since you were notified about this here, responded that you were aware of OWNTALK here, at 17:12, but doubled down twice anyway at Flyer's talk page afterward.  It just reinforces the impression of brinkmanship and gaming. Mathglot (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There's also the matter of the spate of dodgy edits Lmatt made in regard to anti-Semitism, including removing "Template:Antisemitism" from the article Ernst Zundel, when Zundel is a Holocaust denier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you avoid the appearance of WP:HOUNDING and do not comment on this further unless you have any concerns relating to my edits on gender-related issues. I have responded to your concern about removal of the template titled "Part of series on Antisemitism" from the article Ernst Zundel Lmatt (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly interested in your suggestions, so please keep them to yourself in the future.Once a AN/I report is open, all of the the behavior of the editor reported is open to investigation. The antisemitism-related editing is a subject I expressed concern about on my talk page earlier this week,  just after you were blocked for 31 hours by.  It's just as relevant to this report as are edits which attempted to format columns in multiple articles using non-standard units, and to change  to   invocations, which has been in that article for two years; as such I'm not seeing much at fault from this IP editor since they were just continuing the editing style that was already present. In your own revert you edited the article and left a #property tag right there so not really editing by example.  The subsequent edit by  seems much more appropriate, in that it cleans up the entire issue.  It is certainly fine to not make an edit - but when you are saying "don't do this thing" and it is literally next to another copy of the thing you don't address it doesn't send a clean message to the other editors.  Additionally, a quick search shows that wikidata items are fairly heavily being used in articles now, so perhaps an old RfC at least needs some better explanation? —  xaosflux  Talk 18:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is fine, but I got so much mud throwing on me during the last session, that I am certainly not going to start any Wikidata RfCs, and most likely will not participate if one has been started. If the community thinks the edits by IP are fine, it is ok with me. Concerning my edits, i checked a couple and then started using rollback - apparently, it was not a good idea. I will go through them again.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The majority of the pages showing up on that search appear to use  inside infoboxes or other templates, which has always been permitted. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the note, went back and actually read one of those old RfC's that were prohibitive of use within the body of the article. if you think this is happening a lot, you could post at WP:EF/R and we could write an edit filter to at least detect property invocations in the text (would have to think about the formatting of it to ignore non-body sections, but it could be possible). —  xaosflux  Talk 22:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will think about it. I guess the IP just edit all articles about Wikipedias, in the decreasing order in terms of the number of articles, so it is not difficult to predict what article would be the next.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP
Hi, this IP is continuously making unconstructive edits, they have been warned by several editors, but they don't seem to be ready to stop. Admins' eye would be welcommed. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this request would be better suited here Curt内蒙  22:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP editor hasn't edited since the warning notices were posted on their talk page so I'm reluctant to block now. Please update if vandalism continues. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i hesitated between going to AIAV and coming here ... Thank you guys for your input, ok, i'll do that if they come back at it again ;-) Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk)  (contribs)  00:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

IvanScrooge98's edits in the area of Germanic languages
Hello. Over the last year, IvanScrooge98 has made a series of dubious edits in the area of Germanic languages (specifically IPA transcription). The issue reminds me of LoveVanPersie. What's the same is this:
 * Inability or (even worse) unwillingness to read the relevant literature - in other words, issues with WP:COMPETENCE and sometimes also with complying with WP:RS.
 * Issues with WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT.
 * Relying on other users to clean up after him (or at least to notice his mistakes, he tends to clean up after himself after that).
 * Relying on other users to teach him phonetics/phonology for free instead of reading the literature.

I should've reported him sooner, definitely.

First the discussions, which IMO show his lack of competence:
 * In this discussion, he asked me whether we could manufacture a pseudo-consensus regarding the use of the secondary stress mark in IPA transcriptions of Swedish, regardless of what reputable sources say about the subject (so that he could keep editing in the area of Swedish phonetics). Other discussions about that include User talk:Kbb2 and User talk:IvanScrooge98 - I think that they prove that he hasn't improved his knowledge in the area of Swedish phonetics and phonology at all. He had a year to do that.
 * In this discussion, he was pointlessly arguing with me that Swedish can be understood as anything other than a sequence of two vowels, which is unlikely (especially if you only consider those of our readers who can only read English IPA - in English,  [mostly written as  or ] can't be compressed to ). Plus, the pronunciation with  is possible in Swedish. Maybe not in all words, but it is possible and I gave him a source for that. That argument, as well as this discussion was a waste of time for everyone involved and a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What else should you call repeating "I'm not convinced" or "I don't agree", no matter what I say? Pronouncing "copy-edit" as  (or  for "pronunciation") is impossible in native English. Here's a quote from Geoff Lindsey's "English After RP", page 25: [S]ome of the words which are most commonly mispronounced by non-natives are ones in which weak and  are followed by a vowel, such as assoc i ation and sit u ation (see Chaps. 8 and 9). In such words, non-natives very often fail to separate the two syllables in 'ua' and in 'ia'. Here,  should be taken to mean, which isn't a true phoneme in English ( =  in older Received Pronunciation, hence the transcription ⟨ɪ⟩ in some sources. Other sources use ⟨i⟩, which is a symbol that means "either  or ".
 * In this discussion, I noticed that he misheard for, which means that he knows little about the Swedish pitch accent. He was partially right about the long consonants though.

Now the diffs.
 * He's made a series of mistakes when transcribing German:
 * He transcribed after  as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation:
 * He transcribed after  as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation:
 * He transcribed after  as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation:
 * He mistook the syllabic for the non-syllabic  just because it was preceded by a vowel:
 * In this edit summary (of an edit that's a part of [this edit war), he told me that we should either transcribe everywhere (no source does that) or use  instead of it (which is a solution used in a minority of sources). This shows that he's not reading the literature (AFAICS, he also wasn't aware of the fact that  and  fall together with  for all speakers who consistently vocalize their  [though in regional SG there may be a difference of  (phonemically ) vs.  (phonemically  and )] - ⟨aɐ̯⟩ and ⟨aːɐ̯⟩ is just a convention used for the sake of phonemic identification, mostly for speakers of Swiss Standard German). The relevant discussion on his user talk page is [[User talk:IvanScrooge98#Nuremberg|here]]. In it, he admited that he can't really distinguish between a uvular approximant and, which is an amateurish mistake. Most sources use ⟨ʁ⟩ or ⟨r⟩ after short vowels and ⟨ɐ̯⟩ after long vowels.
 * The relevant discussion on his user talk page is here. These are amateurish mistakes that nobody who's well-versed in the area of German phonetics would make.


 * He's made a series of edits in the area of Icelandic phonetics, here are some of them:, , based solely on Help:IPA/Icelandic and Icelandic phonology (I guess he didn't know that Wikipedia is not a source and that they can be incomplete or even plain wrong).
 * This edit has an alarming edit summary - he shouldn't have performed it if he wasn't sure of the correctness of the IPA. Here's basically the same kind of an edit in another article.
 * He edit warred with me on Henryk Sienkiewicz over a regional IPA:.
 * He's made a series of dubious changes to Swedish IPA:
 * Somewhere in this discussion it becomes apparent that he changed tone 1 to tone 2 in some transcriptions based on his assumptions and/or his untrained hearing (again, how can you mishear for  if you claim to be competent enough to transcribe Swedish into IPA?). I'm not sure what those edits are ( is one of them) exactly, but they were performed roughly between August 25, 2018 and September 1, 2018.
 * Here, when fixing the Swedish IPA, he forgot to change the first vowel to, which is an obligatory allophone of before  in stressed syllables. Again, an amateurish mistake.
 * In this edit he basically told me that he WP:OWNS Help:IPA/Swedish (that's how I understand it anyway) and I should just accept that edit based on the fact that he knows what he's doing (whatever that means, he didn't feel the need to clarify that).

I propose a topic ban for editing anything IPA- and phonetics-related in general in the area of Germanic languages (excluding English, with which he seems to have no problems). With such disregard for WP:RS we have no idea what he's gonna screw up next. It's not our role to clean up after him.

It'd be great if someone could check his edits in other areas (Italian, French, Slavic languages other than Polish, etc.) Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you did not understand (or pretended not to) my argument regarding Swedish, involving instances where an English speaker might use . The examples you put are just unrelated.
 * What should I say about the rest? My fault is that when I see a transcription that is more or less incorrect or does not follow what appears to be the implicit consensus stated in the help, I tend to try and correct it myself instead of using template tags such as fix. I must admit that, and all can do now is promising I will use them more often when I am not sure about my editions, however late this may be coming. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 07:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If they can read IPA it's impossible that they'd confuse for . Pronouncing English  as anything other than two consecutive vowels is a non-native mistake (and, in Swedish, unlike English,  is a possible pronunciation of !)
 * You need to have the WP:COMPETENCE to perform those fixes. That you can gain by reading the literature (WP:RS). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A concern is that editors are coming to conclusions about IPAs based on their own opinions as to how indirect sources in literature such as textbooks should be interpreted or as a result of their own WP:OR. Surely IPAs should only be added if directly cited WP:V? Help:IPA/Italian is a further snare in that it seems to encourage original work.SovalValtos (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern with this but I still think it's the optimal approach. It's preferable for Wikipedia to contain pronunciation information than not to contain it. It is also preferable for our IPA pronunciations to line up with IPA help pages, which means occasionally transliterating into IPA from other pronunciation systems or making trivial tweaks to what is in sources like dictionaries (remember that there is often more than one acceptable or established way of transcribing something in broad phonemic notation, for example in Czech the vowel <o> can be transcribed as /o/ or /ɔ/, it doesn't matter, but we use /o/ to be simple and consistent.) IPA help pages can be created from reliable sources in such a way that any native or competent speaker of a language can interpret them and know how to transcribe anything by analogy to the example words given next to each phoneme. Calling that OR is not that far off calling translating OR in my opinion. The main purpose of the help pages however was to help users unfamiliar with the IPA make sense of transcriptions (hence the "nearest English equivalents"), and when they were first created they were made intentionally over-broad and simple. I am not sure how much that still rings today as certain pages such as Help:IPA/English have become overcomplicated to the point of just becoming summaries of technical phonology articles like English phonology. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Surely IPAs should only be added if directly cited WP:V? Yes please. It's preferable for Wikipedia to contain pronunciation information than not to contain it. Not if it is just made up by random people with no basis in anything but their own opinion. Calling that OR is not that far off calling translating OR in my opinion. Obviously translation can be OR, and if there is a question of two different meanings/translations then the correct way to settle it is by consulting reliable sources. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably a Wikipedia IPA help page should not be used to justify one editor's preferred transcription as was done by User:IvanScrooge98 in this edit having previously changed another editor's preferred version in this edit  without source? Later in this edit  he persisted in adding his version without supplying a reference and without consensus.SovalValtos (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had explained there was no need for further refs other than the one I had provided, as Modern Greek pronunciation is constantly predictable from the spelling. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 11:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This may not be directly relevant to 'edits in the area of Germanic languages' but I think it reveals the perhaps over self-confident attitude of User:IvanScrooge98's own opinion as to the value of his edits rather than those of others. I note that he did not add an acceptable ref after than the one he had earlier suggested was rejected . Neither did he use talk to attempt to achieve consensus. His opinion that no ref was needed reveals an unacceptable approach to WP:V policy, as applicable to himself, when in disagreement with other editor's edits; his unilateral assertion is that his edit is exempt for some reason of his own.SovalValtos (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I quote SovalValtos. Just have a look at this sample list of edit summaries: . He was also blocked in en.wiktionary and nl.wikipedia, and his talk page contains quarrels with many different users. This may not be directly relevant to the thread but might be helpful to frame the individual.Yniginy (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have made mistakes in Wiktionary that I’m surely not willing to repeat here. Regarding those edit summaries, I let myself get carried away by the anger, after endless reverts to my sourced edits (I was warned some time ago for them, already). I actually wonder whether, who seems to have signed up just just to add a comment here, is another of those sockpuppets made by (presumably) the same person to constantly go against my revisions. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 11:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are repeating the exact behavior for which you've been banned multiple times on Wiktionary: editing outside of your area of expertise (if I may use that word here). See . Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I’m not. My editing there was massive and blind, and I refused to even discuss with other users; which I am not repeating on this project, or at least trying not to, more so from now on. I acknowledge my mistakes and will wait for a definitive decision from an admin. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 12:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, and it looks like Trollhättan is indeed pronounced as I have heard in every single recording I have listened to. Just to say. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 11:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But Karlstad and Vigdís Finnbogadóttir aren't. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I clearly meant it as a reply to I noticed that he misheard  for, which means that he knows little about the Swedish pitch accent. Apparently you misheard it but were convinced I had, which means we are at least on a similar level when it comes to knowledge of the Swedish pitch accent and neither of us should correct the other. Regarding Karlstad, the present audio separates the two consonants, but we do not know whether it is the regular pronunciation or some kind of “more careful” one, considering how Karl is normally uttered. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 12:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A year ago you were changing tone 1 to tone 2 in Swedish transcriptions based on your hunches. That transcription was a part of your editing spree. Whether it was correct is, I think, less relevant than the bigger picture itself.
 * I'm not convinced that you should use your untrained, non-native ears (which are like mine in that regard) to judge the pitch accent in Swedish, especially in words with three syllables or more. The fact that multiple people oppose a topic ban for you doesn't give you a carte blanche to do as you wish. It's better not to provide IPA than to guess it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, but when you first added the stress, instead of either removing the transcription, tagging it as incomplete or looking for a source.
 * I am not taking it as carte blanche, don’t worry. I have understood when I should edit and when not. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 13:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban. This is really unnecessary and premature. ANI is your last resort; you shouldn't bring anything here until other resources have been explored. Seems like you learned nothing from the friendly caution FeRDNYC gave here just a couple days ago. It also seems you didn't notice the warning at the top of this page, which tells you to be concise: I mean, do you seriously think admins and veterans who frequent here are going to read and understand all of what you wrote there? Invite editors well-versed in the area for their opinions at a more appropriate forum (like WT:LING). At this stage this is simply a content dispute. So seek for arbitration, not sanction. IvanScrooge98 is a prolific editor in this area and, as far as I've encountered and as far as the languages I'm familiar with are concerned, a very competent one. And there are few competent IPA editors, let alone such prolific ones. So far I see no reason to believe he will not be persuaded when confronted with reasonable evidence that disagrees with his behavior. So if he's not, then maybe you haven't been doing a good enough job convincing him. Have you, for example, asked for a third opinion? (I know I've been asked by Ivan, which I was about to get to, but then this happened. Thanks for your patience.) I advise Ivan to stick strictly to WP:BRD, i.e. always prefer the version before you arrived at the article whenever your edit is challenged until it is settled in a discussion. I advise Kbb the same. Nardog (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I'll let this discussion come to an end in a natural manner (unless more users join and decide that a topic ban is a reasonable solution after all - that could happen too) and will start a discussion at WT:LING. Though I don't see how this report (apart from the wording of a few sentences, which could be improved) could be understood as a personal attack. I saw sufficient reasons to report him and so I went ahead. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban. Agree with the above, this is premature. I did as you asked and checked Ivan's scant contribs in Czech and Slovak and found one incidental error which anyone could be forgiven for and is of little consequence. I have more bones to pick with some of the English transcriptions being added (not just by Ivan) which I will gladly elaborate on in a more appropriate venue. Also, responding to one specific point raised above, if IPA help pages like Help:IPA/Icelandic are wrong (as in actually wrong, not just intentionally broad, which is by design), then I think our priority should be fixing them first before we get into disputes over individual pronunciations. I recommend using sources published by the International Phonetics Association to adjudicate any disputes around IPA help pages, as no one can sensibly claim that those are unreliable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I checked the Icelandic edits that are linked to and they are fine. The first vowel in Katrín is indeed long and IvanScrooge98 was right to correct that. Haukur (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban. I checked the German edits that are linked to. I see no basis for claiming that any of them should be “an impossible pronunciation”. On the other hand, I know that Kbb2 rejects variants very strongly. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 16:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you also don't know how syllabic consonants are formed in German. The first three mistakes in transcription are, in fact, an impossible pronunciation (which is how I phrased it). The first two would be heard as and  [which is a correct pronunciation and not necessarily very informal] by native speakers (their established transcription is  and, nobody would write them  or  except for few phonologists, these transcriptions are very abstract by the way and so is ) and the last one as , which is a serious pronunciation error. Neither German nor English allows the schwa in  to be dropped (in that manner anyway, the first two can be pronounced  and  in German).
 * The pronunciation of as  is colloquial and shouldn't be transcribed in an encyclopedia.
 * Please leave the topic of Help:IPA/Standard German out of this. I have nothing against posts that genuinely support Ivan but your message shows a similar lack of research in the area of German pronunciation as Ivan's edits themselves. IMO it's also alarming that a native speaker that's been dealing with IPA for at least 15 years (if I'm not mistaken) would endorse those specific edits. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have dealt long enough with German pronunciation to be extremely skeptical when somebody claims that some plausible transcription should be a mistake or impossible or not allowed, especially when these bold claims are not backud up with any sources. You are accusing IvanScrooge98 of making mistakes and of using impossible transcriptions, but you have not given proof to substantiate your accusation. I therefore oppose a topic ban. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 22:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot be serious right now. Insisting that, or  are plausible pronunciations shows that you have no idea what a syllabic consonant is. Again, an amateurish mistake. I really hope that you're joking, because you're a native speaker of German. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly was not joiking. Substantiating your accusations would help you more than personally attacking me. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 22:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you, a person who's been dealing with IPA and German pronunciation for more than a decade, haven't provided a single source yourself. My source is the 7th edition of Das Aussprachewörterbuch, pp. 39–41. I'm sorry but this is either a provocation or your knowledge in the area of German pronunciation is seriously questionable. Nobody who thinks that Atem can be pronounced has been dealing with IPA for more than a couple of weeks. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * First: Why should I have to cite any sources? I am not making any claims, let alone accusations. Please read and understand WP:BURDEN. Second: I wonder whether you have actually consulted the Aussprachewörterbuch. It does not say anywhere that the transcriptions IvanScrooge98 has used are “mistakes” or an “impossible pronunciation”, as you have claimed. It just explains the conventions used in that dictionary – IvanScrooge98 has not followed them, but that obviously does not mean that IvanScrooge98’s transcriptions are “mistakes“ or an “impossible pronunciation”. Third: I feel silly for having to point this out, but a dictionary could not possibly prove your point that certain pronunciations are impossible. You would have to find peer-reviewed phonetic literature that uses hard empyrical data. I seriously doubt that you are ever going to find it. Empyrical data is likely to prove you wrong by showing that the pronunciations you so insultingly reject are really possible and do occur. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 13:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone please warn this guy and remove the conversation. This is a case of deliberately spreading misinformation. I'm ending this per WP:DONTFEED. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. If you are trying to win an argument by claiming your POV is obvious and then implying that anybody who does not agree with your POV is stupid, you are not going to succeed. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 19:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Luckily no one understands what this IPA stuff means anyway, so it doesn't matter except to those involved. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that is what helps are made for. To help people understand. By the way, I’m thanking everyone who’s taken the time to constructively intervene so far. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 07:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't ban IvanScrooge98. Although I have differences with that user, at least he's providing information (both English & foreign words) on phonetics & pronunciations.  If you are a native speaker of other languages (ie., French, Spanish, etc.) & knows the rules of phonetics & pronunciations, do provide the correct information.  Banning that user would be total loss to Wikipedia.  NKM1974 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We're discussing a topic ban (so that he wouldn't be allowed to edit in certain areas), not a block. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can place me firmly in the category of "dealing with IPA for ... a couple of weeks". I.e. I'm looking at IvanScrooge's edits and physically trying to replicate the sounds proposed.
 * 1) To go from m to n without a vowel between requires a pause. In transition without a pause, there'll be a schwa (an "uh" sound) (i.e. muhn). It's not (afaict) possible to do otherwise. The "m" sound is made with the mouth closed (it's a bilabial sound, meaning that it's made with the lips). So if you open your mouth while saying "m" it becomes "muh" (i.e. mə). In tandem, the "n" sound is made with mouth open and tongue pressed against the alveolar ridge. So, in transition you get "muhn" ("mən").
 * 2) It's more plausible to go ŋ to n without a schwa. Try saying "singn", but not "singuhn". It's possible, but difficult and unnatural. The tongue has to slide forward from the velum to the alveolar ridge without creating a pocket. The reason is that the dorsum (back of tongue) touches the roof of the mouth when making a velar sound (ŋ), whilst the tip of the tongue touches the roof of the mouth when making an alveolar or post-alveolar (n) sound.
 * 3) Tm is a lot like mn. You get a "tuhm" (təm) sound. Again, when making a "t" sound, the mouth is open. When making a "m" sound, the mouth is closed. You can again do "t pause m".
 * I hope my explanations make sense, and forgive me that I don't know the terminology well. I cannot replicate these sounds, or if I can, it is absolutely unnatural. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The tongue has to slide forward from the velum to the alveolar ridge – It’s because of filth like this that Wikipedia is blocked in some countries. Please, think of the children! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 10:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * what is this comment even about and how is it even relevant to this discussion? 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 13:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's one of EEng's patent-pending(?) comedic comments intended to provide levity. Honestly, the dirty sounding nature of my explanations is why I departed every instance of "lips parted" from this a few days ago. A good call, all-in-all. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I must really have a problem with taking people otherwise than seriously. XD 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 18:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, both [mn] and [tm] are phonetically possible. In [mn] you just have to make a closure at the alveolar ridge with the tongue tip or blade while producing [m] and then open the lips. [tm] is basically this in the opposite order, except involving a nasal release. Whether these occur in German I do not know. Nardog (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban from Swedish phonology, but not for other languages. The evidence provided by nom, if correct, shows that IvanScrooge98 is incapable of editing competently in that topic area, especially with regards to the language's tones. (Admittedly, I don't know anything about phonology in any foreign language, but I know many of the sounds.) However, and  have shown that there isn't a serious problem in other languages.
 * On the flipside, I found a couple of edits by Kbb2, and, where Kbb2 admits wrongdoing on his/her behalf with regards to edits by IvanScrooge98, both regarding IPA in North Germanic languages (Icelandic in the former, Danish in the latter). This suggests that Kbb2 is acting near-preemptively against IS98 because of the latter's history with Swedish phonology. In addition, the claim by  that Kbb2 rejects variants very strongly is backed up by edits like , , , and . This is contrary to the unnamed foreign-langauge analog of MOS:RHOTIC, and suggests that the rest of the problem lies with Kbb2, not IS98. Perhaps Kbb2 should be banned from interacting wih IS98. Kbb2 should also be warned about RHOTIC. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 06:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * the unnamed foreign-langauge analog of MOS:RHOTIC There is no such thing. RHOTIC only applies to transcriptions for English and affects no other language whatsoever. Moreover, RHOTIC is a rule that aims for a maximum possible coverage of variants in a minimum possible number of letters. So even if such a thing existed, wouldn't eliminating predictable variants rather be in line with it? In fact eliminating predictable variants is in line with parts of WP:PRON that actually exist—particularly WP:PRON, which says if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. Nardog (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Might User:IvanScrooge98 consider writing and publishing a pronunciation dictionary in the real world from his original work, under editorial control which might include perhaps Kbb2, and mach It would simplify the search for citations for IPA transcriptions when done and in the meanwhile give some of us a rest.SovalValtos (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban User:IvanScrooge98 shows signs of listening and improving his editing and sourcing.SovalValtos (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Meluvswiki, GWAR yet again, absolutely no communication


GWAR after final warning. History shows 10-15 GWAR warnings and 6 prior blocks, all for GWAR or addition of unsourced content.

Editor ignores all talk requests, very rarely uses edit summaries of any kind and marks all edits as minor.

With close to 9,000 edits (and all of those warnings), they have made 14 user talk edits (and none to article talk pages).

Their last user talk edits were the three shown here, begging off a final GWAR warning and asking, apparently rhetorically, "What would you think if from now on I only edit genres if I remember to put citations on it?" on 4 February 2018, leading up to another block for GWAR on 10 February 2018.

After another final warning for GWAR at 18:35 yesterday (for removing a sourced genre without explanation), their first edit back was an unsourced/unexplained genre change.

Competence and communication are both lacking. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have given this editor an indefinite block and explained on their talk page what they must do to get unblocked. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Lots of edits, little communication
since joining last month has made several thousand edits, only a tiny percentage of which have edit summaries. They've received numerous complaints on their talk page but have never responded. Their main focus lately seems to be on small changes to image captions, such as adding or removing periods from the ends of sentences, in accordance with MOS:CAPTIONS. The edits are in good faith and are generally constructive, though there are a fair number of errors (see e.g. Gulf War).

It's often difficult to see or understand what the changes are, because they are so small and so many, and this has led to accusations of vandalism or disruption. Other editors have repeatedly requested the use of edit summaries. After requests from me on 10-11 September, they made a few edits with summaries explaining what they had done (though not why), but then went back to not using them, making several hundred more edits. The same thing happened following a complaint yesterday by ; they left edit summaries for a grand total of 24 minutes, then proceded to make more than a hundred more edits without them. I'd like them to address these concerns. --IamNotU (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While leaving edit summaries is good practice and we should all do so, it is not a requirement. And, per WP:FIES, Summaries are less important for minor changes (which means generally unchallengeable changes, such as spelling or grammar corrections which seems to be what you're describing when you say "Their main focus lately seems to be on small changes to image captions, such as adding or removing periods from the ends of sentences". Editors are also free to ignore each other except in limited cases and I don't believe this is one of those cases. If there is disruption or vandalism occurring, it might be helpful if you could post some diffs, either here or at WP:AIV (I've looked at their last five edits and don't see anything wrong but in the absence of any diffs I can't say if that's the rule or exception). I'm not sure we can do much to forcibly socialize TheHistoryBuff101 if s/he's decided to be the J.D. Salinger of Wikipedia. While I share your curiosity about what motivated their crusade to correctly punctuate sentence fragments this might be a mystery with which we have to live. Chetsford (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If a user is very problematic and also refuses to communicate, there is a case to be made for a block to get their attention and emphasize that this is a collaborative project. However, a case has not really been made here. As noted above, diffs would be helpful so others can easily see the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And today they did in fact make a post to their talk page: "Hello. I have just received a notification on my talk page that there is ongoing discussion about my editing. While I perfectly understand that I have not provided edit summaries and have not responded to your complaints, I just want to make absolutely clear that I have not been engaged in neither disruptive editing nor vandalism, as the edits I've made have been only about removing periods from certain image captions, rewriting image captions, fixing incorrect links to articles, and removing or replacing unnecessary pictures. I do, however, appreciate your concerns and I'm taking steps to ensure I edit articles the right way." So, without evidence of serious ongoing disruption I don' think there's anything to be done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I've read their response and it's a very positive sign. As I noted, their edits have been in good faith, and generally constructive. I do think that if someone repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), it may constitute a pattern of disruptive or problematic editing, even if there is no one edit, by itself, that is. My concern is as much for as for others, as they've accumulated a number of "disruptive editing" warnings which may or may not be valid. I agree that there's not really a case for a block, but a nudge to follow the advice in Communication is required to work things out. It seems to have had a good effect, and I hope that they'll continue to be responsive, work with others to allay any concerns, and maintain a good environment for collaborative work. --IamNotU (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct. In this case, however, it doesn't seem any questions or requests were posed on their Talk page, just a lot of templates were plastered to it which contained statements. Unless I'm missing something, they ceased editing the articles named in the templates almost immediately after getting hit with each. In any case, though, it's great this was resolved! Chetsford (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're right that most of the previous templates were not really questions or requests (and were mostly unfounded as I noted below them). Just for the record though, I did write a personal message rather than another template last week, requesting explanations concerning the captions edits, with some suggestions, and I specifically asked for a reply. This was the day after the first uw-editsummary template (which in itself I guess is a request for explanations via edit summaries) was ignored. I suppose the third message from BeenAroundAWhile technically wasn't posed in the form of a question, but still it's clear they were requesting explanations. In any case, the response on the talk page will help other editors understand what TheHistoryBuff101 is doing, and they've started using edit summaries, so as you say it's great that it was resolved! Thanks again for your assistance. --IamNotU (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to my presuming that TheHistoryBuff101 does not really spend a lot of time managing their own talk page, and further presuming that I may remove the erroneous templates that have been splattered across their talkpage and that have led to misunderstandings? I will of course leave notes so that subsequent comments will remain intelligible. MPS1992 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I understand the concerns about some of the earlier templates - that's exactly why I already made several comments to try to help clear up any misunderstandings. But I don't think that extends to deleting good-faith (if misguided) messages from other editors, from someone else's talk page. If you'd like to offer to help TheHistoryBuff101 learn how to archive their talk page messages, that would be generous of you, and I think it would be great! Or perhaps ask those who left the templates to strike their own comments? Otherwise I would think it's best if TheHistoryBuff101 takes responsibility for their talk page themselves, like everyone else... --IamNotU (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Templated messages wrongfully accusing them of vandalism are disruptive, and as such can be removed by anyone. Any minute now someone will be turning up to splash another template on their page, this time having a go at them for not signing their response on their own talk page. This is not productive. MPS1992 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)