Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1031

Dey Subrata
Dey subrata is engaging in WP:EW, WP:BATTLEGROUND and ultimately is a case of WP:CIR.


 * Reverts my edit on North East Delhi riots by claiming that I provided "misleading edit summary" and I am engaging in "edit war" when I never made a revert on this article and my edit summary was perfect.
 * Calls out a politician named Kapil Mishra on talk page, blaming him for the violence by claiming "the person who is cause of this violence", disregarding voices raised by most editors against this POV pushing.
 * Leaves a note on my talk page claiming I am edit warring, because I reverted him for the first time and told him to get consensus.
 * He then reverted my edit claiming: "NPOV VIOLATION, MISLEADING AND DISRUPTIVE EDITS"
 * Leaves another note on my talk page saying that I am doing what is "considered a vandalism" and I am trying to "play over smart here", and also that if I don't reform then I will "get blocked again, and this will be permament"

Aside this, he made a revert on another article, falsely claiming that the POV section is being "restored removed section, inappropriate summary for wp:or" when the section was removed correctly weeks ago for WP:OR and other reasons per talk page.

Tldr; we have got an years old editor with a poor grasp of English language. He is engaging in clear political POV pushing and showing gross incompetence that he cannot even understand what is a vandalism. It would be too much to expect him to understand what constitutes WP:OR, WP:EW, WP:BLP, and other policies.

Evidence of battleground mentality and POV pushing from this editor is clearly high. Some action would be appreciated here. what do you say? Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 11:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Did you discuss the concerns with Dey, before escalating it to ANI ? Please share that diff. It is clear that you seem to disagree with his opinion on these content disputes, what do you expect ANI to do in this dispute ?  -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Can another administrator institute 1RR + Enforced BRD, matters seem to be getting a bit out of hand. I would do it myself but I've edited the page many times (albeit no dispute as such) but my reading of WP:INVOLVED tells me I should err on the safe side here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've placed the article on naked 1RR (only) — further enhancements may be added if that, in itself, fails to be effective in curtailing edit warring. I'd also like to see how you've attempted to resolve this dispute prior to submitting this report. El_C 14:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not tried any other resolution since the problem is serious enough to bring it to ANI and also the past history. These are the very conduct issues which are not tolerated in a subject such as this, and probably anywhere else. Dey Subrata has been warned enough times before for these same problems before too. and he even had "final warning" over his conduct issues after a recent ANI report. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 15:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , before any possible sanctions are enforced against you, you have the opportunity to respond (briefly, please), which I highly recommend you do. El_C 15:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion should be your edits and the warning given to you. You are properly warned. Your first edit here with edit summary . This were already a violation per Edit war, as the the photographs removed several times by some user. There was a huge attempts going on to remove vital important about Kapil Mishra's provocative speech. You were warned with a soft warning for it. But immediately within four minute you reverted again with this edit. So explain this desperate move along with vandalising by removing an important material along with adding category Aam Admi Party, how and why. Again explain how and when you see a clear consensus as you edit summary says. Second, the consensus seems keeping the photo, as Kapil Mishra directly is the result of the topic and important for the subject as reader would like to know the person referring. Again, you said, while doing edit war, for the second time,, Question for you, "Is the discussion going on in the talk page or not? If yes, why do you revert the materials multiple times, rather participating in the discussion. You attempts are also can be seen that you already know that you will be warned for such, but still you attempted in the name of consensus to save yourself to get warned. And the consensus is about removal of the pictue not addition, so you should have participated in the discussion rather this disruptive edits and edit war. Dey subrata (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The thread got closed while I drafted. I dont disagree with the WP:NOTVANDAL block but since I have spent time in drafting my observation, I will post it anyway.
 * Diff 1 AKG had removed a picture of a politician who was mentioned several times in the article, saying "Per clear consensus on talk" while there was an ongoing discussion, there was no clear consensus to remove this. AKG's edit summary was far from "perfect". The removal of the picture was in-fact inappropriate using a "misleading" edit summary by AKG that inferred AKG's removal was justified due to a non-existent consensus. DS reverted stating "Misleading edit summary and editwar" It was indeed misleading but not an editwar, since AKG had not done the edit war, yet. AKG's edit war came 6 mins later
 * Diff 2 DS states "And read the discussion, to me its clear, the picture of the person who is cause of this violence is very important for the article" The person is indeed discussed in WP:RS as one who incited the violence. So DS is not stating anything new. No offence yet.
 * Diff 3 is DS giving AKG the standard Template:uw-ewsoft. This is community supported wording and was appropriately given due to an obvious edit war by AKG, where AKG removed the pic for a second time. No offence by DS here.
 * The second removal by AKG had an edit summary "Get consensus first, against the clear consensus on talk page". again this was misleading as there was no clear consensus to remove the pic yet AKG was edit warring to remove the pic. DS reverted stating "NPOV VIOLATION, MISLEADING AND DISRUPTIVE EDITS" which seems to be justified as AKGs removal was indeed misleading and disruptive.
 * diff 4 DS is explaining to AKG that once his edit was reverted he should have participated in the talk page discussion without reverting it a second time. Removing again is an edit war. DS calls it vandalism, it is Not vandalism, but it is disruptive editing. Since AKG used a misleading edit summary so it seems DS called him out stating "don't play over smart here". DS adds that "If such edit behaviour continues, I (am) afraid, it will lead you to get blocked again, and this will be permanent.". Obviously continued edit warring is a blockable offence and with AKG's history of block for Edit warring, the next blocks may indeed be incremental or become permanent (indef).
 * Since Dey is already blocked, I hope Dey will take time to reflect on the tone of their comments and make it less hostile.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  16:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Pepperbeast
I am here to bring my humble request that pepperbeast is undoing my most edits with oppsing reasons for same sort of content on women in islam and Iddah. I asked him about it he explained me not. Furthermore he said that verse of Quran on iddah article which is added is unintelligibe though its commentary was also given, furthermore he removed a verse from womwn in islam page while similar verses are present. Please help me and make him understand. Thank you. I have given him notice on his talk page. Smatrah (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have explained to Smatrah, we do not need lengthy quotations that say exactly the same thing as the well-written, secondary-source-backed article text. The Iddah article is already, IMO overstuffed with quotations, and what you inserted was full of spelling errors and a useless sort-of sentence "Main directive is following". I also strongly suspect that Smatrah has has been using several different accounts to carry out an edit war.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  12:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear can you provide Diffs to prove that there were speling errors, furthermore, bro article is full of lengthy quotations

Why are you targeting selected ones. Furthermore if a handful of editors disagree with you it does not mean that it is sockpuppet. As there may be users who support you on other articles. Smatrah (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Smatrah always had problems with lack of understanding about WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPA. See the block log too. The issue was really premature and shows that Smatrah is not capable enough to deal with the content disputes. I would suggest an indefinite topic ban from anything related to religion for Smatrah. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not call D4iNa4 a sock puppet of pepperbeast just because he ia supporting him. D4iNa4! I came here to make myself immune from blocking. The point here is that pepperbeast says my wording was unitelligible, can he provide diffs to support his claim? Rather than threatening of blocking. Thanks, hoping a sane answer. Can you tell which section of these guidelinrs where i did no obeyed.

Smatrah (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * coming here does not make you immune from blocking. Indeed, it has quite the reverse effect, per WP:BOOMERANG, of drawing attention to your editing. Any editor who does not believe that an edit improves an article can revert, after which the next move by the editor wanting to add content should be to start a discussion on the article talk page, not here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. Do not make me immune from blocking, just tell which my edit do not foliow which section of wikipedia so mentioned guidrlines, so that i may improve. Furthermore pepperbeast was not explaining reason of his undoing even on his talk page but still undoing. So what i came here to seek justice.

Smatrah (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC) The places to discuss that issue are Talk:Women in Islam and Talk:Iddah, not here. The issue is simply whether content belongs in the articles or not, for which there is no need for any administrative involvement, which is what this page is for. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Bro i discussed the issue on his talk page, he refused to listen and did not answer but continued edit warring. So i cam here, furthermore pepperbeasrt has already agreed to discuss here but not at their very taklk pages. 01:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs)
 * Pepperbeast did reply to you. Not agreeing with you is not refusing to listen. But, anyway, Talk:Women in Islam and Talk:Iddah are the places o discuss this, as I have already said twice. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you can check his own talk page i asked him there which guideline which section i am disobeying he did not tell but continued edit warring you can yourself check

Talk:User:Pepperbeast Smatrah (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Smatrah, you need to stop. You don't have the freedom to go on doing whatever you please 'til I, personally, explain Wikipedia policy to you. But in this case WP:NOFULLTEXT.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  10:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone undoes edits, it is policy that he must explain, now can you pease explain what is lengthy. I mean how what is distinctive numeral in short and long. Viz how many minimum word or letters quotation will be deemed long thus unacceptable. Furthermore on iddah you said my edits are unintelligible which are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatrah (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

So, just generally, this is pretty characteristic of all my discussions with Smatrah-- combattiveness, edit warring, no apparent interest in the idea of encyclopedic or the spirit of Wikipedia policies, and any attempt to point out how editing policy works brings a fresh demand for more detailed explanations of rules. It's rather exhausting to deal with. Pepper Beast   (talk)  19:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pepperbeast why are you not explaining this single guideline.

Smatrah (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Smatrah, drop the "explain this guideline" bit. It's tendentious and may result in a block. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok i will not undo my edits, please explain this guideline so that there may be no bisedness in future edita. Thanks. Smatrah (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Smatrah, you are in danger of talking your way into a block here. When you are reverted the next step is (and I make it the fourth time I'm telling you this) for you to explain on the article talk page why you think your edit is an improvement. That is what is expected by policy and guidelines. Why have you not said anything on Talk:Women in Islam and Talk:Iddah? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

+	He said my edits are uniteligible and that quotation is too lengthy so i asked what is standard of considering a quotation lengthy is? He removed already present quotation without explanation so instead of edit warring i asked him its reason but he did not reply on his own talk page. So i came here. Thanks. Smatrah (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For the fifth time of asking, talk about this, explaining how your edits are an improvement, at Talk:Women in Islam and Talk:Iddah, not here. Can someone please close this discussion to give Smatrah the message that this is not the place to be discussing this? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

For 11th time i am explaining that edits are pepperbeaat's, furthermore i am not asking about my edits i am asking that please explain criterion between short and long. So that this guideline become explained. Please try to understand. Smatrah (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Can an admin please either block Smatrah or close this without blocking? This conversation long ago became about that question rather than anything pepperbeast has done. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do understand. Pepperbeast removed already present quotation without explanation, i asked explanaton on his talk page. He did not reply. I asked here about this he said that quotation is too lengthy. I ask please tell numeral criterion between short and long. So that no one use subjective approach to remove quotations. So that it can be assumed that he did it in good faith. Thank you. Smatrah (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Intervention requested

 * Your concise reason (constantly delete the input, made and agreed with other editors. Also uses an abusive language. Request not to do this was made but didn't work). Dzvinok (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any edits made by that user. Which page was the dispute taking place at? OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@OhKayeSierra the user was banned for one day by the other Admin already. The reason for ban was "threatening" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzvinok (talk • contribs) 17:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are no edits, deleted contributions, filter log hits, or blocks for that IP. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be about a conflict on Ukrainian Wikipedia. See uk:Полуніна Олена Борисівна.  The IP was blocked on uk.wiki and hasn't edit here.  Dzvinok: we can't do anything about Ukrainian Wikipedia disputes here.  This forum is only for English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Continuous unsourced info
This user has disregarded 9 final warnings as well as 2 previous blocks and continues with the unsourced additions (here, here, here for example) without ever discussing the issues on their talk page. Please could an admin take a look.  Rob van  vee  05:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably a school. I did a long block but left account creation enabled.  The kids can create accounts if they want to edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are a mensch sir.  Rob van  vee  06:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced genre disruption
Here is yet another IP who despite repeated warnings including several final ones and a previous block, feels that sourcing genre's is too much effort and seemingly couldn't be bothered as can be seen here, here and here for example. They also have the tendency to replace sourced genre's with unsourced ones. Please could a willing admin take a look.  Rob van  vee  05:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I recognize this one. It's an LTA genre warrior that I've range blocked a few times.  Blocked for a month. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As always, muchas gracias!  Rob van  vee  06:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Editor disregarding V
This editor seems to disregard repeated requests, warnings and even a personal plea to please source their edits but despite all my as well as other editors attempts they carry on regardless as can be seen here, here, here and here. Also, the only attempt they have made to communicate on their talk page regarding these issues/concerns is to tell me that sourcing doesn't really matter. I'd be most appreciative if an admin could take a look, thanks.  Rob van  vee  06:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for two weeks. I suspect the next block will probably be indefinite, especially if the editor continues to believe that sources don't matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As above, much appreciated .  Rob van  vee  06:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced and/or incorrect info
I have asked Daisy Yoo in edit summaries, talk page warnings as well as personal pleas on their talk page to please source their edits which they have yet to do and yet to respond to. Their latest edits appear to be deliberately entering incorrect information by adding affiliate labels that make no mention of any affiliation on the articles page (without sources of course). A quick look at their talk page will give an admin some idea of my patience as well as their refusal to communicate or cooperate.  Rob van  vee  11:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsourced additions, no attempt whatsoever to communicate... easy call, I'm blocking now. Any unblock will have to address why unsourced content is problematic and assurance that it won't happen again. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Blade.  Rob van  vee  18:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Living-Person Article
Fyunck(click) is adding incorrect claims to the article about Bianca Andreescu, a living person, despite reliable sources to the contrary. These reliable sources explicitly state that Grand Slam tournaments are not owned by the ATP or WTA, yet Fyunck(click) wants to credit Grand Slam titles to the ATP and WTA anyway. No reason to add something incorrect when we can add something correct. -- James26 (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute and not a matter for ANI, please see WP:DISPUTE for the appropriate steps for resolution.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Related to a removal of my comment
A person has removed my response to a comment on Admin noticeboard main, I tried to discuss it with the person, but I feel the person is treating my response unequally. Would someone please have a look at it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#North_East_Delhi_riots and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C#Relate_to_Admin_notice_board_reverts 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are required to notify any user you are discussing on this forum of the existence of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Notified the person, She/he wrote understood. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The user is apparently complaining about this edit at the "North East Delhi riots" thread at the AN board. That article's talk page went crazy yesterday; a comment at the AN thread said the storm may have been caused by an offline complaint that our article is "biased". The article's talk page was protected for a day; it is now unprotected, with much activity and multiple people keeping a close eye on it. There are also multiple threads about it on El C's user talk page, where El C is displaying a patience and professionalism that I doubt I could emulate. The last thing we need is a thread here at yet another board, ANI, about the same thing. I recommend this be closed without action. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the exceptionally kind words — they are greatly appreciated! El_C 20:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this
I just had a strange message on my talk page. And I don't know anything about being in a mall? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please link the diffs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeartGlow30797 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The reference is to this comment, which constitutes harassment, me thinks. El_C 04:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it's just angry high school kids? As before that I did that e-mail thing earlier ago and I guess that this was what setted them off? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * what do you mean by: I did that e-mail thing earlier ago? I've issued the IP with a final warning (uw-harass4), so let's hope it'll suffice. El_C 04:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was relating to WP:SIGHT. As undid the earlier ip's edits. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure if suppression is needed for this, but revdeleted, in any case. El_C 05:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Toomim and giving a voice to the alt-right
During the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence, I commented that it was not important for Wikipedia that the voices of "conspiracy theorists, alt-righters, neo-Nazis, casual racists, anti-semites, etc" be heard, with User:Toomim immediately objecting. A bit of a back & forth with followed, as the latter attempted to convey to Toomim that alt-right was not equivalent to "right-wing" nor "conservative". NightHeron further clarified that "the term alt-right refers to the fringe wing of the right": &. In response, Toomim posted:


 * The alt-right is a political orientation that describes many millions of people. If you are arguing to block these people from editing Wikipedia, then you are in gross violation of Wikipedia's core principle of NPOV, and someone might report your account to administration.  Tread carefully..

For reference, Toomim's post I was responding to was this:. The above statement advocating on behalf of the alt-right was concerning to me, given that the first sentence in Wikipedia's Alt-right article reads:


 * The alt-right ... is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States.

What do admins and other users think? Do we want to provide a voice for the alt-right on Wikipedia? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an ANI matter. EEng 16:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * To be clear, Toomim also identifies as being liberal. It may be that you're in disagreement as to who the alt-right encompasses. Either way, I don't read Toomim's post as desiring to "give a voice" to a particular political group (let alone "advocating on behalf" of the alt-right), but that anonymous editors should still be allowed to edit within the topic area. In fact, the more I read into the context of Toomim's post, the more I find the entire premise claimed in this thread to be disingenuous. Even taking your complaint at face value, I'm not sure what sort of administrator intervention you're requesting. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The concerns of K.e.coffman are real, and are not "disingenuous," as this IP-editor claims. I'm not taking a position about what, if anything, can/should be done about it. But Toomim's participation in the Race and intelligence talk page has been problematic. At one point in order to explain why Davide Piffer's writings on race and intelligence are not RS, I quoted from RationalWiki: Piffer is a research fellow of the Ulster Institute for Social Research, a racist institute founded by Richard Lynn that publishes racist pseudoscience. In response, Toomim accused me of "McCarthyism" and conducting a "witch hunt," and said my behavior was "morally reprehensible." All this for opposing the use of an alt-right source. NightHeron (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s fine, if there are other, serious problems with this person’s behavior, then bring it up in the OP instead of this out-of-context quote in a disagreement about whether an article should be permanently semi-protected. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You appear to be mistaken, the behavior happened all over the talk page not just in that one discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then it should’ve been in the OP. If this person is being disruptive it should’ve been brought up in the OP. My analysis is based on the isolated quote and the reasonable interpretation of it. But I don’t buy the claim that opposing semi-protection means someone supports giving extremists a soapbox. I’ll note that in said discussion he never said that he supports letting extremists have a “voice” through Wikipedia. That said, I think it’s entirely appropriate to give a warning under AP2 given the clear argument that conservative viewpoints are being silenced in violation of NPOV. Whether a topic ban is appropriate is a different matter and requires more evidence than OP provided. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I interpret the OP as citing the entirety of Talk:Race and intelligence as evidence and then offering specifics on the most egregious statements. I may of course be mistaken in that interpretation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Diffs of misconduct are necessary, especially to establish a pattern. A vague wave to a talk page is entirely unhelpful and insufficient. All OP provided are a few diffs in one dispute over semi-protection that, for reasons I’ve already stated do not seem that “egregious”. For one, despite everyone’s claims to the contrary, he doesn’t seem to have said anything regarding giving anybody a “voice”. Yes, he made a claim that conservative voices are being silenced in favor of liberal voices, and that deserves a warning. But I don’t read his comment as meaning extremist viewpoints should be presented with equal precedence. This was after all a dispute about semi-protection of the talk page and not content in the article. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think of these assertions? Note that they are under a completely different section which is a dispute over article content. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Unconstructive and unhelpful on his part. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NONAZIS. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC).


 * Giving a voice to the alt-right would be violating wp's policy on NPOV and WP:V. If these tools want a voice they should go to Facebook or 4chan or whatever cesspool they've made home now. Praxidicae (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No opinion either way and I understand the NPOV part, but how would it violate V? Also have we established Toomim is a Nazi? PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For the same reason using someones personal research posted to their blog would violate WP:V? We can't rely on such sources for facts. Alt-right are masters of twisting fact. Gold level mental gymnasts, I'd say. Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Gold level mental gymnasts, I'd say – Can't agree with you there. They're actually quite clumsy at it, but their audience's critical faculties are so dull that it doesn't matter that what they're saying makes no sense. EEng 22:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * True facts. PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No one purposed personal research that I can see. Also you skipped the second part of my question. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh maybe I should be more clear. I have doubts about an editor's intent who thinks it's appropriate to post images like those linked on their userpage (see the second photo down) while simultaneously editing Race and intelligence. Praxidicae (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh good, I was worried you were calling another editor a Nazi which would be wildly unacceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The raised fist picture? I'd say he's a suspected communist now as well! --Pudeo (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hahaha... I was actually going for Mario. Did you notice the mustache??  --Toomim (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Race and intelligence has been problematic, Toomim has dismissed other user's concerns while demanding that their own concerns be treated with utmost seriousness. The accusations being leveled against other edits of McCarthyism etc are also inappropriate. Whether or not they themselves are a member of a fringe group they are certainly giving voice to much more fringe/pseudoscientific opinions than would normally be allowed per WP:FRINGE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is fairly easy, actually, an WP:ARBAP2 topic ban seems most appropriate. I feel like it's very obvious why, but just in case: we don't give any group a "voice", we repeat reliable sources. Giving fringe groups a "voice" is not the purpose of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia; if you want your group to have a "voice", start a blog. Debating a group's prevalence in quality sources in good faith is fine, but insisting you're right and demeaning anyone who disagrees is what we have discretionary sanctions for. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that nothing should be stated in Wikipedia's voice that supports the alt-right opinion, just as it should not support other opinions. WP:NPOV means that we are neutral, i.e. that we express no opinion, not that we create some sort of balance between different extremist positions. This means that we don't base article content on any sources that disregard the facts so as to make their opinion seem right. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no viewpoint screening in Wikipedia. However, if alt-right editors fail to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:V with tendendious editing, they can be blocked just like anyone. What is the point of this thread, to chastise Toomim for his definition of alt-right? The article says that the term is ill-defined so it might be unwise to continue that discussion here. Talk:Race and intelligence has 100 archive pages, so it might be a good idea to stop using it as a forum to discuss things like this. --Pudeo (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will note that the overwhelming majority of Toomim's total edits are to the Race and intelligence topic area and in just the past several months, despite having an account from 2007. XTools shows 163 live edits, with 138 edits to this topic area. That is concerning to me from an WP:SPA perspective, though as WP:SPA notes it's not cause for concern entirely of itself. I also find their for sourcing frequently used by those considered "alt-right" to be concerning. Toomim may be a well-intentioned editor just being WP:POINTy through unnecessary wikilawyering, but the being POINTY is tenditious editing and is a concern. As such, their overall behavior is stretching AGF a bit far, IMHO. A few folks have suggested that this isn't the correct venue, I believe that to be incorrect - the talk pages are for content-related issues, true - however, there is a case put forth for conduct issues which would be appropriate to discuss here and discussing it on the various talk pages would seriously detract from already contentious and problematic discussions happening there. Waggie (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * SPA is more troubling, editors like that typically have an agenda. It may be spam, a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Toomim does appear to be rather straightforwardly arguing that the alt-right deserves a voice on Wikipedia, that it's not fringe, and that we should ignore NONAZIS because it is not a policy. Is this really a "good faith" editor who should be editing fucking Race and Intelligence? ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And the alt-right has a history of pretending to be something else (hell, they started off as Nazis pretending to be something else). Anyone want some Flavor-Aid before they try to argue with this? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yah I'm a bit bit surprised SPA on Race and Intelligence who wants to make sure we don't discriminate against the pro-Nazi point of view hasn't generated action (perhaps because the subject is civil and suffering from ANI flu?). --JBL (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it may be because they don't edit the article, they just talk. Anyway, I'll say I think K.e.coffman was right to bring it here, and I've watchlisted their pages (Toomim's, not KEC's). Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC).

User:Kenji1987 WP:NOTHERE
Their entire contribution history consists of attempts to whitewash articles on a small number of problematic academic publishers, except for a small amount of pointy argumentation (e.g.). Talk-page contributions consist of endless piles of civil POV-pushing. Essentially everyone they have interacted with has ended up querying them about COI/whether they are being paid -- whether or not that's the case, they are a pointless drain of energy on other editors in the academic journal space. I request an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. --JBL (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kenji1987's same pattern of civil POV-pushing has also spilled over into my talk page, to the point where I explicitly gave up on responding, only to have Kenji1987 continue to try to extend the argumentation: see User talk:David Eppstein. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if "WP:NOTHERE" applies, but there's certainly a problem with WP:IDHT and WP:CLUE an a general obsession with the questionable publishers (mostly Frontiers Media and MDPI). A topic ban around academic publishing might be warranted. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am trying in all honesty to contribute to improving the pages related to open access publishing. I might be overdoing it at times, but I find the general athmosphere quite toxic. If you look at the Talk page of MDPI, you can see that I am open for discussion about restructuring the pages, but its either ignored or I am accussed of whitewashing. JBL repeatedly asked me to "go away", and from day 1 I joined Wikipedia, I never really had the chance to join a discussion without being accussed of whitewashing. Whatever the result is of this proposed ban, its all documented, and while we can never see someone's true intentions, I am just an academic trying to do my part making information on scholarly publishing on Wikipedia a bit less biased. MDPI's page is graded of C quality, and there is a reason for that. There are a group of editors trying to discourage other users for making changes, upon we end to having this situation: a total ban. Im willing to have an open discussion about improving pages on open access publishers, and refrain from making further edits in the meanwhile, but then I need constructive arguments, and not discussions about me or my integtrity. On the other hand, if it is decided that I should be banned, then there is a lesson here to be learned, the reader is able to decide what lesson that is. Kenji1987 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , a topic ban would also be fine with me; since Kenji1987 has made 0 only a dozen or so edits to articles or article talk pages outside that topic area, I'm not sure I see any difference. --JBL (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. I have edited pages on universities, cities I like, and other odd pages. Not as much as academic publishing (maybe 95% of my edits?), but in order to have a right judgement, you cannot simply state things which are not true. Kenji1987 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Although this is not WP:COIN, my immediate impression is also of a conflict of interest, despite the claims on the user page and repeating that it's not the case when asked. The reason for this is evidence: the history shows a lot of editing in relation to open access and particularly MDPI and the tendency has been to minimize criticism.  It is not impossible that I'm wrong, but these are usually strong indicators, the same reason various other editors also suspect it...  It is rare that someone will spend that much effort on a particular topic without involvement (which could even be as benign as publishing through it).  Others can WP:AGF and assume it's not the case, but to persuade them, it would be a good idea to move on to other pages when contested, or even other topics, before an eventual topic ban occurs to enforce that, or even a full site ban...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , this has been suggested repeatedly to Kenji1987; the whining you see above ( "woe is me! how cruel that I should be accused of whitewashing, just because I want to remove negativity!  alas!" ) is completely consistent with the responses they've given before.  --JBL (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And for some reason "fixing" the page seems so urgent as to require the use of help templates... Moreover, the MDPI article itself has had a lot of previous COI editing issues before.  If the goal was really to bring articles to GA status, why not try with less controversial pages?  If not really COI, it's still at the point of disruptive editing. — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did, for example see Scientific Reports or Plos One. Kenji1987 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Right: that's the small amount of WP:POINTy argumentation I mentioned. --JBL (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that editing one particular topic all the time can invoke the feeling of having a conflict of interest. The point is, from Day 1, I have been accused of that. Now, the MDPI wiki is particularly sensitive to users having a COI and I have made (and I am still making) novice mistakes (for example by assuming that doing your own research can be part of Wikipedia), but every time, I am trying to start a discussion (see the Talk page, I am repeatedly asking for input, suggestions, and even help) I have to defend myself, up until the point, that I am now discussing whether a total ban is justified or not. Now, I did not not know what civil POV-pushing was (until today), and I will try not to have endless discussions, especially if users tell me that they don't want that any longer (I have never received a warning about this), but at the same time, I am honestly interested in for example, what constitutes a newspaper style article and what is encyclopedic, what generally goes into a lead and what not, when is a source outdated and when is it not, and so on, and so on. I see for example a double standard how criticism is reported for Scientific Reports (a section I added by the way) and MDPI. For the former it is short, to the point, and no quotations used, for the latter, it is a whole essay about what editors felt, who rhetorically asked what, and which magazines called some of its articles "crazy" or "silly" or what not. Now, I do not want to start this discussion here (and I understand that this is not the place for these kind of discussions - it is discussing whether a total, topic or no ban is justified for me - and whatever the outcome may be, I have little influence over this), but these are some of the issues I am trying to raise. If this is against WP-policy, Ill stop doing it, and observe a little longer what is allowed in editing, and what not, but if this is reasonable, then I am willing to have an open discussion about how to be a responsible Wiki-editor. I honestly get triggered when people reduce my whole reply to simply "whining" or when discussions are cut off through saying things like "go away"[1,2,3]. Ps. I laid out my concerns, I leave it here now, I will hear later what the outcome is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Who%27s_Afraid_of_Peer_Review%3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDPI&offset=&limit=500&action=history [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MDPI Kenji1987 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This was archived with no action, but I feel prematurely -- several editors have weighed in above to confirm the problems with the editing. I am not particularly tied to my original proposal, and would appreciate if any other administrators could take a look and consider an indef, a topic ban, or at a minimum administering a clear warning about the problematic behavior. (Given Kenji1987's response to previous feedback, I doubt that the last one will be successful in preventing problems.) --JBL (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I look forward to hearing about my "fate" - I have laid out my arguments, and I have nothing further to add, but at the same time, I would like to ask the administrators to comment on JBL's way of approaching me, since September 2019. I have added the links above (just search for "go away" in the page). Kenji1987 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Endorse topic ban or WP:NOTHERE block. I formed the same conclusion myself based on edits to articles on my watchilist. Guy (help!) 00:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that Kenji has been somewhat unwilling to listen to other editors. I noticed that when told to stop, he replied with This is off-topic. I've noticed a lot of POV-pushing, and an edit relating to the topic area of race and intelligence. I will endorse a topic ban and partial block, with the amount disruptive editing from Kenji, along with Kenji also refusing to listen to other editors. I think the partial block is necessary, with the tendency from Kenji to not listen to other editors. I'd consider adding a notice saying that this section is related to race and intelligence, due to the use of "broadly construed" in most arbitration sanctions, but I'm unsure if one edit from the subject of an ANI discussion is really enough for that. Invalid OS (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a paragraph on a controversial article on race and intelligence in MDPI, something which is terrible the publisher allowed. Something which opponents should welcome, so I dont know why this is mentioned here. I liked this to be rectified. Controversies is a section where we add these kinds of information,but it is now used to justify a ban. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You saying I added a paragraph on a controversial article on race and intelligence in MDPI, something which is terrible the publisher allowed. Something which opponents should welcome... seems to suggest that you did this to push a point of view. I wasn't using the race and intelligence edit to justify a ban, I was just pointing it out due to the extreme amounts of controversy in that topic area on here. But now, you've provided evidence of your aims being POV-pushing. And that POV-pushing is what was being used to justify a ban. Invalid OS (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didnt see it as relevant why you mentioned this edit, and I still dont see it, hence I interpreted it as another justification for a ban. Why did you mention it? Just because the topic is controversial? What view am I pushing? Additional edit: im accused of whitewashing MDPI and Frontiers Wikinpages, if any it would make little sense then to add controversial information. But I am genuinely interested why you mentioned my edit.Kenji1987 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Kenji1987 has declared that they are taking a break from Wikipedia; I hope that this will not prevent action based on the unanimous consensus of those who weighed in that their behavior is problematic. --JBL (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * to state: "I'm taking a break from Wikipedia. I find the athmosphere on academic publishing pages quite toxic (making use of my freedom of expression), and several editors have asked for a ban. While this regardless of the outcome of a ban, might be good news for editors with opposing views, I find it sad that new editors are not able to establish themselves". As a new editor, no one really knows me except for people that fervently oppose my views - so I dont expect people to support me here (I do trust Randykitty - and in my absence I entrust them to safeguard some pages from vandalism). But above example which was used against me (or not? I dont know, still awaiting answer why this was mentioned) on the race intelligence controversy on MDPI which I added (but initially did not mention here) shows that I have no interest whitewashing a publisher or two. The fact that JBL does not let go is fine by me as I am also eager to find out what is allowed here and what not, but it also shows you the atmosphere new editors who do not think MDPI or Frontiers is total crap have to work with. Any edit I make is observed. Sure I made some novice mistakes, but I also feel compelled to take a small break as this is consuming way too much of my time and emotional state of mind. Kenji1987 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I prematurely closed this yesterday and have reopened it at the request of JBL on my talk page. I made a couple of other bad closures yesterday, so my apologies. I will make it clear that I'm not involved here and have no opinions, I'm just leaving a courtesy notice. Amaury • 15:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear JBL, Ill keep on responding to this particular thread until it is resolved, as a new editor, I dont have the social capital to ask others to defend me (and before you know it you are labelled in the same group as the race intelligence fanatics - and yes I stil await a response to my question from the other editor). I wont edit other pages as stated on my user page, temporarily that is, maybe half a year. I'd like to add that JBL left the following quote on Amaury's talk page: " Particularly, anything Kenji says should be viewed with skepticism, including the idea that they're stepping away (obviously, since they responded to my comment)". I personally take offense in this particular statement and I believe that this is against Wikipedia rules. Setting up other editors against one another is (at least that's how I see it JBL might see otherwise), once again, a reason why I say that the atmosphere is toxic and why I stopped editing. Thanks to the editor that closed this discussion, but I say lets keep it open, and Id like the admins to comment not only on my behaviour but also JBL's (if I am allowed to request this). In the meanwhile, Id like to ask JBL to refrain from talking about me, unless its here. That's a kind request. Additional edit that JBL tends to tell other editors how they should perceive me is not a one time thing, can be seen here: "@Scitechwiki: All edits made by Kenji1987 here should be viewed in light of his other edits (see particularly Talk:MDPI and Talk:Frontiers in Psychology). --JBL (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PLOS_One#Request_to_mention_Beall_in_the_lead). This was totally unprovoked, and in the end me and the other editor reached a consensus we were both happy with. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Protection solicited after repeated disruptive editing from Gamesmasterg9
1. User:Gamesmasterg9 has repeatedly reverted in full this corrected version of the article Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, and replaced it with an older version which contains multiple fact-errors and untruthful/discrediting statements on individual doctors (living persons). All while referring to sources whose actual content do not support the false claims. 

2. This and similar issues of editing misconduct are explained in the article’s Talk page, Talk:Swedish_Doctors_for_Human_Rights which, if I may, I suggest its reading by an administrator as part of the assessing of this complain.

3. Following “Wikipedia: administrator intervention against vandalism”, I have already notified warnings to User Gamesmasterg9. However, after revewing the history of the article’s edits, it clearly appears that Gamesmasterg9’s disrupting action towards ”Swedish Doctors for Human Rights” constitutes a behavior rather than isolated disruptive edits. A conduct which started in conjunction with Wikipedia ruling against a Gamesmasterg9-supported proposition for deleting the article back in 2017.

4. I would like to note, that the reverts done by Gamesmasterg9 do not target specific edits, instead the user is reverting the article in full, not attending to the explanations for the single changes explained in the Talk page.

5. As solely explanation for the reverts in full, Gamesmasterg9 has written “WP:COI”. I have messaged to Gamesmasterg9 that I would welcome the user’s report to the COI noticeboard. Which Gamesmasterg9 has not done. For it is hardly my fact-based edits, but Gamesmasterg9’s behavior all along the edit-history of this article, which may call for an investigation.

3. As Wikipedia describes Disruptive editing as “a pattern of editing...that may extend over a long time..., and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia”, based in the history of User Gamesmasterg9’s disruptions in this article, and the twice vandalising of it that the user incurred in the last week, I would like to ask for protection of the corrected version, and, if possible, for an independent review by an administrator.

Best regards, Toverster (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing was vandalized. Your massive rewrite was reverted, which can be frustrating, and Gamesmasterg9 should follow up with discussion after said reversion. Calling edits you don't like "vandalism" is not a great start to editing on Wikipedia. But your edits were not particularly encyclopedic, nor do they seem especially neutral. In fact, they look suspiciously like a COI. I've reverted them for now, per BRD, because they have been contested. Grandpallama (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear Grandpallama:

When you say that I call “vandalism” edits that I "don’t like, and you say that without any proof, and despite that I had given fact-based reasons for my edits (put forward in the Talk page), you ascribe me bad faith in my work as new editor in Wikipedia. What a welcome. Nevertheless, with that you concomitantly give me the reciprocal right to assume, that you would have reverted the sum of all my work just because “you didn’t like the edits”. But I gladly abstain of being reciprocal, because my query is instead about the neutrality and verifiability of the content that this article should have according to, yes, the Wikipedia rules. Perhaps, you might change your stance after your read “Necessary edits”.

My complain is not about “not-liked edits”, Grandpallama. Instead, it is about the compact erasing of all my edits (the rationale for each of them explicated in the said Talk page) and the 50 new references to verifiable sources which I added in trying to correct the article according to Wikipedia policies. It is about the deletion of nearly the full page of the article, as a package. And without referring no comment whatsoever about the content of the different new edits erased as a block by Gamesmasterg9. I might be wrong in my interpretation of what vandalism refers to in Wikipedia, and in that case I settle for only WP:DE, which you did not comment. You have the editing experience, and I trust you are right on the use of “vandalism”. Nonetheless, I did not infer the concept “vandalism” out of the blue. This is what “Wikipedia: Vandalism” says (excerpted): “The malicious removal of encyclopedic content…without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research…”.

My contention (and I would believe that you or any other experienced administrator like you that would take the time to read “Necessary edits” would agree), is that several key statements about SWEDHR in the older version infringe the core policy of neutral point of view. Likewise, that most of the references (among the 22 that the old version contains) do not pass the test of verifiability in correspondence to the respective statements given in the article. In other words, a biased article, main characterized by a pristine negation of neutral point of view and verifiability.

You posted yesterday in the article’s edits-history the following line, on top of my las edit: “Your edits are contested; don't revert them back in during a discussion.”. However:

1) There is no “discussion” whatsoever going about the new edits in the Talk page. “Discussion” in Wikipedia can hardly mean an arbitrary decision by Gamesmasterg9 to block any edits without giving reasons attending to the factualness/verifiability of the information and references given in the new edits. In my humble opinion, discussion would mean instead to put forward arguments and counter-arguments about the content of the edits and its rationale. And this is supposed to be done in the Talk page. Instead, no entry has whatsoever been done in the Talk page commenting the arguments of my edits, before or after its erasing from the published article done by Gamesmasterg9.

2) Secondly, about what you wrote: “Your edits are contested “. Well, it is rather the other way around. It is instead my edits which, with fact-based arguments, have contested the flawed version of the article. Again, and I apologize for the insistence, a rationale for each of the new edits was explained in the Talk page.

What the new edits have contested? I give here only some examples:

a) In the lead, and in section “Positions taken by the organization”, as well as in the rest of the article, it is completely omitted a mention to the main activity (also statistically measured) implemented by SWEDHR from its start, which is the campaigning on behalf of freedom for Julian Assange.

b) The blunt tergiversation of the statements done by our Minister of Defense Peter Hulqvist (which are the Swedish government’s stances) regarding Sweden’s position towards NATO. The old version of the article ascribes to Minister Hulqvist positions he never said in the cited source (Swedish newspaper DN), namely, as it wrongly stands in the article, that “The minister had argued that Swedish membership in NATO was desirable”. That was never been said by Hultqvist, neither is that what the referred source reported. He only talked about “collaboration” between Sweden and NATO, never about favoring membership or affiliation. This is a subject hyper sensitive in the Swedish public and government (that instead favors neutrality and non-alignment). Or a variety of falsehoods or incorrect information about, or ascribed to, SWEDHR, the very subject of the article.

c) The mainstream media cited in references in the old version have never referred to SWEDHR as “a Russian propaganda site”, as it is affirmed in the article. What they say is that findings in investigations done by SWEDHR have afterwards been used or misused for propaganda aims, even after the organization’s protests. One mainstream media source that I found recently sums up the false claim against SWEDHR as “irony”. It says in the article “Propaganda, lies and videos: Russian media and the Khan Sheikhun massacre”: “This fake news has continued to spread, even after the Swedish organization attributed and linked to the report refuted it”. . (Anyone wishing to establish which organizations and publications in the views of mainstream media, are listed as "Russian propaganda sites", should instead check the list at PropOrNot, where neither SWEDHR nor its publication The Indicter are listed. ).

e) The false personal imputations regarding Dr. Leif Elinder, which the older version incurred. 3) In addition, regarding verifiability, the new edits are sourced in a total of 70 references. The old version (the one Gamesmasterg9 and you reverted to) contained only 22 references.

Finally, your personal consideration, and Gamesmasterg9’s, about my edits “looks suspiciously COI”, can hardly be regarded acceptable as reason to insist keeping the article with the flawed information that it contains. Once more, I ask Gamesmasterg9 and now to you, to report those “suspicions” to the COI board, and ask them to investigate. For the record, I utterly oppose any insinuation about COI. I deny COI.

For your information, I am a Swedish doctor, and I am the author of the Wikipedia article “Swedish Medical Association”, SMA. Even if I had read about SWEDHR, I did not know about the Wikipedia article. It did not exist in the Swedish Wikipedia. In preparing the SMA article (which I could not post before I done the ten edits), I searched articles referring to the SMA in Wikipedia. I found only three, one of them was the SWEDHR article. Reading it, the amount of disinformation appeared at first glance. Especially the absolute omission of the Assange case as a main endeavor of the organization, and for which, I would say, the organization is most known in Sweden. So it was for me.

To give you a freshest example, reading today, as I do every morning, Sweden’s largest newspaper Aftonbladet (according to Wikipedia “one of the largest daily newspapers in the Nordic countries” ) I saw one main article signed by the professors in the leadership of “Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights, SWEDHR”. The article’s title (translated) is “Government: demand the freedom of Julian Assange” (“Regeringen, kräv att Julian Assange friges“). Last week, through an article in Sydsvenka Dagbladet, another Swedish mainstream newspaper, the reader was informed that SWEDHR doctors formed part of the signatories in an article published by The Lancet, also about the Julian Assange human rights theme. I dare say that The Lancet is world most known medical journal.

I know the professional, medial and societal panorama of the medical community in my country well. And I have the possibility to direct verify what the Swedish media have really said about SWEDHR. This includes, for example, the space that the journal of the Swedish Medical Association has given to that organization since 2015, almost two years prior to what the article incorrectly stated, to make appear the organization unknown in Sweden and irrelevant in the context.

Finally, in trying to reach an understanding, I am not going to repost the full text containing all my edits, as I done before. Nevertheless, now I will select and repost summarily the most essential corrections. If you or Gamesmasterg9 do not agree with the corrected facts in the new edits, please explain your reasons in the Talk page. I am totally open for a discussion and I really hope we will be able to reach an agreement.

For transparency, I am also posting this text in the Talk page of the article.

Thanks for taking your time on this. Toverster (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please offer your thoughts more succinctly; no one is going to read this wall of text. More importantly, what I stated before is true: a revert of your edits is not "vandalism," and your edits have been contested.
 * The OP needs some admin attention, and the article needs more eyes. Despite the discussion occurring here, Toverster attempted to reinsert edits that largely removed, or weaseled the wording of, well-sourced statements about SWEDHR's role as a propaganda arm of the Russian government with the false edit summary that the edits were "cosmetic" in nature. I'm not sure if these edits are COI (although they feel like it), but they are definitely trying to push a particular POV not in line with RS, which this article has had to fend off multiple times (most notably in May 2017, when the sock of an LTA suddenly emerged to make very similar edits). The OP isn't just a brand new account here, but also only just created an account today on the Swedish wiki, where their edits have all been regarding Wikileaks and Julian Assange, as well as a draft of a SWEDHR article (that largely just copies the lead of the enwiki article). Grandpallama (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * After my comment above, and instead of replying, user Grandpallama just proceeded to delete without explanation small edits I have done, and that I have announced (see above) in order to reach some compromise. He deleted even those edits not at all controversial (such as inserting of " " for linking to a Wikipedia article). Of course I will not insist in the edits until all this is clarified. But, by whom, or where is the ongoing discussion? Can anyone one tell me please? If any administrator see this post, please advise me what to do. For I really don't know, honestly, how to proceed in order to correct the falsehoods contained in that Wikipedia article . If it is not possible at all to do changes, just tell me that clear, and I will comply. Toverster (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But, by whom, or where is the ongoing discussion? For now, since you initiated a conduct discussion, it's occurring right here. Your edits were objected to as COI, and you reported another user for behavior and asked for intervention. Potential conduct concerns need to be sorted out at this stage separately from a content discussion (which does not belong on this page). You shouldn't be trying to edit war the material back in until there is some closure around the allegations you have made, though, which is exactly what you did despite your claim that Of course I will not insist in the edits until all this is clarified. Also, pinging Gamesmasterg9 again, who should really be chiming in. Grandpallama (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Also pinging Drmies and El C as admins who helped clean up the article in 2017. Grandpallama (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear god! Out for 2 days and this. Grandpallama, I'm going to need some time to respond here, but in short - SWEDHR is a POV-pushing organization that chiefly exists to provide an "outside" reference for Russian government propaganda. Russian media linked to the WP page, which was created by the organization itself, and greatly exaggerated their own significance, and cited entirely to blogs run by the organization and its members. We went through a massive clean-up, during which I and other editors were called out as Western imperialist stooges by the organization's newsletter, but ultimately we prevailed. Now, a new user (who happens to be a Swedish doctor) creates an account for the purpose of making edits to exactly one page, and reinserts much of the exaggeration and self-referential citations that had been previously removed. To me, it seems like a clear case of WP:COI, but I'll let others weight in.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I reported my decision to stop reposting the full package with my edits 11:44, 26 February. I also announced there that instead I would only do corrections of the lead, in the hope to initiate a discussion about the divergent texts. That edit comprised the contesting of the falsehood in the current lead that reads “the organization is viewed by mainstream organizations as a Russian propaganda site”.

Afterwards that Grandpallama shortly thereafter deleted my announced edit, he reported in this board that I would have inserted it “with the false edit summary that the edits were "cosmetic" in nature”. That is completely untrue. This is instead what stands in my summary in reference to that false information in the lead that I was correcting: “Neither is true that Swedish mainstream media has described SWEDHR a Russian propaganda site”. What I summarized as “Cosmetic” referred only to the “ ” I had inserted to link to a WP article.

User Grandpallama echoed above Gammemaister9 false narrative of “well-sourced statements” for the smearing on SWEDHR as “propaganda arm of the Russian government”. How could any serious editor dare to repeat that, in view of THESE FACTS below, which any WP reader may verify?

The false statement (currently in the article) is said to be “supported” by a list of 7 references, numbered from 2 to Nr 8 in the Ref list. However, the same article in reference 6 (ETC) is deceivingly duplicated again as ref 8 in the list ! This results in 6 references left. But, ref 5 (f-Plus) contains only an excerpted text reproduced from the article in ref 7 (DN), and clearly acknowledges the DN article as its source. This left us with only four sources, of which only 3 are mainstream: One piece sourced in Le Figaro, two articles in Swedish newspaper DN, and one article from the US-based online site (Coda Story). Only two of the WP:RS have Wikipedia articles (DN an Le Figaro). Nevertheless, the most important is what they really said about Swedhr:

The headline in the only English source (Coda) said it all: "Russia Used a Two-Year-Old Video and an 'Alternative' Swedish Group to Discredit Reports of Syria Gas Attack”. Nowhere in the article it is said that SWEDHR is a “Russian propaganda site”.

Same thing in the Swedish newspaper DN’s headline: (translated) “Gas attacks denied with help from a Swedish doctors group”. Absolutely nowhere in the article it is affirmed that SWEDHR “is a Russian propaganda site”. At the contrary, the article comprises an interview with the SWDHR head, where, the newspaper reports, he declared,“SWEDHR is a total independent organization, that do not have connection at all with the Russian authorities”.

The other DN article is even more explicit, saying “Now a Swedish organisation is used to deny Russian participation…” ("Nu används en svensk organization för att förneka Ryslands inblandning…”).

Same thing with right-wing Le Figaro’s headline (translated): “In Russia, a curious thesis is repeated to excuse Asssad”. The article, the same as in Coda Story, refers to the repeated use of the SWEDHR investigations about a video showing medical rescue episodes that the organization concluded as being malpractice and counterproductive, health-wise. In no place the article affirms that SWEDHR is a “Russian propaganda site”.

Same thing with the headline in f-Fokus: “Swedish group used as propaganda by Russia”. Neither it said that it is a “Russian propaganda site”.

Conclusion: The seven “RS” references given by Gammemaister/Gandpallama currently listed in the article on behalf of the “well-sourced statements”, are a fake. Its numbers reduced to only two mainstream newspapers, plus an online site. But the utmost important in this discussion is:

Nowhere in those media it is claimed that SWEDHR is a “Russian propaganda site”.

And all of them explain that the SWEDHR investigations on the White Helmets videos were discovered by the Russian media after the publications in The Indicter.

I apologise for the excessive use of bold-emphases. In fact, I just wished to make clear the qualitative difference between affirming "some investigations or statements of organisation X have been used by certain countries, for their own interests, after they were independently produced by X", and affirming "organisation X is a propaganda site of that country".

But after all, what else can one expect from some editors in the referred article, those having the nerve of even invent positions and declarations ascribed to our Defense Minister, which he had never said, about most serious matters of our national security. Toverster (talk)


 * Anyone with 2 cents of knowledge about Sweden will see in a few seconds that the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights presently (in the Gammemaister/Gandpallama version) is a totally shitty article. It presently says: "The [Swedish Defence minister] had argued that Swedish membership in NATO was desirable due to Russia's recent military buildup."
 * Now, did anyone hear an atom bomb go off in Sweden? No? Me neither. IF the Swedish Defence minister had said the above, then that would have been the equivalent of setting off a (political) atom bomb in Sweden. Needless to say, it is not in the sources given.
 * More eyes on that article is desperately needed, Presently Gammemaister/Gandpallama "have prevailed" (as they said) by a stubborn tag-teaming effort  and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Huldra, please keep in mind that I'm not trying to "prevail" over anything, nor is it "my" version. As have you, I've asked earlier in this very thread for more eyes on the article. The only WP:IDHT that has occurred is with a brand new account that tried to edit war in a major rewrite and then immediately took another user to ANI over the reversions (which they have deceptively called "vandalism"). Restoring the article to its last stable version while a discussion is ongoing is standard practice, not "stubborn tag-teaming." The previous version of the article was long-standing and was arrived at by the consensus of a number of editors who cleaned it up in 2017, though I know you disagree with its content. Grandpallama (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Grandpallama: That was Gamesmaster G-9 (who you pinged) words above: "ultimately we prevailed". The previous "consensus" was after you had driven anyone with another view away from the article (editors like myself). And I say it is WP:IDHT, when you have not countered Toverster arguments. Please just start with those deceptively convincing references (2-8) which allegedly brand SWEDHR as  "a Russian propaganda site". Please counter  each of Toverster  points about those references: until you have done that, I will say you are playing the WP:IDHT-game, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: but I think this page is not the right page for that (as I have told Toverster). We should move those arguments to  Talk:Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, Huldra (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * PPS: I also shudder at the thought that this garbage ("The [Swedish Defence minister] had argued that Swedish membership in NATO was desirable due to Russia's recent military buildup") has apparently been in the "stable version" for years.  Huldra (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @Huldra, I have never edited the SWEDHR page, so no, I did not drive you or any other editors away from the article, nor have I offered a particular view on the subject of my own. In addition, when I first pinged Gamesmaster G-9, it was to comment that he should be discussing his reversions and that his silence wasn't a good thing. I've been neutral and uninvolved, only pushing for proper BRD and a resolution of the allegations of COI vs. vandalism, so please rethink your posturing toward me and assume some good faith. I'm not interested in countering Toverster's arguments, because ANI is not the place for content and he shouldn't (as you pointed out to him more than once) be pushing them here. COI allegations were countered with allegations of vandalism and bad-faith editing, not to mention an attempt by this brand new SPA to get Gamesmaster G-9 blocked from editing the page, and those are an ANI concern. Grandpallama (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Grandpallama: Huh?? You reverted Toverster 13:41, 26 February 2020, you reverted me 01:46, 27 February 2020, both on the SWEDHR article, so how on earth can you say you have never edited that page? Huldra (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Huldra Context. The previous "consensus" was after you had driven anyone with another view away from the article (editors like myself). I never edited that page before this ANI report, so no, I did not establish a previous consensus or make edits that drove you away from the article. Grandpallama (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, pardon me, User:Grandpallama, but I interpret "have never edited the SWEDHR page" as...having never edited the SWEDHR page. Also, frankly your statement that "I've been neutral and uninvolved" sounds a bit hollow to me, when you have been doing the main reverting lately.
 * That said, I think all parties could "tone down" the language a bit; that is, no more unfounded accusations of COI, no more accusations of vandalism.
 * But most of all, editors really NEED to address the issues raised at Talk:Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. So far no-one has answered the questions during these last 10 days, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I interpret "have never edited the SWEDHR page" as...having never edited the SWEDHR page. Well, then, that's pretty disingenuous, since I directly referenced your statement and it was clear what I meant. With less verbal fist-swinging and assumption of bad faith, maybe you'd be able to interpret more correctly. The article does need admin attention, and I'd hoped that Drmies or El C would chime in, since they were involved in its earlier clean-up. And while you may think I'm not involved, I'd say the fact that I'd never edited the page plus I was reacting to a problematic ANI report is pretty close to textbook "uninvolved". Grandpallama (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, let's agree to disagree. Your reverts reinstated obviously wrong info, (like the NATO membership issue); blind reverting is not "close to textbook "uninvolved", in my world. Huldra (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama: You wrote, “Restoring the article to its last stable version while a discussion is ongoing is standard practice". Then, where are yours and Gamesmaster G-9 arguments in this “ongoing discussion” (here or in the article’s Talk page), debating the reasons I put forward for the edits that you blocked? For example: Is the fact-based info I provided in my previous entry (above), about the fake 2-8 references, wrong? If so, do state why. And if not wrong, you HAVE to “allow” the corrected edit to be in the article. Otherwise you (or Gamesmasterg9) are exercising a “power” you do not have as WP editor. Or assuming that you have it, you may be abusing it. The same about the rest of my arguments stated in the Talk page  explaining the edits you erased. Where are your arguments in the “ongoing discussion” ?

The article you have held up as current version states: ”(Sweden’s defense) minister had argued that Swedish membership in NATO was desirable”. A plain invention! THIS is what the Swedish defence minister really said in the DN article referred in the current version:


 * “We have chosen a cooperation approach, instead of a membership approach with NATO” (“Vi har valt en samarbetslinje och inte en medlemslinje i förhållande till Nato.”).

Don’t you realize that the made-up misquote backed by Gamesmaster G-9 et al, that figures in the current version, putting up-side-down a central stance of the Swedish government, is a serious issue that should be prompt corrected?

You justify all these falsehoods (and there are plenty more in the version you protect) by saying that the current version is the “long-standing”, “stabile version”. Whereas is the opposite: the fact that those falsehoods have managed to subsist for so long is an extra imperative for correcting them ASAP under the criteria of neutral point of view and verifiability. Toverster (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Important consultation to administrators: 1) Does it exist in Wikipedia a rule saying it is enough that a simple editor arbitrarely tags another editor with “COI” in the summary at the edit-history of the article (with no explanation given as to why “COI”, neither a COI complain reported to WP),  for deleting all the edits by the tagged editor, and the subsequent banning for his further edits?  2) Is that simple tagging enough for WP to consider the tagged user “contested” (Grandpallama, see above and ), and 3) for that same reason issuing a prohibition against the the tagged editor to further edit in the article? Toverster (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Toverster, please stop posting walls of text. You've been asked this more than once. Please keep your content discussion on the talkpage of the article in question.
 * However, it would be nice if you'd address a few things. Like how a new user was so familiar with the existence of ANI, COIN, and the details of a specific AfD that occurred three years ago; this is not impossible, but it is not the general behavior of someone without a past on Wikipedia. Are you a member of SWEDHR? Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Grandpallama, I am not sure what you need from me right now, but I'd be happy to answer specific questions regarding the previous AfD and rewrite. However, I will not be able to respond point-by-point to the wall-of-text accusations above, and I'm not even going to try. In the meantime, just to give you an idea of what is going on here - |SWEDHR has a page where they respond to every criticism in the mainstream media in a similar fashion. As you can see, their opponents include Huffington Post, Der Spiegel, Expressen, Dagens Nyheter, and Le Figaro.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Gamesmasterg9: what we need from you is easy: for a start, go to the Talk:Swedish_Doctors_for_Human_Rights and counter Toverster objections to the 7 references to that sentence in the lead, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , hur mar du? Please accept this edit as a pointer that will make posts, esp. long posts, more easily legible and navigable. Second, anyone whose first edit this, is essentially a revert of serious magnitude, should expect other users to at least raise an eyebrow. Third, that first talk page post of yours will require me more than one cup of coffee to read. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While I'm looking into this, refreshing my memory on edits made three years ago, I'll just note that this is the kind of edit that takes the concept of a neutral encyclopedia with relevant, verified content seriously. And I'll add, just to make sure, that I don't believe I have had much or any contact with this editor. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Also with couple of observations and pointers:


 * 1) I don't really remember this article from my limited involvement in it three years ago.
 * 2) had marked the article as  already back then, just as she has recently. So far consistent.
 * 3) seems to be in a conflict of interest with regards to this article. They should have proposed their edits on the talk page rather than edit directly. → However, their edits should not have been reverted on the basis of their COI alone but on the merit of the content.
 * 4) The length of Toverster's comments in this noticeboard report are rather excessive → they're new, but still. Who burdens members of a volunteer project with so much text? That's not right.
 * 5) Dispute resolution and gaining more outside input through accompanying requests is how each side in the dispute ought to advance their position with respect to their preferred version.
 * 6) I am not familiar with this dispute in any way (have not caught up to the latest or refreshed my mind about the past) and otherwise am agnostic as to the merits of either version. El_C 22:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:El C Ok, a question here: Why do you say Toverster have a COI? Because he is a Swedish Doctor? Does all Swedish doctors have a COI wrt SWEDHR? Huldra (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , don't be silly. I agree with El C that the nature of the edits suggest we are likely dealing with a COI-editor here, trying to promote an organization and its points of view. For the record, I am also a Swedish doctor--it's one of many talents I have. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am a Russian dancing bear. EEng 19:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL@Drmies! So many talents... Anyway,, the reason I said Toverster seems to be in a conflict of interest was due to their rather limited contributions otherwise, which set them (thus far) as a likely single purpose account. And like many single purpose accounts, their single-mindedness is also reflected in the excessive length of their comments. All of which are indicators to me of a conflict of interest being likely. El_C 23:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, User:El C: it reminds me of what I was met with, when I started editing the Palestinian articles nearly 15 years ago. Not the excessive length, though. But the editor I most often have seen accused of having posts of excessive length is no SPA. So, sorry, I don't "buy" your argument, And User:Drmies: "trying to promote an organization and its points of view", well you could also have said removing falsehoods (...that NATO statement, again). Presently the article is no more than an ATTACK-article.
 * SWEDHR opinions are not mainstream, for sure. But I vividly recall the viciousness that people were met with, back in 2003, if you didn't believe that Saddam had WMD, and how the French were vilified for doubting it (recall those US leaders who wanted to rename French fries to Freedom fries? Seriously, you couldn't make this up.
 * I absolutely hate to say this, but Russian and Chinese media were far more correct wrt to those WMDs, than Western MSM were. (And recall those alleged WMD were the Casus belli of the 2003 invasions, and all the misery that has followed.) Sooooooooo, that Russian media use SWEDHR is to me no automatic reason to vilify SWEDHR (which is exactly what Wikipedia is presently doing),  Huldra (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * first, I'm not "selling" an argument. These are my impressions based on my extensive experience with COI edits and SPA editors. Second, as an avid reader, I can state without reservation that they are not even remotely as lengthy as  has been here. El_C 00:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * pardon my English, what I mean by "not buying it" is just that you have not convinced me by your argument. Huldra (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , lesigh. Your experience from so many years ago is not to the point. I'm not really interested in this kind of whataboutism, but the restoration of that information touting members was fluff ("Anders Romelsjö is the publisher of “GlobalPolitics.se”, which has been placed since several years among the first three top posts in the annual ranking of best Swedish political blog as done by blogtoplist.se"), and denying that is silly. I don't know what you mean with "that NATO statement" and I really don't care. [[User:Drmies|Drmies] (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , if "the Russian media" got something right that "the Western media" got wrong (and these generalizations are already unwarranted), that doesn't mean that in this case it's the same thing--17 years later on a different matter in a different world. And at any rate that is a matter for RSN, not for here. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not generalising; I mention one specific (and extremely important issue)...which has caused the lives of hundred of thousands of people in the Middle East since 2003. I could mention another issue: the 2011 military intervention in Libya: again: Western intervention on false premises (no, Gaddafi was not about to massacre  people in Libya: that was false intel from Islamist sources, which the West (unbelievably) trusted). Again: the Western media swallowed that, hook, line and sinker....while the Russian media (in general) did not.
 * Look, I am not happy to say this (as a woman living in the "West"): but, (also as one who also has visited the Middle East more times than I can count these last 20 years): our governments and our mainstream media lies to us, constantly, about the Middle East. (OK, here I am generalising!) (Read eg. As'ad AbuKhalil twitter account, how he makes fun of the MDM reporting about the ME.) I could mention a hundred cases, but (as I am sure you agree): the AN/I  is not really the place for that...
 * As for reinstating "fluffery": I am not saying that the Toverster  version was perfect (I agree: "defluffing" is needed). BUT: the other (=Gamesmasterg9/Grandpallama version) has obvious, and rather outrageous mistakes. (As I have mentioned above: the Swedish Minister of Defense Peter Hultqvist has never argued that "Swedish membership in NATO was desirable" due to any reason. (If he had, he would have been committing political harakiri in Sweden, as anyone with the slightest knowledge about Swedish politics would know), Huldra (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To Drmies: I thank you so much for the illustrative edit. Kind of you. I’ll start by re-editing that chapter in the Talk page (tomorrow), so hopefully you would finish to review it while your coffee still is warm in the cup. It’s no excuse, but since I am not fluent in English I tend to be precise by doing the opposite, through over explaining. I’ll try to correct that. My paradoxical situation: since I have limited spare time, I do not have much possibility to indulge in serious revisions of my own texts, which would help me summarize, be more concise, thus clearer, I guess. Point taken about that my long collection of edits published all at once resulted in “a revert of serious magnitude”. Now I understand that perhaps I should have tried with one edit at the time, with the corresponding argumentation in separate sections of the Talk page. BTW, I have found this kind of investigative work quite exciting. I wish to have more time in the future to edit on more creative issues.

Då är Du en svensk läkare. Snälla, skulle Du inte också protestera mot den karikatyr som Swedhr artikeln gör av den aktuella svensk neutralitet samt “non-alignment” policy? Samt hjälpa mig att förklara här att Sveriges läkarförbund viste om Swedhrs existens redan 2015? Toverster (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To Grandpallama: Why I am posting HERE, you ask. It's because you indicated that to me. I asked, where is the ongoing discussion about the edits? You answered: “it's occurring right here”. Your attack ad hominem against me as new editor (unfounded tags COI, Single PA, etc.) seems rather aimed to divert from the main issues at stake. It won’t work. The you wonder how come that I know rules at WP. Anyone wondering about an editor go to the editor’s presentation. Anyone can read there : “The first task for me was trying to understand the rules and intricate instructions about editing articles in Wikipedia.” I don’t mean to claim that I know them well. But learning I am also thanks to this discussion. You contradict yourself assuming that I knew “what to do” in addressing my complain. For it was you who proven to me that I was mistaken about “vandalism” (then I changed the headline). You know already my answers to you, ref. your “COI suspicions”. It’s all in this thread. Not such a thing. About how I know what COI is, it was after I saw it in Gammesmaster reverting summary. I found in Google a link to a WP list of abbreviations, with super links. How do I know about “the details of a specific AfD that occurred three years ago”? The info and link about that AfD is highlighted in a BAN at the very top of the article’s Talk page. The ban reads: “This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. That ban “You can’t miss” each time you start to edit the Talk page.

Instead of asking things you already know, please comment on this instead, a statement that appears in the lead:

“the views presented by it (SWEDHR) are consistently in line with those of the Russian government.” (No WP:RS given in the article to support that statement).

The English dictionary says “consistently” is synonymous of “always”. So, just how truthful that fabricated statement results when confronted with what instead happens in reality?:

On October 13, 2019, SWEDHR publicly condemned the Russian government for the veto that Russia issued to block a resolution proposed by the UK and other EU countries in the UN Security Council. SWEDHR called it “deplorable”.

Now you will suspect-ask me, how did I find about that? Answer: Because the name and link to that publication is given in the Organization section of the current version of the Wikipedia article on SWEDHR which I (and hopefully you) are analyzing. In the report is reproduced the SWEDHR critical statement on Russia also published in Twitter. Toverster (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * P.S. To Grandpallama: (please other recent commentators look at this too)


 * About your contradiction-of-terms wondering that in my short time in Wikipedia I have been concentrated only in this article. What much else one can expect? And it’s not totally so. In this short time I have also created the Swedish Medical Association article. I have already explained that I found this article, and got "shocked", when I was doing research for the SMA draft. But certainly, my free time is limited. And I wish to also contribute in the Swedish encyclopedia. Probably I will be able to diversify my edits towards other themes in the future, after a corrected,  truthful article, may be reached.

On the other hand, if it so the case that Wikipedia will FORCE me to edit simultaneously other articles for otherwise I will be suspected as a 'COI' troll or something, then Wikipedia may not be a thing for me. Have a good night. Toverster (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, User:Toverster, nobody is forcing you to do anything, my 2 cents of advice: just ignore all WP:PA (yeah, I know;  more  easily said than done....), just edit in a WP:NPOV manner, using WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To all in this thread: Regarding the constructive points here,

I agree in some, disagree in others:

I agree: a) My extensive texts. Sorry for that, I’ll try to be brief. b) Arbitrarily “COI” tagging by one user not enough to revert an edit (El_C) c) As proposed by Huldra, the discussion of the edits’ content should continue (or begin, actually) in the article’s Talk page. d) Posting all corrected edits at once, was inconvenient. Proposed solution: to post one edit at the time (with rationale given in Talk page, separately). Either I do the edit myself, and/or preferably by Huldra who is experienced editor, and/or monitored by Drmies, El_C, and Huldra, to prevent ‘reflex reverting’ (e.g. by Gamesmasterg9). e) Some notes in References (e.g. on Prof. Romelsjö, remarked by Drmies) contain info relevant to the subject’s activities, but not the article. It was intended to refute Gamesmaster G-9 untrue version of a supposedly completely unknown group of professors/doctors in Sweden. I’ll review.

I disagree (or regret): f) “Only Purpose”, as the central focus in the criticism of my editing, should take into account my short editing-time and the importance of the proposed changes, and not be used to disregard fact-based changes. This necessity is independent of me as editor. g) That (except Huldra), no references have been made here to the facts and arguments exposing the false and equivocal statements, and fake references in the contested article. Grandpallama led me to believe that this was the place for such discussion, while no one had countered my arguments in the Talk page.

I kindly ask to comment my suggestion in d) above. If we could agree at least on that proposal, we may very well declare end of this episode here. Thanks. Toverster (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To Gamesmaster G-9:

Do take note of administrator El_C's comment above, that edits should not be reverted solely on the base of COI allegations. For the record, I’ll post it in your Talk page.

Regarding your “revelation” in this thread about a SWEDHR page with links to rebuttals to 4 right-wing media in a 5-years period: That info was already given, with further details and references, in the Section “The 2017 Controversies” of the article’s version   that you have been arbitrarily reverting since 19 Feb 2020. There it reads: “The domestic and international spreading by Russian governmental channels of SWEDHR's ‘alternative views’ on a variety of geopolitical issues, have also elicited critical comments in the European mainstream media. For instance Der Spiegel,[31] Le Figaro,[32], De Groene Amsterdammer, [33] and Dagens Nyheter. [34] SWEDHR has published its respective rebuttals to those media in The Indicter. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] In its replies, SWEDHR's has insisted that the criticism of those media does not address the arguments or the results of the doctors’ investigations. That, “apparently, for them,  it is not about what we say, but rather to whom we are saying it.” SWEDHR has repeatedly argued that the right to express opinions in any media “regardless of frontiers”, is guaranteed by Article 19 in the Universal Declarations of Human Rights. [40]“ You should have also referred that in comparison with those 4 media reports in the 5-year period, there were many more media in the same period 2015-2020 reporting SWEDHR views in a non-critical way. Most recently in a full-page of Sweden’s largest mainstream newspaper Aftonbladet (Feb 26, 2020). Toverster (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are still producing massive walls of unreadable text, and you still haven't answered the primary question, which is a simple yes or no: are you a member of SWEDHR? Grandpallama (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

On 4 May 2017, Gamesmasterg9 created the WP:ED section “Accusations of pro-Russian propaganda” in the article on SWDHR, whose inaccurate content is still up after almost 3 years. None of these extensive disrupted edits were previously presented/discussed in the Talk page. Gamesmaterg9 edits in cursive:

1. “As of April 2017, the organization is unknown to the Swedish Medical Association.” Which was not true. Instead, the Swedish Medical Association journal Läkartidningen had already in 2015 reported on SWEDHR stances   and even published a link to the organization’s homepage.

2. “As of April 2017, the organization is unknown to Amnesty International”. That’s neither true. Instead, on 11 of March 2016, Amnesty International Swedish section’s officer Amy Hedenborg emailed KILTR journalist Erik Sandberg, addressing the content of a Swedhr article published in The Indicter. The even was broadcasted by [KILTR] 17 March 2016. The email’s full text given also in The Indicter. 

4. For his edit “The causes taken up by the organization have a strong pro-Russian bias”, Gamesmasterg9 didn’t provide any WP:RS. Because there is no MSM source containing such straight accusation, let alone the adjectivity created by Gamesmasterg9.

5. Gamesmasterg9’s edit “(Swdhr) have compared the violent clashes in Odessa that led to the deaths of 46 pro-Russian activists to the Reichstag fire” is a blunt lie! That is not a statement by Swedhr. The facts: A tweet image titled “what history shall remember”, originally published in The Professors’ Blog in June 2014 before the existence of SWEDHR), mentions that in 1933 Hitler blamed the Reichstag fire on Russian Comintern “communist agitators” (WP article “Reichstag fire” ), while in 2014, Carl Bildt, then Foreign Minister of Sweden, blamed the Odessa fire on “Russian thugs”.

6. Gamesmasterg9’s edit of same date, “Their sister publication The Indicter has previously claimed that Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian army, and not by pro-Russian rebels”, instead of giving a reference/link leading to The Indicter, he posted a reference to the WP article  in which neither Swedhr nor The Indicter are mentioned. Whereas what instead it is said in The Indicter op-ed article (author not member of Swedhr) reads: “This Dutch commission stresses, with other words, that while it was able to conclude that flight MH17 was shot down by a Russian-made missile, the commission would or could not determine who pulled the trigger.”

7. Gamesmasterg9’s edit: “Dr. Ferrada de Noli was interviewed by Russian media about his view that the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack of April 4, 2017 was possibly caused by the opposition groups and not the Syrian government”. But the DN article given by Gamesmasterg9 as source does not say that Ferrada de Noli referred to the Khan Shaykhun incident, but instead about the general possibility that oppositional forces have access to chemical weapons (in the Russian media interview he cited MSM reports and the UN investigator Carla del Ponte which concluded the possession of chem weapons by the rebels). DN printed even the reasons given by the interviewed doctor: “- I don't think President Bashar al-Assad does. It would be politically illogical. The Syrian government is winning the war now. Nuclear weapons only serve the opposition.” (– Jag tror inte att president Bashar al-Assad gör det. Det skulle vara politiskt ologiskt. Den syriska regeringen vinner kriget nu. Kemvapen tjänar bara oppositionen.)

8. Referring to the White Helmets video investigated by Swedhr, Gamesmasterg9 posted in the Wikipedia article: “An examination of the video cited in the article as evidence revealed that it was actually a video of a chemical attack in Sarmin from March 2015.” The edit suggests that Swedhr has given another date for the videos. That is complete deceiving. SWEDHR had clearly stated in the publications  that the videos are from 2o15, and that Swedhr discovered those videos only in March 2017 thanks a HRW retrospective report.

9. “A group of medical specialists in the US and UK examined the (White Helmets) video and stated that it was impossible to conclude that it was staged, as claimed by SWEDHR”. Gamesmasterg9’s source is an article in the site Coda Story, an online publication partner with “Eurasianet, which Wikipedia describes as “formerly run by the Central Eurasia Project of the Open Society Foundations. Nevertheless, the “group of medical specialists in the US and UK” turns being only one identified doctor by name, four others “voices” without any identification whatsoever. The ironic being that the conclusions of the group of mainly anonymous doctors do not challenge the main in the Swedhr conclusions, according to the analysis (author not Swedhr-related) “On Coda Story's Attempt to Discredit SWEDHR”:

10. Gamesmasterg9: “SWEDHR carried out a similar campaign in April 2018, after the Douma chemical attack, which caused the left-wing Swedish magazine ETC to compare it to InfoWars.“ Another plain misrepresentation! What ETC actually wrote was: “the Russian and Syrians are brought help by conspiration theorists like Inforwars, journalists and bloggers critical to US imperialism.” ETC does not mention SWEDHR in comparison or association with Infowars. The mention to SWEDHR in the ETC article was instead a quote from an image posted on Twitter by De Noli’s personal account. The texts based in an article authored by De Noli on 1 February 2018, two months before the Douma attack! 

Regarding the actual position taken by SWEDHR after the reported incident in Douma: Swedhr issued on 13 April 2018 a statement in support of the US-based organization Physicians for Human Rights, requesting an investigation that “should include collection of environmental & biological samples.” To which Swedhr added “independent medical assessment of treated patients & hospital records”. 

11. Finally, Gamesmasterg9’s edits collection says: “SWEDHR also tried to cast doubt on the Russian government's responsibility for the 2018 poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal” For which he gives two sources. An examine of his sources reveal that what was really said by The Indicter editor: In source fPlus.se it reads as his only statement: “It seems absurd that Russia would have sent a death squad to England to risk a big international incident“ (Det verkar absurt att Ryssland skulle ha skickat en dödspatrull till England och riskera en stor internationell incident). It refers to the big international incident represented by the expulsion of dozens Russians diplomats. It does not said that Russia would not have “responsibility”. Only that it is absurd to do such a thing in view of the big international repercussion.  In source DN, this is only what the newspaper reported on the interview in reference to the Skripal item: "- No clear evidence has been provided that Russia is behind it," he says, and continues: - History has several examples of similar events. Like when Britain wrongly claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and went to war, despite knowing better.” (“– Det har inte lagts fram några tydliga bevis för att det är Ryssland som ligger bakom, säger han, och fortsätter: – Historien har flera exempel på liknande händelser. Som när Storbritannien felaktigt påstod att Irak hade massförstörelsevapen och gick till krig, trots att man visste bättre”). 


 * NOTE: With the above I end my edits in this thread. Thanks.

Toverster (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

A heads-up, or perhaps just an oddity
I am not calling for any action, unless this behaviour rings a bell with anyone. I got an off-wiki email today from User:ARzip‬, asking me to browse and check Life imprisonment in Australia; a topic in which I have no interest at all, I don't seem even to have gnomed that page. ARzip has made precisely zero edits in English WP. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:TheARzip has edited User:ARzip's Talk Page: diff 1 and diff 2, and has made no other edits; which suggests that there may be more than something that is obvious to the eye. Narky Blert (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears they sent a bunch of e-mails to other users, four of which responded on the user talk page, and they immediately commented the responses out.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that may be the 3rd or 4th email I've had like that? all unconnected. I ignored the others, except for the one who was offering $ for assistance from someone with a high edit count. I was told the email addy of a team who are interested in that sort of thing, forwarded the email, and went back to doing something which felt more worthwhile. Narky Blert (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was one of ARzip's email recipients. On the off-chance that someone reading this doesn't know, it's unwise to reply to a WP email from someone you don't trust; if you do, the recipient has your email address. All the best,  Mini  apolis  23:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Amen to that. Anyone mind if I block both their emails? Should these emails be forwarded to ArbCom?Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Email access should definitely go, but I don't think this merits ArbCom involvement (yet).  Mini  apolis  23:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I've only had two offwiki email exchanges: one when it turned out that another editor and I had grown up about a mile apart and we chose to swap stories in a better forum; and another when I got caught up in a sitewide WP:RANGEBLOCK by a WP:STEWARD, and called for help from an admin who knows me because I didn't know who else to turn to. Miniapolis is right: practice safe hex. Narky Blert (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I received one of the emails, and replied on their talk page. I agree that it's appropriate to block email address for this user.- gadfium 01:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I am entitled to post here, but I also got an email this morning from ARzip's which requested that the tables on List of prisons in Australia need to be 'reduced' - I have looked the tables and these seem OK. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have just received two notices from an editor called Vetop thanking me for two edits that I made to List of prisons in Australia in 2018. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, it is entirely appropriate for you to comment here. You are providing useful information rather than stirring up trouble. Thank you for your input. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Vetop, TheARzip, and ARzip for sockpuppetry, as they are ✅ to each other. Weirdly, they are also ✅ to from this SPI. I'm not sure what the explanation is there, might be a VPN. But in any case they can't be using three accounts to email people and send spam "thanks" notifications, and it sounds like they're definitely socks of someone. ST47 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They're confirmed to .  seems to be another SPA at that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Were the e-mails complaining about edits made by Mwvr? Because that would seem to indicate that Mwvr isn't involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The email I received was civil and general, and did not imply any particular problem. The summary in my original post was complete. Narky Blert (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Accusations of deceptive practices, long term


This has been going on for months, with a user/users adopting multiple accounts to add accusations, without reliable sources. Articles need protection and possible action against the most active accounts. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For that matter, it looks like there's a history of WP:COI accounts working the opposite angle as well. These really need more eyes and a lock. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User Varun2048 and copyright violations
introduced a copyright violation of this page onto Jai Shri Ram, reintroduced it after it was removed, and reintroduced it again, even after being warned against copyright violations. Could an admin have a word with them about it, and revdel the offending revisions? Thanks! 20:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sign your posts.
 * Informing an editor of your complaint is compulsory.
 * Editor sanctioned for one year and offending revisions revdeled. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 21:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Re (3) - thanks for looking into this; re (1) and (2) - WTF? Clearly I did sign, albeit accidentally with an extra ~, and I did notify the user. Was the attitude really necessary? Dorsetonian (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Cannabidiol
Someone is pov pushing on Cannabidiol. Removing sourced facts about states that have legalised CBD and also claiming that given sources say that there is not enough evidence. That information is not in the given sources. He or she is also accusing me of spamming. 31.161.228.68 (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Leafly" and The Guardian's opinion column section are not reliable sources for factual claims. Can you not find a better source for the statements at issue? If not, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Note [] As I said at their talk page [] the filer seems to be a SPA whose sole contributions have so far been related to the use of [] as a source. I will also note they have also been warned for edit warring over this [].Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC) I also note no user is actually being accused of anything.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have warned you on my userpage. You are now going to be reported for accussing me of sock puppetry. Stop your personal attacks and stop annoying me on me talkpage. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to have warned the user you have reported here (which you have still not done). I have never accused you of Socking, I have asked if you have a COI (due to your obsession with using this one site), a question you have refused to answer, and stated you appear to be a SPA based upon the fact all you have done is to argue about Leafly. None of those are accusations of socking.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As to PA's [].Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * After looking at your own talkpage, it looks like you are involved in a lot of (unrelated) conflicts. With several other people. Wouldn't it be better to take a short break? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This IP has continued with another thread two down, Slatersteven. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we close this as the filer has still not identified who this is aimed at?Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven
user:Slatersteven is stalking my every move, selectively reading my edits and then accusing me of being a single user account or sock puppet. They also seems to be accusing me of being a vandal. My guess is that by doing so they are hoping to influence the outcome of a question I asked on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Reliable sources/Noticeboard [Link corrected by Phil Bridger (talk)]. The harassment and false accusations have got to stop, I have warned them on my userpage. Please perform a usercheck on both me and Slatersteven to prevent further abuse and block slatersteven if this is not their first offense. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never accused you of being a sock. As to stalking, as so far you have edited one article (that I have not edited), ANI, one edit war report (which I have not commented on), your own talk page and RSN its not hard to meet you.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven also seems to be involved in an edit war on Planet Nine. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Err, I edited twice, that is not an edit war.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed this after weighing in at the RS noticeboard. One day of editing alone that includes edit warring, false claims, and a now a spurious ANI. IMO, 31 is WP: NOTHERE. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One day of editing period, as I said this is all they have done.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The “OK boomer” comment at RSN was enough for me. Some kind admin might want to have a look at the entire edit history, in one day only. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of you should read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing
 * So should you, as I have not contacted anyone about this, and (apart from you) no one has contacted me about this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been warned :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm smelling troll. Too much good editors' time has already been wasted on this. IP needs a block. Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree, I think its clear they are here to use WP to promote Leafly. Either was a block is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just realized they have another ANI thread just two threads up. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it was my intervention there that led to this tit for tat ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

We need a usercheck fast. There is some canvassing going on here. Might be one single user. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I advise you to drop this now, canvasing does not mean what you think it means.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If Alexbrn and I are the same editor, do I get to take credit for the best ANI subject line ever? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If Slatersteven and I are the same editor, we need to get our act together and try to agree more often. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_262 Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling me a troll is his second personal attack today (depending on how many accounts he has got)31.161.148.196 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Propose Boomerang
Clearly not here, with now virtually random accusations against anyone who disagrees with their attitude. Can we block the IP please this is getting to be beyond a joke?Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, IP should have been blocked a while ago for WP:ASPERSIONS and a clear troll WP:NOTHERE. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Quickly evading their block
Same ISP, same interest in weed. Favonian (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Sethabi ba sethabi
The immediate incitement for this thread is this threat/PA/claim to socking, as well as this very very pointy nomination of User:Arjayay's page for G5 deletion. This comes after a period of general WP:CIR issues from said editor, mainly stemming from Ancient and bible, see Articles for deletion/Ancient and bible in which several folks noted that Sethabi was having conduct issues. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And it came to pass that Bbb23 descended upon him with great fury and smote him with the Almighty Banhammer.Kleuske (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Feinoa continuing ownership issues, ignoring consensus and refusal to collaborate
I have previously reported the editor 1st report and 2nd report. They have been warned multiple times about edit warring and consensus. However, it is still happening and I think some administrative action needs to be taken. A lot of the issues are also because they seem to be unable to properly understand the policies. Because of this, I might have to start RfCs despite a local consensus existing on the talk. After a while it is a waste of everyone's time.

I am not sure what should be done, but I think enough warnings have been given already and some of it is starting to be disruptive.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Long term edit warring/ignoring consensus at Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak  - Repeated insertion of a phrase 12 Feb, 14 Feb, 15 Feb, 15 Feb, 16 Feb, 24 Feb. This is despite the fact that the edit in question has been removed by multiple editors and there is also consensus on the talk  for its removal.
 * 2) WP:OWN at Singapore. For example, the editor is adamant about removing/de-emphasising the fact that "Malay in the national language of Singapore" from the infobox -
 * 3) Edits by Feinoa - 22 Feb 2020, 22 Feb 2020, 16 Jan 2020, 31 Oct 2019, 27 Oct 2019
 * 4) Note that these edits have been either reverted or changed by multiple editors 16 Jan 2020,1 Nov 2019,27 Oct 2019
 * 5) Editor has never taken the initiative to open a discussion. I created one finally  (there is some amount of local consensus), but they don't participate.
 * 6) Edit warring and reverting multiple editors, despite being asked to discuss on the talk
 * 7) Original edit, Revert 1 by Feinoa
 * 8) Reinstated (1), Revert 2 by Feinoa
 * 9) Reinstated (2), Revert 3 by Feinoa
 * 10) Reinstated (3) Feinoa is warned  and urged to discuss. They are also informed that discussion takes place on the talk, instead of through edit summaries.
 * 11) Revert 4 by Feinoa with the edit summary "Did you even bother to read or do you just love reverting my edits? I made my point twice in the edit summary over a minor edit, the fact that you somehow didn't find that sufficient enough suggests that we're supposed to make a new 'discussion' in the talk page for every single edit now?"
 * 12) Adding unsourced (and clearly incorrect) information -  Added Okinawan and Yamato as Southeast Asian ethnic groups, while removing others which are actually originated in Southeast Asia. Also added Shinto as one of the religions, without any source.
 * Well, we have partial blocking available now... if other admins and/or the community agrees that enough is enough and that Feinoa (and any other users) are causing more harm than good to these articles, I'm not against blocking them from editing those specific articles while allowing them to contribute positively to other articles and pages within the project...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , in my opinion, I believe the main problem here is the lack/refusal to collaborate and the unwillingness to follow proper dispute resolution. Instead of blocking, perhaps a restriction like 1RR could be imposed for the editor. This will probably be for the best as any non contentious edits by the editor can be made, while for any contested edits, they will need to gain consensus on the talk. Once they get hang of how consensus works, it can be lifted.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Amaury
At Big City Greens, I got into an editing dispute with User:Amaury. I admit that I probably let the dispute go on too long before starting an actual discussion on it, but after I finally started an RFC User:Amaury continuously talked about my conduct in the RFC instead of the issue on hand. I made it clear that it was the wrong place to be discussing that and if he had an issue with my conduct, he should bring it here. Not only did he ignore that, but he started making completely uncalled for personal attacks. See and. I removed the personal attacks from his comments, but left the rest of the comments up  and warned him about making personal attacks, and again called for him to either start a discussion here about my conduct or just focus on discussing the actual topic on hand at Talk:Big City Greens. Instead, he just readds his personal attacks at Talk:Big City Greens. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 14:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Amaury probably shouldn't have been so agressive in their responses to you. However, you violated WP:3RR in your insistence that you were right, which is a bright line no-no for Wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I admitted as much. If he reported me, I would have accepted any consequences that came of it, and I told him multiple times that he can report me. However, just because I edit warred does not at give him permission to make personal attacks. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 15:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't have removed Amaury's comments. They were not the kind of personal attacks that need to be removed, and from the edit summary, it is clear that Amaury reinserted them because he felt you had no right to remove them ("refactor"). As for the comments themselves, they are borderline personal attacks. They are more inflammatory rhetoric and certainly uncalled for. In this lovely uncivil environment we call Wikipedia, I doubt they rise to the level of sanctions, although they probably deserve a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:AussieLegend removed them after he re-added them, so apparently he agreed that they don't belong there. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 16:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Feenyfan2019 is a sock, but they were still right that this is not an isolated incident. whether you're right or wrong, that's not an appropriate edit summary. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 20:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note Amaury seems to indicate here that he's not going to participate in this discussion. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 20:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I said I wouldn't be continuing the discussion at the article in question, much like IJBall, because it's pointless. Also, please take a look at my block log and tell me the last time I was blocked for personal attacks. I'll tell you now. It was way back in 2009, so I don't see this history of which you speak. And if you knew you were edit warring, then why keep doing it? In any case, if a warning is the outcome of this report, then I will gladly accept it, but this is really all I will post on the matter. Amaury • 21:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The history is the fact that you told another editor to screw 2 months ago in an edit summary. Just because you weren't blocked or warn for it doesn't mean that it's not a personal attack. And if you and IJBall want to actually discuss the topic at hand on the article talk page, there's nothing stopping you. However, all you two have been discussing is my editing conduct, which you can open up a report here if you want to discuss that, an issue with the separate episode article, which should be discussed at that article's talk page and personal attacks against me, which don't belong anywhere on this site. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 21:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the claim that he hasn't been blocked for personal attacks since 2009 is extremely misleading if not out right false. In August 2019, he was blocked for "Edit warring and casting aspersions". Which is just a specific way of wording personal attacks. So there's evidence that this is a pattern on his part. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 22:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to canvas here, but I really think that it would be helpful if could elaborate on why they blocked Amaury for "Edit warring and casting aspersions" in August because it could really help establish if he has a history of making personal attacks and being warned about them. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 01:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Good removal and endorse the warning issued by Aussie. Amaury's aggression had clearly gotten way out of control and it was appropriate for someone to step in. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * After seeing why was last blocked, it seems like he has a history of attacking users instead of ideas when confronted when edit he doesn't like. He also seems more than happy to edit war when he feels that he's right, which is an issue that I also have, but it makes it pretty hypocritical of him to attack me for that when he has the same problem. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 02:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Three things:
 * I really don’t understand Amaury’s comment, ... now you went running for an RFC because you weren't getting your way. Isn’t an RFC an acceptable form of dispute resolution when we don’t get our way?
 * Amaury making and reinstating the statement ... you're a goody two-shoes and mommy's little angel. You probably never once misbehaved and always followed mommy's rules to the letter. is well over the line. Calling someone a momma’s boy is not only a clear cut PA, it also invokes outdated gender roles and stereotypes. It’s misogynistic and has no place in a collegial environment.
 * Amaury’s statement above, In any case, if a warning is the outcome of this report, then I will gladly accept it, but this is really all I will post on the matter. is, in my view, totally unacceptable. We cannot allow editors to choose to make a PA and then “gladly accept” the warning. Editors don’t get to “trade” a PA for a warning. I would have agreed with Bbb’s suggestion of a warning above until I read this. Obviously a warning is not going to be enough to change Amaury’s behavior here; a stronger sanction is likely called for. Perhaps a one way interaction ban or partial block from the page where the PAs were made? If you’re going to make PAs against an editor on an article talk page, and refuse to stop or retract (“gladly” accepting a warning), then you shouldn’t be allowed to interact with that editor and/or edit that page. – Levivich (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Exactly my thought. He was complaining that I was editing without discussion, but somehow when I did try to discuss I was still in the wrong.
 * Exactly why I reported him.
 * He already claims to have given up on that debate, so I don't know if blocking from that page is really going to accomplish anything. I don't really know how an one way interaction ban would work. While it's obviously not my decision to make, if it was, I would go with a temporary block and a warning that any further personal attacks would result in a longer block. But again, it's obviously not my call and I'm obviously biased here. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 05:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He already claims to have given up on that debate, so I don't know if blocking from that page is really going to accomplish anything. I don't really know how an one way interaction ban would work. While it's obviously not my decision to make, if it was, I would go with a temporary block and a warning that any further personal attacks would result in a longer block. But again, it's obviously not my call and I'm obviously biased here. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 05:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I completely support a report and any sanction against Amaury for their actions, after having been subjected to personal attacks, hounding, battleground behaviour and tag-teaming by the editor. Both editors have violated policy here, but one editor violating policy is not an excuse or a reason for another editor to do so as well. This has been going on for years, even resulting in a block only six months ago; a warning will not do anything to deter them from their behaviour. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  00:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It will probably help the case if you can show an example or two of him making a personal attack against you. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 10:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I’d be happy with just some assurance from Amaury that it won’t happen again. Levivich (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My plan is to avoid them from now on within reason. Amaury • 03:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support sanctions per Alex 21 - Amaury isn't actually apologizing anywhere here for the personal attacks, disruptive editing, or any of the other serious problems shown in the diffs above. Given how long his block log is already, I don't think a warning alone is going to do it. Ahiroy (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I find it interesting how the reported user closed an ANI thread about personal attacks, on the same page where a report exists against them for exactly the same conduct. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  13:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He's been closing a couple of discussions here. Not breaking any rules, but not exactly the best behavior in my opinion from an user with an open discussion here. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 21:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don’t see recognition from Amaury here that any of his actions were unacceptable, let alone a retraction or apology. Point 2 brought up by Levivich are particularly egregious examples of misconduct, and point 3 suggests poor attitude and awareness. — MarkH21talk 12:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with the above. Unfortunately, there has not been administrative intervention in the past week, and as "sanctions are preventative, not punitive", this report is likely to go stale, Amaury will continue with his personal attacks, hounding, battleground behaviour and tag-teaming, and no changes will be made. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  22:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All we can do is to continue to take note of any misbehavior by him. If he does anything against policy while this discussion is still open, make sure to add it to the discussion. If he breaks policy again after this discussion is closed, open a new discussion here and link to this discussion. If he continues this current behavior, and we continue to report him, an admin will eventually block him. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 20:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sustained BLP vandalism at Khalil-ur-Rehman Qamar
The page protection request for Khalil-ur-Rehman Qamar has been sitting unanswered for six or so hours now, meanwhile the IP/SPA vandalism is getting worse; there's already been a revdel. Can an admin resolve this ASAP? — MarkH21talk 14:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , ✅. Money emoji💵Talk💸Help out at CCI! 14:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Usr0001
My first AN/I report in a while. Let's see how this goes. Here are the diffs: Usr0001 believes Talk:Fascism/FAQ is censored. Over the last few months, they tried to say Fascism isn't a right-wing ideology against current consensus. I warned them that the next try to change the FAQ like that could lead to a block, and they did anyways. They're pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE imo.
 * Diffs
 * Summary

That's all. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 14:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have instituted a partial block of for Talk:Fascism/FAQ. I have also warned them that if they repeat the behavior at other pages, they can be blocked site-wide.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Thank you, ! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

current events
Portal:Current_events/2020_March_4 do something about inserting "notoriously homosexual" ? 87.185.57.155 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the edits I see, I think this signals a WP:NOTHERE with RobertPaulsonn (all of their edits), so I'm pinging then in this edit and will place the traditional ANI notification template shortly. Steel1943  (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

For added good measure, he now stands accused in Sockpuppet investigations/RandomAccount1235423. Favonian (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just block them, they're clearly an LTA/sock and their edits indicate they are not here for anything good, including giving out fake block notices. Favonian, the fake admin notices are grounds for a block, no? Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed RobertPaulsonn. SPI has a separate board. Materialscientist (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Corona virus disruptive editor
I just semi-protected Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data/South Korea medical cases due to an IP -- -- repeatedly reverting edits. (It's late for me, so I did little more than count 3 reverts, but this may involve as many as 20 reversions.) I've dropped a warning on the talk page of the editor in question.In brief, while the situation has been handled for the moment it looks like everything related to the coronavirus epidemic could benefit from at least one more set of eyes. (Panic shopping at supermarkets is not the only side effect of this uncontrollable medical event.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The virus page is also unprotected again, but not doing very well on its first day—mostly editors trying to add a variety of different nicknames involving Wuhan or China, whether or not they are in widespread use. Dekimasu よ! 11:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have blocked both the IP and the editor for 24 hours, following the report of this issue at WP:AN3, as both reverted each other many more than three times. And it looks like a straight content dispute over what to include in the template, rather than disruptive or vandalistic editing by the IP. There is a short discussion already started on the talk page, but that needs to be continued there rather than the two parties warring over it.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal and Harassing Attacks
It has just come to my attention that a Wikipedia has been slandering me behind my back, if you wish to make allegations could you perhaps try to display some level of decency by telling the accused of the allegations? It is highly offensive to discover that Wikipedia has seen fit to covertly add this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Daeron slander to chronic harrassment I have had to endure since becoming an obcession of User:Wik and User:Merbabu. FYI it took all of thirty seconds to discover that the IP address that I am being accused of using for abusive behaviour, is based in Brisbane; I do not and have never lived in Brisbane. Nor did the talk-page edit that I found leading to this allegation behind my back, appear to be anything other than a reasonable suggestion to which User:Merbabu appears to taken covert offence on which he has acted. In 2004 I said Wiki appeared to be a good use of php and other technology, but within twelve months the ugly head of bigotry rose not simply because I knew something about the subject I was writing about, but because 99.9% of people want to look the other way when ever the alleged racial superiority of Causian and Asian people over African and Melanesia people has come into play; and for fifteen years Wikipedia's unwillingness to address this systemic facilitation of biggoted behaviour has made the platform the throughly unpleasant platform that it has become.Daeron (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The edits in question were made 10 years ago, added those sock templates in 2010.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  02:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's much more likely to be a blunder than an attack. My guess is that Merbabu got confused when creating categories and tagging and used the wrong user name. Assuming no one can give a reason to keep the category, I suggest deleting Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Daeron and removing all occurrences of  (for example, at User:58.107.10.36). I will notify Merbabu about this discussion but User:Wik has been blocked since February 2005 and their last edit was in May 2004. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've notified Merbabu about this thread, which is a requirement when posting a discussion here about another user. Unless there was a good reason at the time, I don't think it is appropriate for that category to exist, as you were never blocked and it's unclear whether edits by those IP addresses were ever abusive in violation of WP:SOCK.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Pft - the dates are 10 years ago. I've recently returned to wikipedia after perhaps a 5 year break. So it seems I suggested a user was a sock puppet. To look at it in detail would be a waste of my time...but I suspect it wasn't a typo on my behalf, rather I would not have done so without reasonble cause. Does checkuser work on edits made 10 years ago?
 * As for User:Daeron, as i recall, he was a one-issue editor that didn't like it if people had a different idea on how wikipedia should be written. I think his post above says enough. "Personal and harrassing attacks" indeed - with his accusations of biggotry and racial supremacy...I think Daeron's behaviour is more the issue.
 * goodnight --Merbabu (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fairly sure it was not was not a case of wrong username. This [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:122.106.230.171&diff=382422823&oldid=377964047] seems to suggest it was a genuine belief to me. I mean Merbabu could have just remembered the wrong name when posting that too but I think when people make such messages they tend to get the right username. The fact that AFAICT, Merbabu seems to have tagged usernames based on edits a few years old in some instances would be another sign of this. I make no comment as to the correctness of the claim since I don't know the editor involved. However the IPs would never be publicly linked to an account by CU data no matter the age, so are a moot point here. I don't think "I've never lived in Brisbane" is particularly relevant here. Geolocation can be inaccurate. More importantly, current geolocation of IPs used 10 to 15 years ago may be inaccurate for that period even if accurate now. ISPs need to adjust their management especially with the spread of mobile broadband, IPv4 exhaustion etc. I mean these IPs could even be belong to some ISP outside Australia 10-15 years ago although that's probably not that likely.  About the socking issue, editors editing from IPs is always a complicated one. However generally speaking, if an editor persistently edits the same articles, and especially if they get into disputes with the same editors [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:58.107.15.245&diff=prev&oldid=105020041] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarwo_Edhie_Wibowo&diff=prev&oldid=105216580] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Merbabu&diff=prev&oldid=95312955], without ever making their connection to their account known, it starts to become a problem. And even though this is ancient history now and no one would care, if an editor comes along and actively disclaims responsibility for those edits, that seems to be evading scrutiny if not true, even now. This [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Adam_keller&diff=prev&oldid=104721471] would also be an ancient sign of the same problem if it is an edit made by Daeron and the name "Andrew" was not widely associated with the name "Daeron". (Beyond simply making so many edits to the same articles and getting into disputes involving the same editors without declaring their connection.)  P.S. While researching this, I came across [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_New_Guinea&diff=prev&oldid=73575270]. I did not recall any interaction with either Daeron or the IPs while writing most of this message.  Nil Einne (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is particularly interesting to me [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal&diff=prev&oldid=104778398]. Unlike Merbabu and others the IP got into disputes with who were active so it's possible possible their experiences were recent, Wik had evidently been long banned or blocked by 2007. So that they are being brought up Wik means it's some editor with a significant history when Wik was still active. This [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chairboy&diff=prev&oldid=109038491] also supports that view. This suggests an even longer history [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chairboy&diff=prev&oldid=109028187]. There's of course nothing wrong with someone editing with IPs in general and many of us did it before creating an account. But as I said, it is problem if you persistently use IP to edit the same articles which you do as an account, especially if you get into disputes with the same editors, in a manner that may lead people to believe you are a different editor.  The nature of IPs means it's possible that not all of those IP's edits were from the same editor. Also even if some of the IP's were used by a certain editor, it doesn't mean they all were. But I repeat my earlier comment, that especially after 10 years, no one really cares. So I'm not sure if it's wise to make a big deal over any possible misidentifications unless you're sure all were misidentifications.  In other words, while it's up to User:Daeron, I would just drop this.  Nil Einne (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne: But why should there be a sock category for Daeron when they have been blocked once only (in January 2005 for a 3RR problem). There is no SPI page: Sockpuppet investigations/Daeron. I think a speedy delete of the sock category should occur, and the tags should be removed. I looked at a couple of your links but I must be missing something because I can't see the connection with Daeron. Re whether it was an error or not, I have done some spectacular copy-paste blunders on- and off-wiki—you write a message and hit Ctrl-V to insert the name so you only need to get it wrong once. At any rate, it is not reasonable to keep sock pages just because someone "suspects" socking when the target (Daeron) has had no significant block and is not mentioned at SPI. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * to be clear, I have no idea if the IP is Daeron. I explicitly said I was not commenting on that aspect since I do not know about the history of Daeron. My main points were 1) If that IP was Daeron, it's hard to say it wasn't abusive sockpuppetry since they were extensively editing the same articles and getting into disputes with the same editors, to the extent of maliciously modifying comments left by other editors and also signing with a name that wasn't Daeron in at least one instance.  2) Whoever was behind that IP was clearly an experienced editor.  3) Daeron should consider carefully whether they want to go down the route of disavowing all those edits. Normally no one would care about edits made 10 - 15 years ago. But if you come here now in 2020 to claim abusive edits were not yours when they were, then it becomes a problem now. If Daeron is certain that all those edits were not theirs, then fine. If not, it seems a bad idea to me since if anyone bothers to look into it it may become a problem for you now.  As for the rest, I make no comment, but I'm fairly sure it's not unheard of. The ideal process may not have been followed, but there are so many things like that. And again, no one would normally care about something 10-15 years ago, unless you make them care.  Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. As for the wrong username issue, while it's not impossible, I still find it exceedingly unlikely. Again it's one thing to accidentally copy and paste the same user name when identifying suspected socks including socks which haven't edited in several years. It's another to post a personal message nearly a month later asking that editor why they are socking. Especially when the that user name is so short. Maybe I'm unusual in this regard, but if I am writing something nearly a month later, it's based on something in my mind rather than simply something that I copied and pasted. In other words, it means a genuine belief in my part based on an ongoing pattern I'm seeing and familiarity with the editor's history. It's not just because I see a tag I placed and go 'well it must be true since I wrote that even though I see no similarities'. I probably am not even going to copy and paste the name, I'll just write it out. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. If anyone does want to look into this: Although I still make no comment on any connection between Daeron and the IPs, beyond the similarities in edited articles and users they were in dispute with, I also noticed both seem to make typos or spelling errors. Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Final comment I promise. I forgot to mention that IMO, this is one area where saying too much may be more harmful than helpful. If this thread was started simply as a question over whether the process used by Merbabu was correct given the details, and what should happen if not, then concerns are far less likely to arise especially given the age. Frankly I still wouldn't have bothered anyway since I suspect few would have come across that stuff, but still a better way to handle things IMO is to not bring up unnecessary questions by defending yourself if it isn't really necessary unless you have looked into those IPs and contribs enough to be sure they aren't you. (And personally, investigating whether some 10-15 year old IP was me seems a lot of wasted effort.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Andybasil
The user refuses to formally declare his COI or stop editing EIFA International School London in violation of WP:COI and WP:PAID despite my Welcome-COI notice on the user's talk page and his admission that his wife works for the article's subject in this edit. See also the discussion at User talk:Jeff G.. — Jeff G. ツ 01:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit early to say that he refused to do anything. He asked for help, which seems to indicate a willingness to comply with our policies once they've been explained.  331dot looks to have explained the situation, so maybe we should see what happens next. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't refused to do anything!? I don't have a conflict of interest. I just wanted to learn how to use wiki and chose a subject matter I know something about. I've been transparent and honest. Why would I attempt to write about something I have no knowledge of? I also edited a Jaguar cars page but have noticed that has been deleted.. so I guess ths is all a learning curve. Frankly I'm very annoyed that jeff has taken this aggressive attitude towards me. Please delete the EIFA edits as you see fit. As for me, this is not the friendly environment I hoped it was and want nothing more to do with wiki editing, if this is the result. Jeff, grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybasil (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts. I'm sorry if I was unclear or overly strong in my use of the word "refuses". You claimed that c:File:Eifa International School London.jpg was your "own work" when you cross-wiki uploaded it for use here. What gave you the right to make that claim, and to license the file freely?  — Jeff G. ツ 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. I would sign my posts if I knew how to so kindly stop pointing out my errors without also providing the solution 2. I quote; "You claimed that c:File:Eifa International School London.jpg was your "own work" when you cross-wiki uploaded it for use here".. Yes, and I also ASKED for help, BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE WHAT I WAS DOING. Condemning people who make mistakes, especially new 'editors' who realise they have made a mistake and ASK for help, is not clever and not acceptable. You clearly wouldn't talk to me in person with that attitude so why should the anonymity of the internet be any different? There is enough abuse and rudeness floating about the internet as it is, without displaying it on a site such as Wiki. As a result of this unfortunate turn of events, I am remaining a 'member' only so long as this 'conversation' has breath to continue, after which time I shall cancel my account and resume life in the real world. Please, consider your tone, your response and the consequence of your accusational attitude. Hopefully I have even discovered how to sign this post.. User:Andybasil


 * Not sure what you mean by "cancel my account", that's not possible, accounts can't be deleted. TheAwesome  Hwyh  19:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. When I don't know what I'm doing, I don't do it. Has that somehow gone out of style? The lack of personal responsibility here is reprehensible. Yes, our help systems need improvement. But bottom line, if you cannot accept responsibility for your own actions, you're not mature enough to participate in a collegial project like this. John from Idegon (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ..and this is what I'm talking about. Your post is once again antagonistic and unnecessary. making assumptions over my 'maturity', questioning my actions etc.. bottom line, I was experimenting, made a mistake, asked for help and was met with abuse. If I can't cancel my account I can simply choose not to use it! What's the difference? What's your point.. other than to throw your hat into the ring and join in the bullying. Posts from Jeff and now yours just reinforce my growing opinion that wiki is being administered by a bunch of rather petty, small minded, anally retentives, more interested in lambasting new 'members' over minor misdemeanors than actually providing assistance. If you really want to continue with this fruitless attack you feel free and fill your boots. I'm logging out. (Andybasil (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC))
 * Descending into ad-hominem personal attacks can get you blocked here; I suggest you strike them out like this . Your signature worked, aside from a superfluous set of parentheses. Did you design the school's new logo? Did you snap the photo of Isabelle Faulkner which you tried to upload?  — Jeff G. ツ 11:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Jeff. As I've already stated I would prefer to cancel my account than continue on with this abuse, though have been told I can't actually cancel my account, so I would be very grateful if you would block me please. That at least will put paid to your repeated attacks. You are obstinately missing the point - in that I requested help, not a telling off from some anonymous pompous arse such as yourself. So please, I say again.. do your worst, block me.. it really won't spoil my life. I realise wiki is not the place for me and I have no wish to become as petty-minded as you have proven to be. Amazes me you can't see the irony in describing my posts as ad-hominem personal attacks. Anyway, I sincerely hope I've 'personally attacked' you more than enough to warrant blocking me.(Andybasil (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC))
 * Jeff G is not an administrator Special:UserRights/Jeff_G. so they cannot block you. Even if they were an admin, they're potentially too involved to block you. Others here could block you, but frankly if I were an admin I don't know if I would bother. If you really no longer wish to edit here, it would be far simpler to simply stop editing. I'm not sure why there's any reason to complicate things so much when you have a simple solution that does not require action from anyone else. BTW, when you want help, it's generally ineffective to insult and yell at anyone and everyone in sight. This applies to much of the world, and not simply the English Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree it's ineffective to insult and yell however, my original request for help was perfectly civil. It was Jeff's response and subsequent replies that have irritated me. I object to being treated somewhere between a naughty child and a petty criminal. As I've just mentioned in a different post, I wanted to try editing 'something'. I scanned through many pages connected with my life and knowledge and came across the school page, found it to be out of date so decided to give it a go. True I failed to read up on Wiki policy BUT, I realised I was making mistakes and asked for help. What I received from Jeff cannot be construed as such. Best. (Andybasil (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC))
 * I was trying to help you and the WMF to avoid costly litigation by respecting content creators' rights, and to maintain Wikipedia's standards. I'm sorry I was so blunt in doing so.  — Jeff G. ツ 07:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not planing to look into the history here so I can't comment on the specifics of how you were treated. However Wikipedia has a big problem with editors being paid to edit articles who refuse to declare their connection, even lying about it, and who make a big mess because the articles they write are utterly crap. Such editors waste a great deal of volunteer time, and to be clear, since there a lot of them the problems they create for wikipedia are not simply minor. They harm wikipedia an incredible amount. So plenty of us have zero tolerance for such editors. While inexperienced editors often also have problems, at least most of them are here to help built an encyclopaedia, in other words, their hearts are in the right place. Further, because they are here for the right reasons, most of them can over time learn how to be good editors producing good work. So many experienced editors here are willing to spend their time helping such editors, and we can better tolerate the problems they cause  Because of the great similarities between the initial outputs of these two sort of editors, it's often difficult to tell them apart. So well meaning editors are sometimes unfortunately caught in the cross-fire. Because of the risk of misidentification, we do try to to deal kindly with editors suspect of a COI, but it a very tricky area. and unfortunately, there is no simply solution to such problems. Despite our TOU and occasionally legal action by the foundation, and also the Streisand effect on some occasions for those paying, it's very hard to stop those who are destroying Wikipedia for money.  As for the copyright issue, I in part agree and in part disagree with Jeff G. In reality, the chance of any lawsuit over a logo copyright against the WMF is likely to be slim. However, we are here to create a free encyclopaedia. We have some allowance of non-free content which is clearly marked as such. For many of us, our free content goal is an important one, and a key part of it is ensuring that any content which is marked as free is indeed free. Unfortunately plenty of editors have a very poor understanding of copyright. While there is always tolerances of mistakes by editors, copyright is an issue we don't mess around with, in part because of the legal risks but in big part also because of the harm it does to our free content goals. Therefore editors who do make mistakes on copyright issues need to quickly learn, or they will be restricted.  Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the response. In my case I did 'rush ahead' to edit but once I realised I was getting things wrong I asked for help, not aggression. I was also transparent with Jeff. I explained my wife worked for the school in I believe, my first response to Jeff. I think it must be pretty obvious I'm not a 'professional' wiki editor, with so many rookie errors and so on. I have had a wiki account for some time and never had the time to use it until now. In choosing my first page to edit, I looked through many pages connected to my interests, people and companies I know, including the school page - because my wife worked there - and I saw it was completely out of date and decided to use the page as my first attempt at editing. There was no COI as far as I'm concerned, as I neither sought permission from the school nor requested payment. I saw it was wrong and decided to have a go at putting it right. I really have no objection to being told when I get things wrong and will seek to rectify, but I strongly object to being treated disrespectfully and abruptly by Jeff (and John). Thanks again (Andybasil (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC))

Continued disruptive/WP:CIR editing despite multiple warnings and blocks
94.175.199.138 seems to be a hopeless WP:CIR case. Looks like a static IP, same type of edits to British children's TV show articles, mostly adding/linking actors' names (usually incorrectly), on and off over the past year. The IP has already been blocked four times last year for disruptive editing and for creating talk pages for non-existent articles. Today they created ten more (now deleted).

It looks like they also edit from some mobile dynamic IP numbers in 92.40.174.0/24 and 92.40.175.0/24, though it doesn't look like a block would be possible there. Compare:, , , ; and , , , , etc. --IamNotU (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I blocked 94.175.199.138 and deleted the eligible pages. Regarding those two ranges; /24 ranges aren't that big (256 IPs each); there's definitely more bad than good that I see at a glance.  Partial block might be tricky due to the wide breadth of articles targeted. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can also see some blatant vandalism in those ranges, not sure if it's one person or more, but I don't think it's from this person. This one is just focused on the children's shows, especially Mr. Bean, and Thomas the Tank Engine, Team Umizoomi, etc. The edits are mainly haphazardly adding redlinked names of actors. I just noticed them also in 92.40.170.0/24, which was rangeblocked a few days ago. I looked through the whole 92.40.* and didn't see them anywhere else. Maybe a short rangeblock on those would be good then, though it's already been a few days for the one, and a couple of weeks for the other, so maybe a bit late. --IamNotU (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Mild edit war on Ellington, Connecticut with canvassing from Reddit
Sorry I haven't edited WP in years so I don't remember all the exact terminology/procedures, but there's a slow-motion edit war brewing at Ellington, Connecticut over whether to include the [crime of some very low-level official] with some canvassing from Reddit [] ("Id say create a bandwagon of people willing to edit the wikipedia page to where it needs to be everytime the stuff gets hidden. MAKE it stay"). Just wanted to let you guys know in case in needs some temp protection. SheepNotGoats (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow. As an actual Connecticut resident who's been to Ellington, even people in Connecticut almost never care about that town. I'll keep an eye on it. Anyone for a WP:LAME entry? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping an eye on it. I have no dog in this fight and just stumbled across this while browsing Reddit, but I find it amusing they think some volunteer ambulance worker is a "highly important official" that an entire town would conspire to protect. I could maybe understand including him in the article if it were the mayor or something, but honestly many small towns have a sex offender who turns out to have worked in some public facing position (I can literally think of two off the top of my head from my own rural town that were discovered in the last couple of years). We don't list them in every town's article. SheepNotGoats (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, exactly. I mean, this is the state that had no less a corrupt slug monster than John G. Rowland for governor, a nobody in a nowhere town there is totally insignificant in an article like this. Definitely good work on your part keeping it out. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if the material should be revdel'ed. It is sourced, but not to very strong sources, and it makes serious accusations as if they are fact. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't forget about Joe Ganim! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, gotta love our biggest city. Sometimes I just can't with this state... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a reaction to the statement you guys made from the person who made the reddit post. I notice I did something bad to this community and I'll say my part. I'm sorry. I didn't know better. I was honestly just concerned and I freaked out too much. I wasn't trying to raise a lynch mob, I stated I wanted to have support on what to do but it backfired as people came here. Even I stated in the Reddit thread I only wanted advice and I never added more. But that was not enough. I should have blurred out the IPs and names. I've already deleted everything regarding it so no people attract more attention from that. I didn't mean to raise a mob one bit, but the internet is a crazy place and someone wanted to boycott it and get people to bring more people here to keep it in here or something. That too, I didn't mean to conspiracy monger. I used cover up because I didn't have better english to use, I meant to say they removed it and it was bad. It violated trust a bit for them to do that to this and it felt like a slap on the wrist for any of the people who were abused by him. The person who said "Make it stay" I did not endorse either, I just said "I'll contact the mayor" and nothing else. I hope you guys don't put this on WP:LAME, because I honestly didn't mean for it to get this way. Of course being a human I have my misunderstandings. It is your choice though I guess. I would quote the reddit post on my wording on why I didn't want to start a "edit war" and just wanted advice, but I already deleted it and I just deactivated my reddit account because of the damage I caused. I'm sorry, I will research more on many things and I will admit the tone of the edit I put back in from another user was a bit biased.

...Or you can be like me and run for office IRL in Connecticut to shed light onto the issues you care about (Just make sure to leave your political agenda at the door here, though!). In terms of disruption, this wasn't the worst by any means either way. Lessons learned, and I hope to see you around on Wikipedia soon! &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think an edit war will start now. I deleted everything on that Reddit thread.
 * Chennai94 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing all that from Reddit. Please don't be too hard on yourself and consider finding productive ways to contribute to the Encyclopedia!

adding "Pogrom" to a riot in Delhi, India
Situation in Delhi, Inida are kind of violent right now, and there is an edit war going on at the relevant wikipedia article regarding this. This notice is regarding including "pogrom" to this incidence. Some editors are engaging in edit-war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#This_is_not_a_pogrom for the talk page.

Please advise. Crawford88 (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Stop edit warring. Keep discussing on the talk page until you come to WP:consensus. If you fail, use some form of WP:dispute resolution (and ANI is not part of that). Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

BLP, IDHT issues


While patrolling, I came a across an edit I saw as a BLP violation, since accusations were being leveled based on an opinion piece on an activist website, which did not actually level that accusation. I reverted, reverted again and started a discussion on the TP. User: AzureCitizen concurred and reverted again. I reported the issue at BLP/N and hoped for the best. I also reverted one of their edits at Perfluorooctanoic acid per WP:OVERLINK, which was promptly reverted.

Responses have been a) a veiled accusation of me working for DuPont, ditto for AzureCitizen, calling me “arrogant”], accusing me of “not engaging in dialogue”, aspersions that AzureCitizen is a sock puppet account of mine. The BLP issue still stands, and the editor is currently at 4RR, but it’s the behavior I find troubling. Kleuske (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked him for 1 month for edit warring, BLP violations, and general tendentious behavior.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Incheon International Airport Terminal vandalism
This users change the image on infobox on the Incheon International Airport Terminal 1 Station and Incheon International Airport Terminal 2 Station using this  i keep revert his edits how many times.
 * Not an admin: I reverted, gave a final warning to the user, and put in a RPP for the pages. Thanks for reporting this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Found that user spamming that image on kowiki as well, after looking into it further. Tagged it for speedy deletion on Commons and reverted the kowiki vandalism as well. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just quickly noting that was blocked for 1 month by . OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI Report for Cdneh95
I am here to start a ANI against Cdneh95 for doing a WP:3RR deliberately (1) and other disruptive behavior. The disruptive behavior was noted by numbers of editors, but seems to be ignored by page blanking. 2 3 I seek a preventative measure against user. The ongoing chaotic behavior was noticed by ,, and. The user was blocked by before for edit warnings. 4. 5 blocked the user even earlier (May 2019).Regice2020 (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Regice2020, the user is allowed to revert/remove other people's edits on their own talkpage as many times as they like, if that is what you mean. If you mean their article edits, please note that several reverts in a row, without anybody else editing in between, only counts as one revert. Also, thank you for reporting, but if you have a complaint about edit warring again, the noticeboard WP:AN3 is the best place for it. This place, ANI, is indeed the right place to report disruptive editing, but you'd need to provide specific diffs and descriptions of the behavior. In other words, please tell us what's disruptive about it. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC).
 * Its for both disruptive behavior and edit warnings. I would assume the user would not get in anymore trouble after learning the lesson in 2nd block. After 2nd block expired, the user jump back into trouble again Diff. This user been noted for sourcing issues 1 2 (not being collaborative) 3. The user proceed on disruptive behavior by reverting back without giving a source. 4. The belt was already vacated long time ago, but the specific user cant accept it. Regice2020 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * * On topic comment It continues. Considering he always blank the talk page. It will be difficult to connect with the user. Waiting for a admin to response to this issue. Regice2020 (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

_
 * Regice2020, who do you mean when you say "we"? You should not be talking on behalf of anyone except yourself, so "I" is the appropriate pronoun. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that Regice2020 changed "we" to "I" in without striking or replying here, thus making this question look meaningless. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of an aside that is not relevant to the main issue here
(And, as an aside, why is it that people who edit articles about martial arts seem to be unable to resolve issues in the normal way by consensus on talk pages?) Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "as an aside, why is it that people who edit articles about martial arts seem to be unable to resolve issues in the normal way by consensus on talk pages?". That is uncalled for. If you have a specific complaint to make, provide examples. Generalised unfocussed accusations will get you nowhere and may reduce your credibility. Narky Blert (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely uncalled for. This report is not about content dispute, but a user lesson not being learned after being blocked 2nd time. The WP:DISRUPT behavior can be seen in Wikipedia pages, not just MMA. That is the reason why the disruptive editing page was created just for that reasoning. Regice2020 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the small comment you made at end. Was that even necessary? Regice2020 (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No comment is absolutely necessary, but I think it was relevant. How about answering the substantive, normal type, question? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your reaction, but i am currently focusing on that small comment you made. What is the real reason you decided to add that small comment? Regice2020 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I share Phil's frustration with the inability of both editors to work it out (his comment is appropriate). And I am not seeing any major disruption to the project. So I would also ask why are we here? Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The answer to Phil's question is that these editors -- like editors in the pro wrestling, video game, and classical opera topic areas -- lack cultural role models displaying skill in nonviolent conflict resolution. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The real reason that I added that comment was simply that I see lots of disputes over articles about mixed martial arts being brought here, in sharp distinction with their real-world importance. As I said below, I don't remember any dispute about boxing being brought here, and it is very rare for much more important issues, such as international conflicts that involve wars leading to very many deaths, to be brought here. Something is failing in our dispute resolution processes for articles in some areas that most people regard as comparatively trivial, and I simply asked the question of what that is. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there are subject areas where regular editors seem to constantly cause problems that uninvolved people have to solve. Sometimes it's admins handing out sanctions, sometimes it's RFCs where people with no expertise weigh in, and sometimes it's stuff getting elevated to ANI or other noticeboards. When a topic's biggest editors always seem to be fighting, the topic itself can turn toxic. Some users who frequent locales where disputes get settled get driven absolutely up a wall when they see the same stuff over and over and I think we're seeing that in this thread.


 * Any user saying something like what Phil said surely didn't do so for evil reasons. He has a right to be frustrated by a recurring problem. But strongly implying that there's something specific and inherent regarding that topic that makes it a problem is not a good look. (See also the comment above mine, where an editor who absolutely knows better bemoans a lack of "cultural role models" with regards to martial arts.) Phil isn't taking your concern seriously because you're not explicitly spelling out what you're obviously getting at. So I'll try.


 * martial arts is, by and large, a topic area whose key BLPs are almost all about non-white people. Similarly, most martial arts were created, developed, and mastered mostly if not entirely by non-white people. Did you mean to say that you think martial arts is a contentious topic because, culturally, it's primarily non-white? Assuming you wouldn't be caught dead in hell actually answering "yes," will you, next time, take a minute to think about how what you're saying comes off? You're working to portray most heavy contributors at a mostly non-white topic area in a uniformly negative light. It's not because you're racist but surely you can see how, like I said, it's not a good look. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * That is rubbish and rot. That you took to the time to articulate that nonsense is alarming. I hope you will put yourself in the corner for a timeout. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Notice how I managed to evenhandedly offend non-whites (martial arts), rednecks (wrestling), hipsters (video games) and, of course, snobbish Eurotrash (opera) all at once. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are teaming with talent in your brevity, EEng - clearly a plus if you ever decide to run for president in the US. SMirC-angel.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 17:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I personally have no talent so I try to team with it when I can. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Expand your horizons, WP:GLOBALIZE. Narky Blert (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop blerting things out. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To start with, I certainly didn't expect so many responses to the question that I asked in a small aside, but Wikipedia discussions often throw up the unexpected. I was a bit sloppy in my wording, because the problem seems to be particularly with articles about mixed martial arts and professional wrestling rather than, for example, traditional East Asian martial arts and, more relevantly in the light of later postings, boxing. Boxing is a martial art that, in recent decades in the Anglophone West, has seen a disproportionate number of black people at the top level, and I am not aware that there is any great difference in the number of positive role models that it has thrown up between it and mixed martial arts. So why have I never seen an article about boxing being brought to this noticeboard but regularly see articles about mixed martial arts? This difference doesn't seem to be explained by either 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724's or EEng's responses to my question, which was a genuine, rather than rhetorical, one. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam
User repeatedly engages in personal attacks and shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors. Responded to a merger I proposed at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders with this remark, threatening a misuse of ANI and failing to acknowledge a distinction between a deletion review and a merger discussion. Also, continues to make combative taunts. Made an unfounded accusation of tagteaming and "trolling" over a content dispute at an ANI thread. There are probably many more examples, but this should be enough to justify a warning. Edit: Note that user has been previously temp blocked for personal attacks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The section up this page was closed to stop the bickering. Please don't start again.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User has continued to make taunts on other article talk pages after the discussion was closed (see diffs above). These are uncalled for and should stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Making a personal attack, followed by restoring the personal attack after it was replaced with npa. --WMSR (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's not a personal attack. This editor has an issue with identifying personal attack. Removing my comment is disruptive and might get you blocked if repeated.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't threaten me. You were taunting another editor. --WMSR (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't start again. Huh, maybe you should have dealt with it, then, instead of sweeping it under the rug. --Calton &#124; Talk 06:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sharab's comments were taunting, thus could warrant a short block. But that's not gonna fix the underlying issue: Sharab and Wikieditor are deadlocked in a drawn-out struggle over Bernie Sanders (Is this what BernieBros are?)  and can't seem to get along. Not sure what the next step is here. An IBan? Topic bans? I think a close of the thread above involving WikiEditor might go a ways to help solve this mess. I'm dissapointed to see Sharab at ANI...again. A perusal of the archives shows that Sharab has been at the noticeboards an awful lot over the last few months. So to Sharab: please remember to keep cool headed, and civil at all times. If you can't discuss an issue calmly, please seek outside help. Dispute resolution is an excellent tool. Please use it. If you can't, you may find yourself with an American politics topic-ban, or worse.  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , When was the last time I was reported in an ANI thread? The OP has a thread above which I added some links to where he made comments under each vote in AfD, review deletion and RfC. He doesn't have disagreements with, he is probably following me after I reverted him in Jeremy Corbyn article and his ANI thread.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also what's this comment about "Berniebros"? I am not even American!. I don't know where are the civility issues with me but your comment is absolutely insulting and warrants a short block.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Don't play coy, you know very well: you were at reported at ANI twice in the last month;, . You also brought two, rather spurious, claims just two months ago , showing that you were already not making good use of dispute resolution and instead running to the "drama boards". I'm not sure what you mean about you and WikiEditor not having a disagreement, it seems plain that you are disagreeing about Bernie Sanders. Correct me if I am wrong, but WikiEditor wants Media coverage of Bernie Sanders deleted, and you don't, which has culminated in an ANI thread. I would call that a disagreement.
 * As to your last point, I see my attempt at levity has backfired, I will remove the comment. You might wish to learn a lesson from my action: when someone suggests that you may have been in the wrong, more often than not, they are right, and you might wish to follow their suggestions, such as striking an alleged NPA, even if you think it isn't. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * These petty civility issues are not the problem. The problem is the war over the article, putting staunch advocates of deletion against supporters of keeping the topic. The former have engaged in relentless trimming of sourced text and repeated attempts at deletion or merger, despite overwhelming consensus to this point that the article is warranted. That consensus may change perhaps after enough supporters are topic banned or blocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the filer of this report also initiated a largely frivolous DRV link recently. At this point further efforts such as the merge discussion recently opened are disruptive. Responding to such repeated efforts can be frustrating and editors should be given a bit of leeway for that. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That DrV was opened in good faith and was not without any agreement in my position. This has nothing to do with edit warring. I partially agreed with a point SharabSalam made on talk page and implemented it in the article, even though I didn't like how he was arguing it. I've never been involved, that I can immediately recall, in edit warring or even extensive editing at Bernie Sanders-related articles. Several opposers to deletion suggested they didn't like the idea of "nuking" the article, but would be open to a merger. Maybe the merger discussion should've come first, but I don't see why that's disruptive now. That's why I also opened a section on the merger to field responses on it before formally proposing one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Hopefully, when Sanders either wins the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination or drops out of the race, this delete/keep dispute over the related Media coverage article, will come to an end. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pro tip: Starting an ANI section accusing another editor of personal attacks with the sentence "...(he) shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors" is not the brightest idea ever, especially just after you've written the following about them in another section on this page; " SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another". Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Bring on the Boomerang. This is a waste of everyone's time. I have reviewed all the diffs by OP and I dont see this worthy of ANI. You seem to have content disputes, Follow WP:DR. ANI cannot be used in attempts to sanction folks you disagree with. I suggest this thread be closed immediately and OP be warned for WP:BOOMERANG if he repeats this in future.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  11:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Boomerang See what the OP started with, he said that there is a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors. Also, he said that I failed to acknowledge the distinction between a deletion review and a merger when I said that there a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue with the editor who is starting a merge discussion after his deletion review (of the third deletion request) got denied. Indeed, there is a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue with the editor and he cited the same diff saying that I am "threatening to misuse ANI". Also he said that made a trolling accusation, I didn't make a trolling accusation, I said that reverting for typos might be trolling. You can't revert someone's work and say "contains typos". FWIW, the editor has made a clear accusation to me saying "SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another" and that I should not be allowed to make a comment here unless I am involved, he made that comment in an ANI thread which I was involved. After his accusation, he joined the discussion in the article against me and also requested a merge and he also filled a report against me. Sounds like clear harassment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how an issue can be misconstrued and then blanket bans suggested for all involved like candy. I have not bludgeoned any discussions nor, frankly, have I had any protracted disputes with about content. My interactions with him have been pretty limited, other than an ANI thread here that he's been piling onto. This was not about a content dispute. I can handle an editor disagreeing with my proposal. What I have a problem with, and what the diffs I provided in my report show, are personalized taunts directed at me on an article's talk page. Despite several editors on this thread dismissing SharabSalam's comments and characterizing my calling his behavior here immature as a "personal attack," the kind of remarks that brought me here are expressly prohibited by WP:NPA. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal
OK. Enough. Here's how we fix this:
 * Proposal: User:SharabSalam and Wikieditor19920 are placed under an indefinite interaction ban under the standard conditions of WP:IBAN. In addition, each user is also indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Bernie Sanders broadly construed, including editing any content or participating in any discussion anywhere on Wikipedia where Bernie Sanders is a subject.


 * Support as proposer. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you show me the reason why I would I get IBAN or a topic ban?. This is a ridiculous proposal --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The reasons on this page alone, including comments you've made here and links to diffs of comments you've made elsewhere, are legion and those who will vote on this matter below do not need me to repeat them. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a vague response. You need to show me what are the comments and why they are bad. I literally didn't editwar or made any policy violation edit.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an unduly harsh proposal. I've never had any issues editing at any Bernie Sanders-related articles to warrant any sort of sanction, let alone a topic ban. An IBAN will limit both of our ability's to make constructive edits to the project, which I believe SharabSalam is capable of the issues I raised here notwithstanding. I am willing to work with SharabSalam if they will stop the taunts and focus on content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too. I have never made any policy violation in any of these articles. Also, I am focusing on the content. You have made a merge proposal just two days after your deletion review of the third deletion request got denied. How is saying WP:NOTGETTINGIT a taunt here? Anyway, I also think I can work with you. At least we both agree that this proposal is unduly harsh.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * SharabSalam: It's shocking how fast you disproved your own statement. It took all of the width of a space character to do that.  You state "I am focusing on the content." and then immediately start a sentence with "You" and go on to discuss a user, and not content.  Perhaps that is some of the source of the problems you are having.  You make assertions you aren't doing something and then in the next breath you do it.  Consider that going forward, regardless of the outcome of this discussion.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support interaction ban: the endless talkpage fighting is unpleasant enough when it's just one of them, it's pointless and unending when both are involved. I am indifferent to the topic ban: for both users the behavior extends to any topic they touch, be it American politics, Middle Eastern politics, ..., and so banning them from one particular tiny part of that seems pointless. --JBL (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment above. There is lack of evidence that shows SharabSalam is behaving badly. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you support a one-way ban against WE19920? --JBL (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support that, although I think the editor is attacking me. What are the things that warrants a topic ban here? I have literally started getting involved in these discussions. I didnt editwar or made any non-policy based arguments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose as presented. --Please establish with specific evidence that each user has behaviourial issues regarding the other that isn't part of a general pattern of their behaviour with regard to every other user, and please establish that each user has violated content policies and/or behaviourial guidelines in the topic area that isn't part of a general pattern with their approach to all areas. Fault needs to be established on each user's part justifying each of the sanctions before I'll reconsider. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Usedtobecool. It's not necessary to assign blame before we decide that these behaviours are a timesink and they need to be contained. They certainly are a timesink and they certainly do need to be contained, but I think this specific proposal is the wrong container. A better solution would be some kind of throttle. I can see good grounds to restrict the number of discussion page posts that Wikieditor19920 can make in a 24 hour period, because, damn. I would also suggest a limit on the number of times they can reply to each other in a 24 hour period. The problem is not so much their edits as the fact that they're hurting the signal-to-noise ratio on talk pages and thereby drowning out other editors. —<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 15:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that these two editors are constantly bludgeoning discussions and bickering with one another (and others), is borne out by their behavior in this very thread. How about this: The first one of them to admit their part in this problem doesn’t get TBanned. (Only half kidding.) O3000 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had moderately decent success tamping down feuds by warning everyone on both sides that they would be blocked for 1 month for feuding the very next time they did anything remotely feud-like. A one month block for a personal attack, a one month block for frivolous AN/ANI reports, a one month block for broad baseless  accusations, a one month block for gravedancing... Not great success (this can be gamed like any other sanction), but moderately decent success.   The editors who are here just to feud get ID'd fairly quickly, because they can't seem to help themselves.  The editors who just got caught up in the heat of the moment get a wake up call and often stop.  Any support for that?  If not, Jayron's proposal seems like a good alternative, so I support both my suggestion and Jayron's suggestion, whichever gains more traction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also be fine with your suggestion. Anything which stops these kind of time-sinks and which also would serve as a way to discourage future time sinks.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't hand down the same restriction to both editors. Their behaviours aren't equivalent. Wikieditor19920 is bludgeoning discussion pages where SharabSalam isn't, or isn't noticeably.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , I would stop whatever this thing we are doing. But could you review what happened here? Yesterday, I was having a content dispute in Bernie Sanders article, an editor reverted another editor for "contains typos" then the other editor started making personal attacks and I was involved in that then Wikieditor19920 jumped into the discussion saying that I am biased and that I should not be allowed to make any comment here. Then after his discussion ended he went and made a revert in that article. Who do you think is the attacker here? Anyways, I have not made any policy-violation or any sort of editwar in that article, I have been discussing and basing my argument on policies and reliable sources.
 * Here is what the dispute of yesterday was about
 * So Chris Matthews from MSNBC compared Bernie Sanders victory to the Nazis takeover of France.Even CNN covered this story What is MSNBC's problem with Bernie Sanders?
 * Yesterday, I added the reason why this was a controversial comment: all sources say that the core reason this was a controversial comment is that Bernie Sanders is Jewish and his family were killed by the same people who Chris Matthews compared his Nevada victory to. And I have even noted this reliable source from Australia just to show that there is international coverage of this story Mr Sanders was born in New York to a family of Jewish immigrants from Poland. Many of his relatives were killed in Nazi death camps during the Holocaust.
 * Their argument for deleting this content kept changing from, this isnt Chris Matthews article to family of Bernie Sanders killed by Nazis is true of most people with Ashkenazic backgrounds and a deletion argument This is what happens when we have an article exclusively focused on a niche subject like "coverage of a candidate." This could be summed up in a paragraph or two at Bernie Sanders., I presume you're familiar with WP:NOTNEWS since you've cited it before. How do you feel that policy applies to a page like this?.
 * Anyways, I apologies if I caused some stress to other editors. I dont and didnt intend to do that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support Floquenbeam's suggestion as applied to WE19920, less strongly as applied to SS. --JBL (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Usedtobecool's reasoning. The "a pox on both your houses" approach is lazy and ineffectual. It won't solve anything, it just punishes editors for complaining too much. The reason there are so many complaints is because this article is an absolute dumpster fire, and it has spread to ANEW, ANI, AE, AFD, DRV, user talk pages and other article talk pages. As one who has been watching this article for some time now, I don't think that either Sharab or Wikieditor are at the core of the problem, and thus I don't think IBANing or TBANing them will make a difference to stability at that article. A real fix requires a careful and in-depth examination of evidence–evidence which takes a very long time to put together. I've started digging and have posted a few diffs in other venues; I know other editors have done the same and are continuing to prepare evidence for community review in some appropriate forum. I predict this will go one of two ways: either by the time the evidence has been collected, it will be stale, because the editors involved will have voluntarily cleaned up their act in response to these community grumblings. Or, they won't have cleaned up their act, and by the time the evidence is collected, it won't be stale, it'll be damning. We'll see which one happens. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I’ve had the opportunity to see both of these editors on pages I watch interact with each other, and with the editors in a particular topic area. And I’ll say that they’re both generally net positives for the encyclopedia, though occasionally problematic in certain topic areas, or in terms of certain behaviour. I’ve interacted with both of them, but only minimally. I will say that Sharab is very good at editing articles related to Yemen, and while there is a bit of intrinsic bias, it isn’t overriding or interfering with his editing. He does less good work in articles related to Israel and Palestine, Islam (though he’s been somewhat amenable there), and AmPol. As far as the latter, I think it’s mainly due to a lack of familiarity with the nuances of American Politics, which is perfectly understandable. I do think there’s a definite battleground mentality in certain topic areas, though. Likewise with Wikieditor. A certain degree of battleground mentality, but most of their edits and proposals are firmly within policy and generally based on reason. They edit in highly contentious areas where they’re likely to encounter entrenched editors though, and bludgeon the talk page. They’re both decent editors learning the ropes. I don’t think the sanction for either, is unreasonable. But I do think there needs to be less battleground behaviour, irrespective of whether they’re the ones trading barbs. I think Wikieditor was right to bring this up as well, as he has been on the receiving end a bit more, and Sharab isn’t providing the full context. But I’d urge both editors to just drop it, and be less reactive. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #2
A two-part proposal. (1) SharabSalam and Wikieditor19920 are restricted not to reply to each other more than once in a rolling 24 hour period, and (2) Wikieditor19920 is restricted to a maximum of three edits to each discussion page in a rolling 24 hour period, both restrictions to be lifted 90 days after implementation.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 21:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * An unbalanced and vindictive proposal. So I'm to be subjected to a severe three-month sanction for reporting a personal attack, and in-turn, the editor who made the personal attacks is let off with this "mutual restriction."
 * I'm not sure what entitles you to make a proposal for sanction as a non-admin, but your comments here are consistent in a) criticizing/punishing me based on vague innuendo and b) overlooking the blatant personal attacks by SharabSalam that were the basis of this report. This follows a content dispute between you and I over my recent AfD nom of the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders article, where you disagreed with my proposal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know why these "proposals" involve me at all. This seems a purely punitive measure for my filing this report, perhaps egged on by users who chimed in here and have personalized content disagreements with me in the past. SharabSalam, nor any user, is not permitted to make personal attacks in response to content suggestions, which is what occurred. My response consisted of a warning, and then a resort to ANI when the conduct continued. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , call it a sort of WP:BOOMERANG if you want. This case acc/ to me was trivial and should have been resolved at each other's user talk. It should not have been dragged to ANI, but you thought it was a good idea. So here we are.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  22:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that Marshall has suggested a milder sanction (albeit a tad difficult to follow). Your response is to suggest that they are doing this as retribution for a content dispute, which is not a good move IMO. I suggest less combative responses would work better. And anyone can make a proposal here. O3000 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , 1) your whole report here is a boomerang, you said I "threatened to misuse the ANI"? What does this mean? and the diff shows that I said This is probably a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue. I think I should note this in your ANI thread after you start again a merge proposal just days after your deletion review which you filled with comments under each vote and yet got denied and I didnt even participate. You also said that I "failed to acknowledge the distinction between a merge and a deletion", OMG, what does this mean? I failed to acknowledge? because I said that starting a merge proposal after a deletion review of the third deletion request is probably a WP:NOTGETTINGIT? Did any admin actually read Wikieditor19920 report?.
 * 2) The section diff I pointed out that an editor revert because of typos is absurd might be trolling, that's not a personal attack, I also wasn't talking to you nor that you were involved at that time.
 * 3) Then you added that I made a tag-team accusation, I didn't accuse you and I didn't make a direct accusation. I have also pointed out that the same editors who got involved were previously accused of tag-team also I didn't accuse you.
 * 4) You said I was blocked for a personal attack, yea, that was at my beginning times in Wikipedia, I said to an editor who has insulted me, to stop acting like "something insulting" and I appealed for unblock, the editor who insulted turned to be a sockpuppet. I am asking admins to actually review this editor report, its baseless.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support this appears innovative to me, is not hard to follow and most importantly isnt anything remotely draconian. Unless there are strong oppositions from SharabSalam and Wikieditor19920, I would support this and ask both to give this a try. These are much milder than TBANs or IBANs that will eventually come if the community starts loosing patience. Both editors are requested to use the extra volunteer time (saved by not replying to each other) in other more productive work elsewhere. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Perhaps you're familiar with WP:NPA, perhaps not, but I'll repeat again that SharabSalam's comments on that threat were clearly personalized taunts/jeers, and this was noted by myself and WSMR at the talk page, and additional users here at the ANI thread. SharabSalam's responses in the closed discussion above continued this pattern of personalized comments. SharabSalam has been banned for personal attacks before (see block history above). I have never been blocked for any such behavior (discounting a mistaken block that was immediately lifted and still shows up on my block log) and none of my participation here or anywhere else justifies a sanction. No editor is required to tolerate personal attacks and ANI is the appropriate forum for resolution of these issues. I resent that I've had to answer these kind of charges for filing an appropriate report and worry about the kind of precedent this sets.
 * Perhaps you would be fine with an editor making similar comments towards you following a content proposal. Maybe you wouldn't have filed a report. But that doesn't mean that other editors aren't within their right to do so, like I've done here, and it certainly doesn't mean they should be subject to punishment for it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I looked at your diffs again, Just to make sure I had not missed anything. No sir. You are way over reacting. Can you list the actual PAs that you are referring to ?  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  22:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The diffs are included in my report summary and you are free to scroll up and review them anytime, along with other editors' comments agreeing that they were personal attacks (which, indeed, another editor tried to strike, an attempt which SharabSalam reverted). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920: SharabSalam is the type of user who will pester me multiple times at an AFD to expound on my vote.
 * Wikieditor19920: SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another (prejudiced by past content disagreements/possible disputes with user) and should be wholly disregarded, and probably forbidden from commenting on threads unless they have a reason to be directly involved
 * Wikieditor19920: [SharabSalam] shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors.
 * This is all just in this page. Compare to what I said. And you have just accused the editor who made the proposal of being biased just because you had a disagreement with him..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , each of the improperly presented comment "excerpts" above are specific references to behavior originally supported by diffs or other context, and made at the appropriate forum (here). You should focus on providing diffs, as required, not disruptive higtqighting/other inappropriate formatting. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These are all on this page. Anyone can see them. And they are not supported by evidences, they also shows how you don't assume good faith which is also a personal attack if repeated, just like your accusation against the editor who started this proposal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support obviously. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem I have is that I see zero realization from Wikieditor19920 that they have any part in the problem. Without that, it’s difficult to see how behavior will change. Looks to me like a “deep end of the pool problem” as the articles are higtqy controversial. That’s not to say that SharʿabSalam, with a longer history and a block log, doesn’t also have responsibility here. But at least that editor is asking for a bit of guidance. I like to see some indication that there will be a change that won't bring us back here once again. And, timesink is a real problem and applies. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have said that I apologize if I have caused any stress to other editors and that it wasn't my intention to do so.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I observe with some amusement that these users' conduct in this very thread justifies my proposal as written. I know it's a novel idea, but I think tbans and ibans would be disproportionate. Neither of these editors is irretrievably disruptive. Both are congenitally incapable of stopping themselves from replying to each other, so the community needs to assist them to do so. Wikieditor19920's the more problematic because he can't stop himself replying to anyone.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , both of them have a right to defend themselves on an ANI thread about them. No defendant should be shamed for defending themselves.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  12:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agreed. They have the right to defend themselves. This' self-defence is taking over the board. It's not any individual edit that's problematic, it's the sheer volume of edits that's the issue here.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Something needs to be done. Where my proposal was adjudged too harsh, I think this one is a good start to calming things down for a while.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This may be relevant. If there are any global CUs or someone with advanced permissions on Wikivoyage, that may be helpful in getting to the bottom of that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing I've done justifies this kind of draconian talk page community sanction, and this proposal is only more unfair than the prior one in how completely unbalanced it is. Notice that SharabSalam has gone ahead and continued the very same behavior that I and others have justfiably pointed out as problematic here on this page., you remarked on this earlier, and I'd say your warning had little effect:
 * Here, opened a talkpage thread with a header specifically naming an editor and criticizing their edits in violation of WP:TPG, and again, focusing on an editor, not content.
 * Here SharabSalam reverted 10 edits by that same user with a short and largely unhelpful summary.
 * Continued commentary focusing on other editors, not content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When you say "I'm not doing anything wrong", when the wrong thing you are doing is "not disengaging from the situation with SharabSalam and backing away", you then (like he did in my comment you alude to) ALSO disprove yourself. If you want to make this sort of thing go away, stop making yourself the self-appointed SharabSalam investigator.  It's the repeated refusal to back away and disengage from him, including stopping trying to catch him doing something wrong and trying to play "gotcha!" which is THE PROBLEM everyone is trying to sanction you for.  You can't say "I'm not doing that" and then immediately with the next breath do that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use quotes when you are paraphrasing me, because that's not what I said. I said that there is no basis for this ridiculous proposed sanction against me (because that's essentially all it is), I never claimed perfection. Others have offered constructive feedback that I'm completely willing to consider going forward.
 * Further, I'm allowed to present evidence of the issue I raised in my report. I don't appreciate SharabSalam's remarks towards me, and I don't think that it contributes to a healthy talk page discussion when he does it to others. With those headers, the talk page looks like a war zone. Naming editors in headers is explicitly prohibited, (edit) and I pointed this problem out to the user previously when I had to change another problematic header they created. Perhaps as an administrator you should try to assume good faith, not just accusing me of being petty or selfish. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didnt know that talk headers should not contain a name of an editor. There was a lot of problems in that editor edits and I didnt know what would the title of that header be
 * , Which remarks I made against you?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, the two folk under discussion have made clear in this filing that they cannot make a point and then sit back – but must respond to every parry even when in view of the community as a whole. I don’t think much of IBans. I’ll not make a formal proposal. But, I think it would help both the project and the two editors if they were both TBanned from all articles under any DS for two months, giving them the opportunity to edit elsewhere, better familiarize themselves with the concepts of consensus, and how to gain such, while dealing with a less fraught environment. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reminder, Wikieditor19920 edited my comments in violation of WP:TPO. This editor can quote guidelines but refuses to obey them. Their entire goal on Wikipedia is making it a WP:BATTLEGROUND; while I have apologized and volunteered to take responsibility for my errors on ANI, in their mind they have never made a mistake, and never will. I'm not going to defend everything SharabSalam has done but judging by their contributions they have made Wikipedia better by helping build an encyclopedia; I cannot say the same about Wikieditor19920. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Seeing these two go at it makes clear that this is necessary. Personally, I think that the iban proposal would have worked better, so I tend to think that that was closed prematurely, but I guess this is sufficient. Worldlywise (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * —I think you should read WP:TALKNEW. We debated this at Talk:Religion in Israel. Here are diffs from that debate including one to my User Talk page., , , , , and this on my Talk page. And I just gave up. The section header now reads "A chart that is about religion". The simple rule of thumb is that section headings "should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." You suggested a section heading of "Chart that is actually about religion". I find that not quite neutral because whether or not nonobservant Jews have a "religion" is part of the question. In essence you are creating a section heading that provides an answer for an aspect of that which is being disputed, when all that is called for in a section heading is that it "indicate what the topic is". Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , how is thata non-neutral header? The chart was about religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm) and I was trying to solve that issue.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Then just write "religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm)". There's your section header, . It is one of many neutral headers. Shortly after another editor said "Replace with a chart that is actually about religion, not ethnicity" you changed the section header to "Chart that is actually about religion" from the entirely neutral section heading "Proposing a new chart". They are permitted to make that argument in Talk page discussion space but in my opinion you are not permitted to make that argument as a section header. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Innovative and fairly applicable to the situation, but too complicated to implement in practicality. I much prefer Floq's suggestion above in the first proposal (1 month blocks handed out to anyone who continues to push the envelope). This is seriously getting out of control. They're essentially flooding several talkpages/noticeboards with this immature behavior and apparently simply can not help themselves. We're not in primary school, and are expected to act like mature people with a goal of collaborating to build an encyclopedia. Waggie (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree; there's nothing overly complex about it. If you have the English comprehension, analytical skills and mature good judgment necessary to edit encyclopaedia articles, then you can certainly follow this restriction. And these users will police each other -- or they won't, in which case, the sanction has worked.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is seriously out of control and what would be helpful is if the people who realized this would support proposals that might improve the situation, rather than oppose them. (And if those proposals are inadequate, then at least there will be precedent for the idea that there is a problem and that something should be done about it.) --JBL (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * —disjointed communication is the antithesis of interaction. You are only partially correct when you say that we are looking for "proposals that might improve the situation". Shouldn't there also be interaction on this noticeboard? Should I be content with "Bus stop, how is thata non-neutral header? The chart was about religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm) and I was trying to solve that issue"? Is SharabSalam really interacting with me? What does it mean that they were "trying to solve that issue"? They changed a neutral section heading to a section heading that advanced a specific view about the topic being discussed. They changed the section header from "Proposing a new chart" to "Chart that is actually about religion". The first is neutral, the second advances a viewpoint on the very issue being discussed under that section heading. They chose to use the section header to advance their argument which in this instance happens to be that the term "religion" would not apply to nonobservant Jews. The question is valid, but need that question be touched upon in the section heading? I don't think so. It is not necessary that this question be addressed in a section heading, but SharabSalam does not seem to grasp this point—if I am to judge by their interaction with me on this noticeboard. Why did they change the section heading from "Proposing a new chart" to "Chart that is actually about religion"? WP:TALKNEW tells us: "Keep headings neutral: A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been spending too much of my life on ANI recently, so please stop tempting me to open a thread requesting that your topic ban be reinstated. --JBL (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's time that you stop showing up to stir the pot., You bring up a valid point, but I think enough has been said about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A measure of how entrenched the problems with your behavior are (and hence why restrictions are necessary): I first asked you to stop pinging me more than 10 months ago. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, you were right, I was wrong. Levivich (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment by SharabSalam I am going to self-impose ban on myself from making any type of comment in response to Wikieditor19920 in the politics or noticeboards area and if I violated I get a block with any duration that the admin thinks is appropriate, the ban will start as soon as this report get closed. I am not going to lose anything. Even if the other editor replied to my comments, I dont want to reply. I saw a comment above saying that we are flooding several talkpages/noticeboards.I never noticed this?. This is started just lately after some content disputes, I am not going to blame anyone, it doesnt actually matter to me. Since the community thinks I am annoying them with my interaction with the other editor I am willing to impose on myself a ban from making any type of comment in respone to Wikieditor19920 in the politics or noticeboards area. The self-imposing ban will start as soon as this report is closed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The problem is now apparently solved. It seems SharabSalam has a self imposed Iban. If anything changes we can find ourselves back here to revisit. Lightburst (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the problem is with WE19920, the problem is obviously not solved. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And the proof there is, which of the two editors has volunteered to step aside, and which hasn't? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out to Lightburst, that SharʿabSalam▼ has not proposed an WP:IBAN so it is inappropriate to claim that he did so. And I do agree with Mr. Vernon and JBL above.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  11:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Voluntary bans take effect only after they are logged by an administrator at WP:Editing restrictions, until then it's an unenforceable claim at best. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 14:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We all have memories. I take the editor at their word, that they will stop engaging. Solution for peace is offered and committed to by one party and we can revisit if there is disruption to the project. Lightburst (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose part 1 , at this point (though I was leaning support earlier), in light of Shar'ab's voluntary undertaking above and in preference to the proposal below. Levivich (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I keep flip-flopping. I'd support part 2 of this proposal (as well as Proposal 3 below), if there is no voluntary commitment forthcoming from 19920. S Marshall makes a good point that the problem extends beyond interactions with Shar'ab. I agree that part 2 of this proposal is maybe more complicated than it's worth, but at the same time, I hear what others are saying about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and not opposing proposals that may be better than nothing. I'm still holding out hope of a voluntary resolution, though. Levivich (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is my commitment, . I don't need SharabSalam to impose an IBAN on himself or any other form of restriction. All I ask is that a) he focus on content, not editors, and b) stop with the personal attacks, at me or anyone else. I, of course, commit to do the same, though I've made no personal attacks. If that occurs, I'd be thrilled to collaborate and edit with SS. Despite what some other editors in this thread believe, SharabSalam and I are not diametrically opposed on all content or locked in some dispute, and I find several of their proposals to be reasonable, though not always. I think that's the most satisfactory way to move forward. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , your definition of personal attack seem to be very wide and something I do not agree with. As I said above, I do not consider those diffs you presented here ANI worthy. It seems you do. There is a difference of opinion. Despite what you have said above, I feel that it is highly likely that during the course of interaction. you will again call a non PA by SharabSalam as a PA and drag him to ANI. Where you will use this thread as a justification for sanctions making mountain of a molehill.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  06:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Multiple objective and uninvolved editors here have already acknowledged and agreed with me that SharabSalam's remarks were taunts, and taunts are personal attacks, so I'm not going to try and persuade you on that issue. I agree this has become too drawn out, and I've provided what I believe are clear and reasonable guidelines on how I see a path forward. These punitive, one-sided sanctions against me that you and others have pushed for repeatedly and failed to get community support for has not brought any sort of productive resolution to this, so this is my proposal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposals are still ongoing, I would not rush to tag them as failed. If you think you have a better proposal feel free to present them as proposal 4, 5 etc. regards.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  06:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , my advice: it's well past WP:1AM; get a good night's sleep, come back tomorrow, re-read this thread. Ignore the obvious at your own peril. The obvious is that there is already consensus on this page to sanction you; the only disagreement is over what kind of sanction to apply. The reason a sanction hasn't already been instituted is because everybody recognizes how easy it would be to avoid a sanction, since all that is really being asked of you is to back off. But you're refusing to back off. And the longer you refuse to back off, the stronger both the consensus, and the sanction, will become. Through multiple threads over many days you have been asked to climb down from the Reichstag. Seize the opportunity! Shar'ab did. You should, too! This won't matter in a month, if you let it go. If you don't let it go, you won't be here in a month. That's not a threat, that's my attempt to get you to understand the seriousness of the situation you're in, and the ease with which you can get out of it. Levivich (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Or to put it even more clearly: You don't currently look like an editor we can work with to build an encyclopaedia. You've got the judgment and the language skills, but you're uncollaborative in that you don't admit fault or error, you don't accept when the consensus is going against you, you get overly invested in an outcome, you're oversensitive to perceived slights and you're exhaustingly disputative because of your insistence on replying to everyone saying what you've already said. And if we can't work with you then we'll arrange matters so we don't have to. I tried saying this less bluntly but you seem to miss the subtleties here, which is another bad sign.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that my comments above seemingly aren't registering. Another objective editor, whose feedback about my own editing I said I'm perfectly willing to consider and adopt going forward, commented I think Wikieditor was right to bring this up as well, as he has been on the receiving end a bit more, and Sharab isn’t providing the full context. But I’d urge both editors to just drop it,. I've expressed a willingness above to drop it and move forward and collaborate with SharabSalam as long as things stay civil. You can take me at my word or not. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Yes, one of us is having trouble with their comments not registering, and you think it's me. Time for a sysop to make the call, I suppose.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 18:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #3
User:Wikieditor19920 gets an WP:IBAN for User:SharabSalam. This seems to solve the root of the problem, WE19920's battlegrounding and abuse of Wikipedia policy. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sometimes even unsuccessful proposals can have a very beneficial impact if the editors involved take on board the feedback generated during discussion of a proposal (regardless of whether it passes). I think both Shar'ab and 19920 should re-read Symmachus Auxiliarus's comment at the end of the first section above. Shar'ab's voluntary commitment above seems to be taking these comments on board. I'm hoping 19920 does the same. If not, I would support this proposal. Levivich (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , several folks have shown concern on Wikieditor19920. And I am especially concerned since Wikieditor19920 had made no efforts to discuss this "problem" with SharabSalam on his user talk page, before escalating it to ANI. has not made a similar offer of avoiding interaction, yet. In light of all of these, I do agree with you that Wikieditor19920 should propose a similar restriction on himself or I would support this proposal.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  20:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The reason why this doesn't reach the root of the problem is because of pages like Deletion review/Log/2020 February 16, where Wikieditor19920's behaviour doesn't involve SharabSalam in the slightest, but is still unacceptably persistent and confrontational.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SBAN then, or something else? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's considerably too harsh; my suggestion's at Proposal #2.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 01:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 's proposal accuses me of an "abuse of Wikipedia policy," without evidence or an indication of what that means, and a few lines back he said I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia," which is uncalled-for and untrue. This is dancing right on the line of a personal attack, if it hasn't already crossed it. No editor should be subjected to this at ANI or anywhere else.
 * ,, I didn't ask SharabSalam to self-impose an IBAN, and he's apparently retracted that. However, my interactions with this editor have been limited, and I wasn't the one who made the personal attacks, while this editor has a history of doing so and being blocked for it. Nonetheless, I am happy to collaborate with SharabSalam civilly if he a) stops the personal attacks, against me and others, and b) focuses on content, not editors. I did in fact raise this issue with SharabSalam in between the first and second diffs provided, before filing this report, as did multiple other editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are here to build an encyclopedia. I think you are here to win. Even now you refuse to admit any problem with your behavior. It's always someone else. And don't bring up editor history because you have your fair share of warnings, like Bishonen telling you that you will be blocked if you post to a certain user's talk page, or Bishonen asking you to stop personal attacks or you will be topic banned, or this 1RR violation, or this edit war warning, or this ANI about your move warring. I haven't even begun digging into the BLP warnings you've received. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree,, with you, when you say "I don't think you are here to build an encyclopedia. I think you are here to win". On the contrary is trying to keep the building of the encyclopedia honest and pure and free from bias and in accordance with our core principles. They are ardent about that and you may be perceiving that as being about winning. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They have a lack of willingness to look back upon their behavior and listen to constructive criticism from multiple editors and admins. That's not in accordance with WP:CIVIL which is policy. You are honestly not helping here; your defense of Wikieditor19920 is enabling. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , You are treating this like a battleground right now between this and canvassing at another thread and attacking Bus Stop for his opinion. Appreciate the kind words, . I've never violated BLP and edit them frequently, so don't insinuate that I'm some habitual BLP-violater, which is deeply prejudicial. I've collaborated with other editors and built consensus to get highly-contentious BLPs elevated to GA-status. The few other threads you linked over the past year were closed without action. This feels like a tirade, and I'm not going to continue responding to it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There is Al-anon, cocaine-anon, food-anon, game-anon, and about 20 others. We are now seeing on-and-on. 23 posts by Wikieditor19920 in this thread alone. I fully understand the desire to defend. But, this thread is looking like other threads involving this editor. First rule of ANI: Don’t manifest the problem on ANI. SharabSalam has exhibited some of the same problem. But, appears to have taken criticism here to heart. Time sinks are harmful to the project and must be dealt with. The editor must realize the problem. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, no they don't. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * —you are linking to User talk:Wikieditor19920 but I fail to see anything egregiously problematic there. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing abuse from sockmaster "LightFromABrightStar", possibly connected to WorldCreaterFighter
I would like to request an investigstion as to whether or not these sock users:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/LightFromABrightStar

And

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/WorldCreaterFighter

Could be related. Both users have been identified as editing pages related to Turkic people's origins on sock accounts within the last week. They have continued to relentlessly abuse this website, in WorldCreaterFighter's case, for the past several years. -- Hunan201p (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ and in entirely different parts of the world.

User:Xenagoras - WP:NOTHERE
has been performing many dubious edits throughout the Wikipedia project since they entered in August 2019. They began their participation in the project by making multiple edits on the Tulsi Gabbard article and were temporarily blocked after violating rules set on that article. The user has also allegedly been invovled in covert email activity to other users in an attempt of stealth canvassing.

The current issue is on WP:RSN, a noticeboard that has the specific task of determining verifiability, reliability and preventing falsehoods from being placed in Wikipedia. has repeatedly promoted false material in WP:RSN discussions. In these incidents, promotes "unproven" and "false" statements about the White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) as being true. Before going further, I want to state that the incidents are not about the conduct of the White Helmets at all, but about ' blatant disregard of what the source concluded and how they purposefully misconstrued what France 24 stated.

The WP:RSN incidents go as follows:


 * provides an article by France 24, inaccurately presenting it as "a small analysis by France 24 about the collaboration of the White Helmets with al-Qaeda".


 * I reply to, stating that "[t he allegations you make and try to validate with the France 24 source are described as either 'false' or 'unproven' in the analysis]". This was easy to conclude, but it was important to read the source given the scope of the noticeboard.


 * again uses the France 24 sources stating "the France 24 analysis proves my allegations", framing numerous events France 24 concluded as "unproven" and "false" as being true. In this edit, they blatantly ignore clear conclusions provided by France 24 and twist falsehoods in to truths, again showing that they continue this behavior.

has received multiple warnings about their edit behavior, but the promotion of falsehoods on Wikipedia is unacceptable and dangerous to the integrity of the project as a whole. It appears that the user has received too many warnings for similar incidents for this to be accidental and that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I do not take the placement of this incident on the noticeboard lightly as I may have only done this once or twice before and only use this for serious concerns. Any reccomendations are helpful and thank you for taking the time to review this situation.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 08:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me address the WP:RSN incident first: The only interaction I ever had with occurred in the RfC about the GrayZone Project, where I quoted France 24 to disagree   with ZiaLater about the type of interaction/relationship between the White Helmets and al-Qaeda, because ZiaLater quoted other sources to say  that GrayZone disseminates propaganda and attacks about that topic. I quoted  France 24. In cases where France 24 concluded that allegations about an event were "unproven", they said they could not verify the location where videos about these events were captured. France 24 never disputed that the events in the videos did occur. In these "unproven" cases, I quoted France 24' decription of the events. In cases where France 24 concluded that allegations were "false", they said the military/religious rank of a person was falsely described or there was an incorrect translation from Arabic to English. In these "false" cases, I quoted what France 24 claimed to be true.
 * All things ZiaLater wrote in their first and last paragraph of this ANI report are irrelevant to the disagreement in the RfC about Grayzone. Let me explain them:


 * ZiaLater's first diff links to an unwarranted and false suspicion against me that was raised without any evidence and without any reason to have that suspicion . That other editor had also attempted to damage my reputation and discredit my future edits by making a false statement of fact about me.
 * ZiaLater's second diff links to a 31 hours block against me for an 1RR violation that I unsuccessfully appealed, because I attempted to make a series of consecutive edits that amounts to one revert. But I inadvertently failed to make this an uninterrupted series, therefore the admins ruled that I should take it as a reminder to be cautious editing articles under 1RR, so as not to even inadvertently cross over that line.
 * ZiaLater's third diff links to my misguided attempt to get an uninvolved editor to give his opinion on a stuck dispute. I am not yet familiar with dispute resolution procedures and was not aware that an unsolicited invitation to participate in a discussion is inappropriate. Nine days ago I started my first RfC, aiming to solve a stuck dispute.
 * ZiaLater wrote, I had received multiple warnings about [my] behavior, but gave no example. I therefore dismiss this claim as an attempt to discredit me. They also wrote, it appears that the user has received too many warnings for incidents [similar to promotion of falsehoods on Wikipedia], but gave no example for such a warning and no example for any promotion of falsehoods on Wikipedia. They also wrote, these alleged many similar warnings were too many ... for this to be accidental and that [I were] not here to build an encyclopedia. I have always been aiming to adhere to the highest standard of editing and conduct and I continue to improve my editing and conduct.
 * I firmly reject all accusations. The behaviour of ZiaLater amounts to casting aspersions against me and they are mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction. Addtionally, the lead of WP:ANI states, this page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This ANI report by ZiaLater does not concern any urgent incident, and it does not concern a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. The ANI lead further states, before posting a grievance about a user on this page, consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page or try dispute resolution. ZiaLater did not discuss the issue on my user talk page and did not try dispute resolution. Xenagoras (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * From my observation, Xenagoras has been the kind of balanced, fair, and considered editor that Wikipedia seeks to attract. His acknowledgement of his missteps itself shows that as well. Humanengr (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Like others, I have found Xenagoras' editing on Tulsi Gabbard to be uncollaborative and obstructionist. And I do not think that a character reference from Humanengr helps X's case. .<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not just that, I discussed the user's edits at Talk:Second Cold War about adding content related to Adam Schiff's speech. I don't know what to describe the user's response, but I can say that the user called my edits "one-sided", told (if not advised) me not to revert the user's edits on "Second Cold War", and that the user claims to have followed the lettering of the policy. Unsure whether the user followed the spirit of policies. Speaking of Gabbard, the user attempted this edit related to Gabbard, eventually reverted as "NOTNEWS". George Ho (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please WP:AGF and remember to try to treat others with dignity. Humanengr (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're referring to. If it refers to this ANI, please be explicit. If it's something else, you're always welcome on my talk page. BTW your link is dead.. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 12:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the "dignity" part refers to WP:etiquette, doesn't it? George Ho (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO made one edit on the article Tulsi Gabbard, and I did not interact with this edit. Xenagoras (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Xenagoras, your remark is not relevant either to my comment or to this complaint against you. One reason I have not edited that one more is that it's evident that there is tendentious POV edit warring going on there and that editing the article is futile. I have commented on article talk and at BLPN, and that's more constructive IMO in such circumstances.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * SPECIFICO, I have not done edit warring, instead I always aim to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My remark revealed that your severe accusation against me is baseless, has zero evidence and therefore amounts to casting aspersions against me. You are right that editing on that article (and some other articles) is very difficult, but please address your concern, that editing the article is futile, towards those editors who cause that problem. Xenagoras (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be defending yourself of things that I did not say. I accused you of nothing. For reasons others have documented, I do find your editing disruptive, but that's just my opinion. I hope anyone who sees this ANI will follow OP's links and also look at Xenagoras' conduct on the article talk page and at BLPN. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, Xenagoras, I think you're a big part of the problem on that article. The cited diffs suggest, maybe the biggest. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass of IPs adding unreferenced content
Likely the same user simple switching IPs.



Wondering if a range block would work? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 98.196.146.160 and 2601:2C3:4201:D70:0:0:0:0/64 have been blocked for one month. Was previously blocked in December for one week. No one else is using the range. He created gibberish pages which have been deleted. If he shows up on another IP in the 98.196.xxx.xxx range then we can consider a rangeblock for that one.
 * Thanks User:Berean Hunter Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Legal threats?



 * "If you block this IP address, you are acting in an illegal manner"

Thought? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * IP is now edit warring to try to remove well referenced content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And obvious paid COI/spammer for the subject of the article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Continues to edit war. Well past 3RR. Meters (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for edit warring, for 24 hours. Asked to RPP the page since they'll be back. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Improper page move and maintenance tags

 * Could someone look at what I deem as an improper page move. Boris Nikolayevich Belousov was moved to Boris Belousov (cosmonaut) without discussion and as uncontroversial. Along with the move valid maintenance tags were removed and this is during an Articles for deletion/Boris Nikolayevich Belousov. Otr500 (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks by 68.132.126.95


The IP editor in question is currently under a partial block for disruptive editing at two articles. They have now focused their attention on Serephim Rose. They have removed a sufficiently-sourced section of the article. When challenged on this, they have repeatedly attacked other editors, first by accusing one editor of vandalism for their good-faith edits and then by accusing me of a conflict of interest over a two-steps removed connection (I am a member of an organization that used to have ties to an organization that the subject is a critic of). They have claimed that there was a pre-existing consensus from discussion on the article talk page, but when asked where it was, they provided a link to a book on Amazon.

Since I am now an involved party to this matter as the target of personal attacks, I do not feel it appropriate to take further administrative action on this matter. I therefore ask for a broader set of editors to counsel this user on how to constructively contribute to Wikipedia or otherwise prevent disruption of the project. —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, I was not intending to attack the editor with ad hominems, and I submit that the user complaint to this effect by C.Fred is entirely frivolous and misleading. I was merely pointing out a conflict of interest in which this editor is involved, by editing the content of this particular page (Seraphim Rose). The subject of the article is well known as a severe critic of Catholicism and the editor indicates on his user page that he is a member of Phi Kappa Theta, a Catholic fraternity directly associated with the Catholic Church. His membership in this organization constitutes a prima facie violation of WP:COIN in connection with the edits he's made to this page, and at the very least raises serious questions about his neutrality. This is something which needs to be pointed out, because it involves a violation of Wikipedia rules.


 * Moreover, contrary to this user's complaint, I have commented profusely on content in the talk section, where I have added page upon page of explanation in support of the current revision, most recently in the talk page section entitled "Matters Up For Discussion" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seraphim_Rose#Matters_up_for_discussion and received no reasoned discussion from this warring editor in response, but only repeated, unilateral reverts with no real basis other than the fact that he apparently does not agree and seeks to perpetuate an earlier revision which, as I have pointed out, is highly problematic. The user C. Fred is the only one that I can see who is currently disrupting consensus by ignoring the long discussion in talk and simply reverting anything he does not agree with without any explanation or discussion whatsoever.


 * I have posted thousands of words in the talk section, he has posted literally none in connection with his edits. I am trying to reach an agreement, right now he seems to be the only one forcefully insinuating himself into this matter without providing any rationale in support of his edits. Also, I did not provoke this. There was an earlier revision which was tentatively agreed upon in 2015 after much discussion failed to yield agreement of all parties involved, and in the recent weeks user C.Fred and another editor named "Zaathras" suddenly began summarily altering the wording of this revision so as to subvert the earlier compromise struck as a provisional antidote to the persistent disagreement which had ensued over the disputed content, which had stood unchallenged for five consecutive years (from 2015-2020). When the problematic nature of the sourcing within the current passage was then recently pointed out to me I suggested that in the absence of the current phrasing (added specifically to achieve neutrality and compromise) the entire passage should be excluded and posted my intent to do so in the near future in the "Matters up for discussion" section of the talk page, before following up with the proposed edit two days later.


 * Finally, I never removed any entire section of the article, as User: C. Fred erroneously states in his complaint, but rather proposed a revision which excludes some passages of the "Early Life" section of the article. Far from being "sufficiently sourced" the claims contained in these passages are disputed and there are serious questions as to the veracity of the single and, in my judgment, highly problematic source from which they derive, which presents claims conspicuously at odds with the acknowledged major work on the subject and which are corroborated by no other independent source.  In any event, I have within the talk sub-section previously mentioned, enumerated a list of reasons why, even assuming the source for the disputed info is accurate, that such would nonetheless bear no relevancy to a neutral exposition of the subject's life and work within the setting of an encyclopedic reference article, which should contain only the most straightforward, objective, independently verifiable, and relevant facts concerning its subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical library (talk • contribs) 02:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting. This user has been previously blocked for edit warring on the Seraphim Rose article, and right about the time of this alleged consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, due to some unintentional errors on my part being a novice user of Wikipedia and inadvertently violating rules which was then exploited by a pack of partisan editors to impose their biased views under the guise of an an exaggerated conformity to the strict punctilios of Wikipedia etiquette. It would take only a cursory read through the history of the talk discussion to establish the defamatory nature of the comments directed at both myself and others by some of these rogue Wikipedia users, and to notice the inappropriate bias expressed in them. Also, I made it clear that there was a compromise struck in 2015 which C.Fred and another user Zaathras attempted to summarily subvert with recent edits ignoring the preceding five-year-long compromise, after which I undertook further discussion in the "Matters Up for Discussion" sub-section of the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seraphim_Rose#Matters_up_for_discussion in order to further clarify the issue and explain why I believe that this questionable material does not belong in the article in the first place. C.Fred then proceeded to ignore all subsequent discussion appearing in talk while embarking on a one man editing crusade to thwart the reasonable revision I had enacted after careful and precise enumeration of my reasoning in talk. But C. Fred should not be editing this article at all, since as I've shown in my earlier post citing his Catholic associations and Seraphim Rose's strident anti-Catholicism, doing so would involve him in a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classical library (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's blindingly obvious that the IP and the account are the same person. The assumptions of bad faith have continued after my warning, so I'm changing the IP's partial block to a sitewide block, and blocking the account for the same behavior for the same term. The partial block idea is OK in principle, but all too often the partially blocked editor finds something else to argue about.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ...And the IP's response "I don't take orders from a self-important little bug-man like yourself, so stop being rude and try being polite and maybe even kind for a change." speaks for itself. The named account's denial, albeit more polite is undercut by the same inability to sign posts.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-communicative User: Whatiskeptinname
is apparently an SPA for Tauthali and related topics who only comes back to revert/fix edits that they do not like in a few articles that they created/maintain, which is evidenced by the fact that they have not edited for months since I stopped reverting them at Tauthali. Attempt at communication at one of the article talk pages and their user talk page were both unsuccessful. I was advised to take our disagreement over how Tauthali should be maintained as a content dispute and to refrain from reverting them. Since they do not come back but to revert, I don't know how to make BRD work. This is probably too minor for ANI, but I am out of ideas. Please help. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to give conflicting advice to whoever told you to stop reverting. So maybe check with them first, or direct them here.  But based only on what you've said, without investigating further, you should be able to revert back to your preferred wording if they have stopped editing. If that causes them to return and revert, without discussion, I'll block them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , now that I've benefited from your reply, I should clarify that the advice to stop reverting that I got was not in exactly the same context as I have presented here. That "they have stopped editing" is the principal difference, although I'm sure that is only because I took the advice. Plus, I was also told to do as I saw fit except edit-war. So, I'll revert back and see if the editor comes back again. Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, violating WP:NOTBROKEN, unresponsive
is rapidly and without explanation "fixing" redirects, contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN. IP has not responded to notices on talk page. Is this a pattern of behaviour that rings any bells? The edits are far too rapid to be being done by a clueless newbie. DuncanHill (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow. I'm a DABfixer, and I don't correct even the easiest bad links that fast. (I have better things to do than fixing NOTBROKEN links; unless they're counter-intuitive WP:EASTEREGGs which might puzzle readers.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Funny that, I just left a note encouraging WP:DPL. <i style="color:darkgreen">Prodego</i> talk 23:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been a heavy-duty DABfixer since 2016, and I don't recall (senile cackle, my memory could be going) any issue similar to this having been raised at WT:DPL or WT:DAB during that time. Although all help is welcome, I'd be reluctant to point to point an IP towards towards the tools we use the most; there's too much risk of difficult-to-detect damage. Narky Blert (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Is now editing as, same edits, same articles. DuncanHill (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked both. Materialscientist (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . DuncanHill (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Has started again now the block has expired. . DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

was recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=943200116#Standard_offer_request_by_User:Krish! unblocked] per the Standard Offer after a long indefinite block. One of the reasons for the block can been in this ANI thread, in which he clashed with me with conspiracy theory claims of "taking money" and making up many such imaginary claims against me. This coupled with a general WP:Battleground mentality.
 * It should be noted that I NOT indulged in edit war with editor in last 24 hours. Krimuk 2.0 has reverted 3 edits on Priyanka Chopra's article, 2 edits at his talk page and I have only reverted his one wrong wrong edit which he later accepted here. Krish &#124;  Talk  21:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Kindly read THE REAL version that happened. This version is written to make people confuse into think that I was the one who was edit warring. Krish &#124;  Talk  00:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Now within 24 hours of coming back, he is back to his old ways of whitewashing the page of his favourite subject Priyanka Chopra by adding unsourced puffery which I removed in this edit and removing negative critical notice and poor box office return of her film. When reverted and asked to maintain WP:STATUSQUO, he resorted to his usual edit-warring instead of starting a discussion on talk page (which I started), as he was advised to do. He did not make a single attempt to explain his edit on the talk page (update: he did after I opened this ANI thread, albeit still making accusations against me on the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Instead he began making more of the same claims against me (similar to the 2018 event), in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Berean_Hunter#Krish! this thread]. He absolutely refuses to listen to my advice to "open a neutrally-worded talk page discussion and ask the community to gain consensus", which I said three times, and instead insists on only making accusations against me by saying "You were not reverted because other editors are not ready to challenge your edits or just don't care. Only I would have challenged it but I was blocked." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This complain was brought to ANI while I was working on the reply to the discussion at [HERE. Also note this discussion has nothing with any of the reverts as I did not revert any of his edits. So discussing about it is not even related to any of it. This discussion was added there much much after he complained about me at Hunter's page. But here he makes it seem like I was not ready to discuss.[[User:Krish!| Krish ]] &#124; Talk  21:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

PS: One of my reverts to the Chopra article was a mistake which I rectified myself, when pointed out. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A request to the Administrators: Kindly read my warm post extending olive branch on Krimuk 2.0's talk page, then after being shut down my reluctance of editing any article fearing revert and then block and then here to read here. Thank you. Krish &#124;  Talk  21:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

PSS: My intent is to not get the editor blocked, because everyone deserves a second chance and some of their edits are quite constructive. But these constant accusations are aggravating when a simple talk page discussion with uninvolved editors can suffice, when he does indeed want to "challenge" me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would kindly ask to the administrators to go through the history of Priyanka Chopra (an article that I have been updating and expanding; it was un-updated for a long time). It should be noted that I ONLY reverted him once because he did had reverted my last 5 to 6 edits (an improvement) without reading as he accepts here. I did not engage in edit war as I just reverted his edit saying you don't WP: OWN the article because as an editor I can add things in articles by giving strong sources. But he has been reverting all of my edits since last night BUT not once did I revert any of his edit, except the one where he accepted he reverted without reading. After his constant revert spree, I wrote to  on his about Krimuk 2.0 reverting all my edits and I been afraid of editing further in fear of getting blocked. I even tried to extend an olive branch but he rejected me twice: her saying "i was wrong, clearly nothing has changed. sigh" and here saying Not interested. Krish  &#124;  Talk  20:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Adding puffery and removing poor reviews (including changing a section header to "Widespread success"). Adding puffery ("Several critics and media publications have described Chopra as one of the most talented actresses in Indian cinema") and moving a mixed review down the paragraph in favour of a favourable one. This is a featured article.  I am unconvinced that it is a good idea for someone who has just been unblocked from an indef per WP:ROPE to go straight back to doing exactly what they were doing before they were blocked.  I suggest a partial block on Priyanka Chopra so that they can prove they can edit collegially on other articles. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Chopra being "one of the most talented actresses of Indian cinema" was there in her article for 5 or so years, until 2018 and this editor was the one who removed it without any reasons. Same goes for "widespread success", it was there all those years but was only removed by the said editor in 2018 without any explanation. Also when he reverted my today's edits claiming PUFFERY, I did not revert him, I welcomed his edit. I had added several important things in the article that were missing and updated the article. He reverted most of my edit but I recerted just one edit. I only reverted his edit when he had added a misinformation in the article which he had later accepted [that it was his mistake yet he filed a complain against me. Kindly read my talk page post to know what really happened. Thanks.[[User:Krish!| Krish ]] &#124; Talk  00:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Krish is very dedicated and probably means well, unfortunately it isn't always expressed in a great way. I'd recommend instead of a block extend him a 1rr restriction. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But I reverted him because he had added a wrong information and later accepted he accepted his mistake. That user reverted me 2 times on his talk page, 3 times on article and here I am. Please understand I did not edit war. Please read the post on my talk page. I am feeling so helpless right now. What I am supposed to do? I have done everything to explain what really happened yet I am being blamed. Krish &#124;  Talk  01:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , If someone removes your post on their talk page, leave it that way. It's allowed, the assumption is that they read your post. If they revert you on an article, leave it, and try to discuss it.  If they don't use the noticeboards or other forms of dispute resolution.  You need to be the perfect editor, in any circumstance.  Ravensfire  (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying but I did not revert any of the debatable stuff. I reverted his wrong edit where he re-added a wrong information. When he had first reverted my edit 2 days ago, I actually went to discuss on his talk. Then he kept repeatedly reverting my edit as if he Krish  &#124;  Talk  04:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I was unclear, but the problem isn't about edit-warring. It's about a recently unblocked editor who comes back and does these (which he should not do even once): Are these valid edits for someone who is back on the standard offer? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) In this edit he uses this source in which a single journalist writes that "Priyanka has emerged as one of the most talented and versatile actresses in Bollywood" which he turns into "Several critics and media publications have described Chopra as one of the most talented actresses in Indian cinema". (For non-Indian editors, Bollywood is a smaller subset of Indian cinema).
 * 2) He says that he wants to "improve" the article, but that involves only removing negative critical and commercial notice to two of her films. Note, that this "activism" does not extend to removing a single positive comment or mention of a commercial success, of which there are plenty.
 * 3) He renames a section to "widespread success" when there is no such reference in that section that states that.
 * 4) Deliberately removes an informative source from Moneycontrol.com (an RS) for another one that does not mention "box office flop" in its title.
 * 5) The same battleground mentality, which led to his previous block, can be seen in this edit when he tells me "You were not reverted because other editors are not ready to challenge your edits or just don't care. Only I would have challenged it but I was blocked."
 * 6) Keeps making unverified claims against me, on the lines of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in every "discussion": here, here, and above.


 * To counter his points:
 * You clearly had said on Berean Hunter's page that I was edit warring. I only reverted your one edit that too the wrong UNICEF information one which you accepted later. Your contant reverts of all my edits shows that you were trying to provoke me to edit- war. I on the other hand was explaining every edit of mine. Krish &#124;  Talk  07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Then explain why the same line was used in the article since 2018? You removed that without giving any explanations but hid it under "trim redundant info; add 2 new important lists" summary so that no one would notice. Krish &#124;  Talk  07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) I had removed it and you re-added it by reverting me and then I realised you were right and I did not revert. So why are you trying to make it seem like I reverted them? It is notable that these two performances that have been shown as negative/mixed by Krimuk are actually well received as I proved it on the article's talk page. Plus see his response. He says he won't accept it as he considers a positive reviews only if the ratio is 100 positive: 1 Negative. This is violation of wikipedia guidelines. Krish  &#124;  Talk  07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) Again it was therein the article since a very long time, removed by in 2018 without explanations. So you think that you don't have to give explanation to edit but constantly wants explanation and discussion from others. Again WP: OWN violation. Krish &#124;  Talk  07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) My summary clearly states there was no BOX OFFICE BOMB mentioned in the source but you had used BOX OFFICE BOMB in that article. Again WP: NPOV violation. MONEY CONTROL is NOT used on wikipedia for Box Office figures and that was my reason to remove it. I had replaced that source with a better source. Also, my other summary says I used it more widely accepted BOX OFFICE website source on wikipedia. Source was replaced but I still used a neutral tone to describe an unsuccessful film as unsuuccessful/did not do well and not BOMB like you did.] Krish &#124;  Talk  07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) It's not about Battleground. It's about you constantly reverting, removing everything from articles without explanations YET you want editors like me to add a coma, link after taking persmission from you. I have challenged your edits on Priyanka Chopra's talk page and it's obvious that your edits violated WP: NPOV. Krish &#124;  Talk  07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) You have been accusing me of WHITEWASHING Chopra's article. Is that not a WP: Personal Atack? Also people can see that I have properly given my response to your edits on Chopra's talk page discussion and it is obvious, they violate WP: NPOV. See his response [here and when I quoted a wikipedia rule about [[WP:NPOV#Due and undue weight]], he says "tiny minorities" would be 1 negative review for 100 positives, which does not seem the case anywhere". What is does suppose to mean? Krish  &#124;  Talk  07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please NOTE: This user behaves as if you WP:OWN the articles on wikipedia. Could you explain why you significantly changed Bajirao Mastani article which was decided after several days of grueling discussions on its talk page? You removed the version of the article that was the consensus of the same wikipedia community that you are talking about. But you reverted it without discussing with any editor forget community, why? As per WP: I Don't Like It or WP: OWN? Could you care to explain? Isn't this a violation of wikipedia rules to remove something from article that was decided after consensus of the community or you just do it as you please? '''Similarly, in 2018 he removed several things (with strong sources) that were present since a long time from Chopra's article, an FA written by other prominent editors, without any explanations. I saw no discussions happening there. Yet he wants me to ask his permission to add even a comma in that article. Krish &#124;  Talk  06:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As for "Yet he wants me to ask his permission to add even a comma in that article." that's yet another unverified claim against me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So you revert most of my edits on Chopra's article. You reverted my edit when I linked an article, you reverted my edit when I corrected your false information about UNICEF, you reverted my edit when I added Chopra's "noted for philanthropy" line, you reverted me when I renamed a section and others. Yet you can do everything without any questions by others? After my response on Chopra's talk page on those discussions, it is pretty clear that you have WP: OWN and WP: I Just Don't Like It problem as I gave my response and proved that Chopra's performances in those films were positively reviewed yet you are not ready to consider my voice. Why? I even provided my response with very strong sources yet you are not ready to accept an alternative view point. Krish &#124;  Talk  07:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "it is pretty clear that you have WP: OWN and WP: I Don't Like It problem". Instead of making repeated false accusations against an editor, comment on the 6 gratuitous edits highlighted above that go against your standard offer. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So now, I cannot even defend myself by tackling each of your accusatory points? You have done the same thing that you are accusing me of and are still doing. I'm countering "your edits" and not you. While you have been accusing me of whitewashing and then falsely accusing you. I'm just explaining my version of what you have added here and ANI is about that. I am suppose to defend myself here. Krish &#124;  Talk  07:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

More...


 * 7) Please note that the editor has removed the same Moneycontrol.com reference, as mentioned in point number 4 above in another article related to Chopra, here. And this much after the ANI was filed.
 * 8) When asked to not reply under my comments above, as it can confuse readers, he reverted me again. And this after multiple editors have been telling him not to undo anything at this moment. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * 7) NOTE: This editor has been trying to show me a constant edit-warrior. This was an INNOCENT mistake. You can see here that I MISTAKENLY removed THAT source, along with other sources as I was cleaning the TOP section. I have started working on that article as you can confirm that by checking its history. Now I have moved all the sources to the body of the article where it should have been all along, yet this editor had not added that in the body but only in the lead, despite him editing that article since last 4 months. It was my Mistake. Another NOTE: As I had said on ' talk page while discussing to him that MONEY CONTROL sources are NOT used for Box Office figures and that was the reason I had removed it 2 days ago, you can see it in Chopra's edit summary. I had replaced that source for "box office flop" claim with a BETTER source which is widely accepted here. That the Money Control source had no mention of BOX OFFICE BOMB yet was used for KRIMUK had added BOX OFFICE BOMB on his own; WP:NPOV violation). You can check my edit summary. These two are different occurrences but here he is trying to link those two different incidents to prove I am an edit warrior. Can he claim that I removed the claim of box office flop to whitewash Chopra? Krish &#124;  Talk  13:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) I did not revert. You can check the history of this page. It said this edit cannot be UNDONE. I did re-arrange my points which took so much time. Interestingly, this user has been reverting me all the time yet I cannot even arrange my points below his points like how the replies are done. And at ANI, one accused can reply those each points. But if that is not the norm I apologise for my mistake. Krish &#124;  Talk  13:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "MONEY CONTROL sources are NOT used for Box Office figures" -- please provide a written policy that states that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I, who has written over 1 FA and 17 good articles on films, know that for the first time I have seen a Money Control source being used in any Indian film article, especially for BO. WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/ICTF FAQ does not list Money Control as an important source for Indian films. After replacing that Money Control source, I had given a link from Box Office India, widely used source here, that described the poor performance of the film. But it should be noted that your edit described that commercially flop film, as a Box Office Bomb. While even that Money Control article source did not say anything about the film being a Box Office Bomb, violating WP: NPOV. Would you like to tell everyone here, why? Krish &#124;  Talk  23:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Box office flop redirects to box office bomb. It’s a synonym. And also, as stated multiple times above, not the issue here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Box Office Bomb" is a term used for describing a very expensive film that looses a huge chunk of money, not for an independent/small budget film. Plus that article does not say anything about how much money it lost or what the budget was. So how did you come to conclusion that the film was a box office bomb? You even linked it. Yet I have observed you did not add "Box Office Bomb" to an another article you have been editing, Chhapaak which has been described as a "A Big FLOP" by Box Office India, the most widely accepted BO website on wikipedia, a site which you yourself have used several times to cite edits like XYZ is the biggest box office star in India but did not cared to use in that article. Box Office India wrote another piece saying "Chhapaak - A Rare Loser For The Industry". The analysis said "Chhapaak is that rare loser for the industry which will lose money. Chhapaak will put its investors in the red with even with satellite and digital." This sounds more like a Box Office Bomb. Don't you think? Krish &#124;  Talk  00:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to draw attention away from the subject at hand. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it's your WP: NPOV violating edits and then treating every article as WP: OWN, removing discussed/consensus reached edits like you did on Bajirao Mastani. Krish &#124;  Talk  08:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is precisely the definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and very similar to the previous ANI thread in which you made unvalidated accusations against me, which got you blocked in the first place. Just like that case, this ANI is not about me and I am not the one who is back here on the WP:Standard offer. You are. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's here you changed a version of the article which was decided after several days of grueling discussions and different POVs of several editors on its talk page. Then you removed the version of the article without explanations or any reason, violating Wikipedia rules. So I am not pointing to just any random stuff because it is documented in that article's history. Now coming to the main point, one of the many Wikipedia rules says Be Bold and perform edits backed by strong sources. That's exactly what I did after coming back but you started reverting my edits. I did not revert any of your edits. I did not revert you for reverting my edits and I accepted my mistake and respected your reverts as those were discussion worthy and hence left it the way you wanted. I only reverted you once when you re-added a misinformation to the lead which you later accepted saying "this was entirely my mistake -- i misread". Then you reported me at 's page and then started a discussion and when I was writing the response to that discussion, you reported me at ANI. So now you tell me what I am supposed to do? I would do exactly as you say. I s that okay? Krish &#124;  Talk  09:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet again an attempt to mislead. Your revert also included the re-inclusion of puffery terms and removal of negative critical and commercial response, as highlighted in points 2 and 3 above. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You reverted my last 4 "constructive edits" just because you did not agree with my one edit but in process re-added a wrong information, yet somehow only I am wrong? In Chopra's article, critical and commercial response of many of her hit and acclaimed films/roles are not present either. So I removed it to balance it out. But I accepted your reverts of critical response of DDD and did not revert. I reverted you only once when you reverted five edits at once, with four of which were actually constructive and one was debatable. I only reverted you once when you re-added a misinformation to the lead, which is a violation of wikipedia rules. Let's accept it we both were wrong and we should move on. Krish &#124;  Talk  18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Break
Are you two quite done now? Honestly no one is going to read the above massive wall of sniping, arguing and bickering. Krimuk2.0 if you have a case to put forward please make it concisely and structured in a single post. Krish! stop responding to every single little comment, you're not helping yourself. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Krish, the amount of bold you are using is excessive, please calm down on it. LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 18:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * and After coming back I my  BOLD edits were not that bold. You can see at the article's talk page that the negative critical reviews that he had added actually violated WP: NPOV. There you can see her performances in those two films were not panned like his edits made it seem. WP NPOV says if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. So me removing a non-controversial thing was not that Bold. How can you show 22 positive review and 3 negative review as mixed review and 12 positive, 2 mixed-leaning towards positive and 2 negative as purely negative performance? But anyways, when he reverted me, I accepted it and did not revert as I was planning for a discussion in next few days. I did not revert him for reverting my edits and I accepted my mistake and respected his reverts as those were discussion worthy and hence left it the way he wanted. I only reverted him once when he re-added a misinformation to the lead which he later accepted saying "this was entirely my mistake -- i misread". Then he reported me at 's page for edit warring and then he started a discussion and when I was writing the response to that discussion, he reported me at ANI. Maybe we both are at fault and we should move on? And if only I am wrong here then I would like to apologise as I did not mean harm. I had updated that article as it wasn't since a very long time. So if I am wrong forgive me. I don't know if I can say more now. Krish  &#124;  Talk  19:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe LakesideMiners is talking about your bold sentences like this? - Mega<b style="color: red;">Goat</b>Contribs 19:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, that is what I meant.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 19:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I am sorry for misunderstanding. I know I overdid it above but I won't be doing it from now . Thanks for calling out my mistake. I appreciate it. Krish &#124;  Talk  19:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Revenge trolling vandalism by User:96.238.128.155
Following an edit I made to Connie Glynn that met with the displeasure of the IP, the aforementioned took revenge on my edits to Gui Minhai. Request block. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 23:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Final warning (uw-disruptive4) issued. El_C 23:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/96.238.128.0/21 seems to be the range that is causing the most trouble at that article if that warning doesn't help.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the only people who seem to have caused any trouble with the page since she deleted her videos have been User:Ohconfucius, User:Deepfriedokra, User:Tymon.r, User:Phuzion, User:Nyook, User:AntiCompositeNumber, User:Oshwah, User:MelanieN, User:LPS and MLP Fan, User:Dorsetonian, User:TK421bsod, and User:Gyanda. These were all registered users, and all edits not by these registered users have only been for the purpose of drawing attention to what she did and/or what she should do next, while edits by these registered users have been trying to cover up what she did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.128.155 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Here's a big long list of users who did the appropriate thing on Wikipedia, which is to remove UrbanDictionary nonsense from biographies of living people." Did you mean to demonstrate that you have no idea how Wikipedia works, and should immediately cease editing before you're subject to a long-term block for multiple policy violations? Because that's what you did there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I know how the people who created Wikipedia want it to work, I just think it's important that people find out about Connie Glynn's decision to take away stuff that was doing significant good and think it should be mentioned somehow in her article rather than trying to act like it didn't happen. I definitely think I'm too close to the situation to think neutrally about it, but no one who isn't seems to want to add anything at all about that to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.128.155 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC) --- blocked for 60 hours for disruptive editing. El_C 01:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note this is after the IP vandalized El_C's talk page here. I'd still suggest extending the block to the /21 range to prevent further disruption. The same person was blocked 2 weeks on February 12 for disruptive editing on the same subject.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the range for the duration. Thanks, . El_C 04:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The IP came back after the block expired with the same nonsense. I’ve blocked the IP address for 3 months and blocked the range for 1 month.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Continued uinsourced info to BLP article
is repeatedly adding controversial information to BLP articles despite an excess of final warnings on their talk page which to date, they have chosen to completely ignore. Examples here, here, here, here & here. I'd greatly appreciate an admin reminding them about WP:V.  Rob van  vee  06:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Brynloughran
It looks like Brynloughran deliberately keeps adding misinformation to numerous articles. I think the user's edits need to be rollbacked. 124.85.124.147 (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Vandalous horseshit rolled back. Can some admin block this guy please? <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 13:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef. Thanks for the report and rollback, folks.  Tide  rolls  13:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

user:Dmehus
I know we don't like citing WP:CIR, but I can think of no other adequate description for Doug's behavior, especially after several novel length discussions about his problematic edits in a wide range of areas. The behavior doesn't seem to be improving and frankly appears to be frustrating and wearing down more uninvolved editors patience and good faith. As I write this, it's hard to be concise because of the sheer amount of problems and lengthy discussions that exhibit this type of well meaning but disruptive behavior.


 * this firm but clear explanation about this RFD by where Doug's responses do nothing to address the problem but indicate what appears to be an unwillingness to learn combined with some wikilawyering. I find this discussion to be the final straw as it offered encouragement, advice and warnings from several experienced and respected editors that went ignored (specifically, the advice to go find another area to edit, such as articles needing sources otherwise the continued behavior is likely to end up in a topic ban, or worse.) It also appears that messing around with ambiguous DABs is not a new problem


 * Another discussion started by Tavix, about Doug's problems at AFD, touching again on the lack of due diligence and bludgeoning.


 * Another thread about inappropriate edits (and closures) in XFDs


 * There are also multiple discussions about WP:BLUDGEONING at XFD, which have gone unheeded, despite clear acknowledgement from Dmehus, at least twice. (The bludgeoning is not unique to XFDs, but most any discussion area on WP.) Here is an ANI thread on this matter, another discussion on his talk page.


 * There also seems to be a problem with just not listening in general, like when he has repeatedly pinged and thanked editors despite being asked several times in various venues not to.and even a twice about ping-canvassing In fact, in this thread he even states "I tend to overuse the thank button", even after the above discussions. To put it into perspective, he's made 2903 thanks in his tenure (actively editing for ~6 months) which is about 483/month. That's a lot of thanks. I know they mean well but at some point you have to realize that the thank button just generates annoying notifications when you use it repeatedly.


 * This comment by primefac really sums up a large part of the problem. they give the impression that you are commenting on a discussion purely to comment on a discussion. If you don't know what a template does, or why it would be useful, there is really no need to comment saying that; simply wait until someone else has done so and/or leave well enough alone. Your comments (both the initial one and the subsequent replies to the other participants) add almost nothing and (if anything) make it more tedious to read through the actual discussion.


 * Even as I was writing this, he's taken the content from a draft at a (controversial) MFD (leaning delete) of a subject that was deleted by AFD a month ago, currently at DRV (leaning delete.) and recreated it in his userspace after the above linked warnings by in the very same discussion. This single diff is a great example of Doug's highly problematic behavior, especially after they acknowledged bradv's warning/statement that draftspace is not a place holder. Oh and as I linked above, plenty of warnings about canvassing and yet managed to do it again in the last hour. How many more false assurances do we need to see before something is done?

I should note that all of these diffs are almost entirely only discussions on his talk page and do not include the countless discussions in other venues where the same things have been repeated ad nauseum. (notified) Praxidicae (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not going to comment on most of the above, only the portion which is related to this notification, which was the last bullet point. I assumed that we were permitted to userfy content that is currently at MfD, as another editor did the same in regards to another discussion currently in "old business." If this is not the case, I will request G7 deletion. My message to GoodDay was not a request to be involved in the MfD discussion, but rather just to mark the page in my own userspace as "reviewed." Doug Mehus T · C  16:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I will request G7 deletion. My message to GoodDay was not a request to be involved in the MfD discussion, but rather just to mark the page in my own userspace as "reviewed." I cannot fathom why you would need to seek out someone to mark your userspace article reviewed and it seems like a thinly veiled way to canvas people to the MFD. The fact that you see nothing wrong with this or canvassing is a problem. And it's not just this instance, it's all the others brought up above (and more.) Also, you do not need to ping me to a discussion that I started. Praxidicae (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Absolutely not. My understanding is that all article and user namespace articles need to be reviewed including subpages. Since GoodDay and I have collaborated on articles relating to the Senate of Canada, I have GoodDay's user talk page on my "watchlist," to which it was near the top of my watchlist. I did note GoodDay's participation in the previous AfD and, judging from their arguments, they seemed to have more expertise on the subject than I, so they seemed as good as any page patrolling editor to reach out to see whether or not this was an appropriate userification and whether I'd done it correctly. Doug Mehus T · C  16:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the ping, but reply-link inserts it automatically, so I don't always remember to remove the username ping. Doug Mehus T · C  16:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked you above, now on your talk page, please stop pinging me to discussions I have started. Second, that doesn't address any of the other problems here. What value other than creating busy work, does patrolling a userspace draft have, that would lead you to seeking out a patroller to ask for it? Why is yours more important than any of the other thousands waiting for review? I genuinely don't understand the logic here or in any of the other conversations I provided above and I cannot for the life of me figure out how the first two canvassing warnings (which you acknowledged) were unclear. As far as replylink goes, this appears to be a significant problem for you and as I noted, you've been asked several times to stop. Perhaps you need to turn it off. Praxidicae (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain how this is canvassing, to request another editor review one's userpage. I simply didn't want to see it deleted, given potential for notability. Also, I could've misread 's message to me, but it didn't seem like a "warning," as you've characterized it above, but rather Bradv's interpretation on the purpose of Draft: namespace. I noted that other editors in that discussion, with varying tenures, have disputed that view of draft namespace. As another editor forked a contested MfD page into their userspace, I assumed it was possible to fork this page. as well, provided I follow the requirements for tracking attribution to the original version. My purpose of messaging GoodDay was, since they were familiar with the subject and an experienced editor, they would be familiar with the requirements for userification and whether I'd done it correctly, so it seemed reasonable that an editor familiar with the page "review" it versus a random editor at some point in the future. I had zero intention of having GoodDay participate in the MfD discussion, so I'm not really certain how that's canvassing? Doug Mehus  T · C  16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly debated even responding to this because I can't tell if you're genuinely not understanding or not listening to justify a multitude of incorrect and poor edits after multiple editors, including several admins have outlined relevant policies and guidelines and the most frustrating part is that you've acknowledged said discussions each time and continued the behavior. Praxidicae (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this matter, Praxidicae. As you can tell, I have become very frustrated with Dmehus recently—notably on my recent post on his talk page, along with this thread on 's talk page. I was hoping it wouldn't come to AN/I, because I wanted to first see if he can be steered towards being a positive contributor elsewhere, and offered a suggestion that might challenge his deficits in a beneficial way to the encylopedia. I have said my peace at Dmehus' talk page, so I don't want to relitigate any of that here, but I'll be paying close attention to this thread and will chime in if I feel it necessary. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are a few more discussions of interest:
 * User talk:Steel1943/Archive 17
 * Deletion review/Log/2020 February 13
 * User talk:Rosguill (I'm not sure if this pinged or not; If so, Rosguill, my apologies)
 * User talk:Dmehus
 * ...At the present time, I do not have the time or bandwidth to break down the points of those discussions, but merely presenting them for review by other editors to make their own conclusions. (I'll probably be back to participate in this discussion at a later time.) Steel1943  (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Dmehus has exasperated many of us by relentlessly offering the benefit of his inexperience with great confidence and a near-total lack of self-criticism or acceptance of feedback. I have no idea what to do for the best: a restriction to article and talk space is likely only to perpetuate the same issues in a more diffuse manner. Guy (help!) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Following a discussion with GoodDay, it seems like it may be best to wait at least six months before recreating this draft article in userspace, so I've requested speedy deletion. Moreover, I just noticed there is already another userspace forked version of the draft article, at the original location prior to it being moved to Draft: namespace, so this forked version isn't specifically needed. I have other things I need to do be doing, so it seems appropriate for me to actually self-enforce an extended wikibreak for a few months (noting 's encouraging comments to me on my talk page of the difficulty in "retiring"). I'm not going to retire, but the similarity is there in that it can be difficult to actually effect one's desired wikibreak. Doug Mehus T · C  17:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you would like me to perform a self-requested block of a few months I will. That is one commitment mechanism for taking a wikibreak. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I had hoped it wouldn't come to that, but yes, if you could block my account from editing all areas of Wikipedia other than my talk page(s) so I can respond to any messages as may be required, until I complete my diploma program—say May 15th or June 15th—that would be helpful. Following that, I would like to complete the NPP School curriculum, with either you or Rosguill as a mentor. Some modification of the curriculum may be needed, to focus on the areas which I seem to have less knowledge (specifically, userspace patrolling, editor relations, etc.). Doug Mehus T · C  17:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "...my talk page(s)..." Huh? Could you clarify that? Steel1943  (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ...Unfortunately, I do not believe that will be enough, especially since that resolution would be on Dmehus' terms and not the community's. Dmehus already had a few chances to prove that they could abide by terms set out by themselves, but most (if not all) such self-imposed terms were broken shortly afterwards. The community needs to have their consensus enforced at this point. Steel1943  (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the objections laid out by Steel and Praxidicae I will not make that self-requested block until this ANI thread is resolved. Doug - we can discuss this more at that point. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not going to reply further to this thread. Honestly, had I known about self-requested blocks sooner than the past month, I probably would've requested this back at the end of December / beginning of January. I think it's a reasonable outcome because, ultimately, the self-requested block, and this firm-as-possible, clear-as-mud warning at ANI should give me both the time I need to concentrate on other, offline priorities and also to reflect on the events which precipitated this discussion. I genuinely have positive contributions to make to Wikipedia, and I'm confident that this would find support among most editors on here. I seem to just need some guidance in areas which I'm obviously struggling to contemplate. Doug Mehus T · C  18:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ...The problem with self-requested blocks (or really blocks at all for that matter) is that if an editor cannot get away from Wikipedia still, they may fall back on using sockpuppetry. I'm not saying that would happen here, but I've seen it happen before. There really needs to be additional terms set out to help identify what the community can do in regards to sanctions to hopefully put you in a better position to edit again either during the sanctions and/or when the block is over. (Also, in your context above, "...clear-as-mud..." probably doesn't mean what you think it means. But if it does, that sort of enforces any WP:IDHT concerns already voiced in this discussion.) Steel1943  (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of giving a good faith but overly exuberant editor who has acknowledged their shortcomings-- and asked for a forced break-- the chance to try it. Dhemus himself would accept a very long forced break; that says a lot. The idea that they might resort to socking amounts to ABF. If they do, they will be blocked then. I am in favor of letting Barkeep49 and Dhemus give the forced break a try. A long time away from Wikipedia is often enough to change one's perspective, and Dhemus has admitted there are problems.  This is a very good first step. (I don't support the mentoring idea; it is always too much work, this is a better alternative.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflicts with JzG and Dmehus) Like Tavix above I was hoping that Dmehus would become a positive editor without being brought to ANI, but it seems that, as I was afraid might happen when I first encountered this editor several months ago, it seems that something more than a bit of helpful guidance is called for here. Every so often we seem to get a new editor who is full of ideas that are pasted all over Wikipedia pages, but who doesn't listen to advice from experienced editors. Sadly this seems to be such a case. What can we do short of a "competency is required" block? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confused-- you mention a new editor. Best I can tell, Dhemus has been editing since 2007.  Is this a new behavior pattern, or long-standing?  Dhemus, has something changed?  I, too, was mildly frustrated at Dhemus shutting down a conversation I was having at SilkTork's RFB, while continuing off-topic chatter himself, but saw it as not such a big deal.  I would like to know if there is a history, and for Dhemus to indicate if something has changed recently. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had an account for a lot longer than 2007 and 2007 may have been my first real edits, but haven't been editing regularly since around 2017 or so. As to the canvassing instances, in the two instances mentioned (the Canadian Tire Financial Services one), it was a piece of friendly advice. In the second one, it was determined in the discussion at Talk:Sharyl Attkisson to not be canvassing since the editors I'd notified mostly held opinions in opposition to my own. At most, it was an inappropriate notification. I think it's a general misunderstanding of WP:CANVASS because my understanding is one can still neutrally notify a user, so long as they have no expectation of expressing a certain viewpoint. Part of the problem may be that the guideline, like so many, is open to interpretation. The 'thanks' log usage is just because I am serial thanker who wishes to express gratitude for edits on pages that I follow (my userpage even notes this). I was actually going to put together a 'Thanks Log Opt-out' page for editors to add their name, in my own userspace, to opt out of being thanked and/or pinged. Doug Mehus T · C  17:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have 11446 edits since 2004-01-25. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be beneficial for you to actually reflect on what is being said here before you decide to speak. Your above response is just as troubling as the others I've pointed out here in that you are explaining exactly what your problematic edits are (in fact, better than I and others have) but not actually addressing a single one of them. You are an experienced enough editor that others can have a reasonable expectation of competence from you without having to suffer through multiple diatribes with empty acknowledgements and continued disruptive edits. Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They are relatively new, despite their registration date, they had no substantial edits until about 6 months ago, and those edits have been nothing short of problematic. Praxidicae (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks; fingers hurt and I didn't check closely enough. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm just commenting here to say that I've seen this. I share the frustrations expressed above, and have talked to Dmehus several times about how to edit less disruptively. I'm fine with whatever solution gets proposed here. – bradv  🍁  17:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting your reply was made as a result of an edit conflict, you may not have seen my reply. As I stated, given the recency of Tavix firm advice to me on my user talk page and the fact that I've proposed to take an extended wikibreak, I think this is the best solution here. Following my return from a wikibreak in several months, it might be useful to construct a modified NPP school curriculum with recommended essays on editor relations with which to read and be quizzed. Doug Mehus T · C  17:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ...And therein lies an issue: A few days ago, Dmehus stated they would take a 2–3 month Wikibreak, but then a few hours later, went back to editing as if the discussion never happened. At this point, I don't know if the issue is WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, lip service, or a combination of some or all of that. Whichever it is though, my confidence in Dmehus' capability of self-control is almost nonexistent at this point, and I strongly believe that the community has to do their part to enforce sanctions of some sort on Dmehus as they seem incapable of enforcing restrictions on themselves. Steel1943  (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As you stated though, when you've contemplated retirement several times, it is difficult. I had a number of pages still on my watchlist, so wanted to see those discussions through. I would note that I haven't nominated any pages or redirects for deletion, and don't plan to, until I come back from a wikibreak once this is settled. Doug Mehus T · C  17:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "I haven't nominated any pages or redirects for deletion..." ...But you did in the following edits after the diff I linked, and Tavix pointed that out to you in the same discussion on your talk page (User talk:Dmehus). When one says they are done, they have to be done, or at the least explain when and why they have changed their mind ... and you never did any of that. All of this seems to validate my lip service concern: You are trying to say what we either want or are expecting to hear, but then either not follow up with it and/or do the exact opposite ... which is why I'm in the belief that the community needs to do something in response to this since you seem to not be able to follow through with and/or control your actions. Steel1943  (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And as I've noted multiple times above, a promise of a wiki-break in this case does not stop the seemingly endless tendentious editing and mess you've caused, as with much of what's been discussed your promises to cease certain behaviors have gone unfulfilled. Why would this be any different? In the end, it just seems like a way to skirt any sort of fix or restriction so we will just have to re-hash this same exact discussion in 3 months. Praxidicae (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I recommended that Dmehus nuke his Draft of Kyle Kulinski on his userspace, so as to take some heat off of him. TBH - I personally have no problems with such a Draft existing in Demhus' userpace. He should be allowed to take the next six months to improve it in any way he can via 'better' sources, to make it more acceptable. Then be allowed to submit the draft to the community. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW - Dang if this 'case' doesn't have similarities to the previous case about Sm8900 :) GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When I said above, "every so often we seem to get a new editor who is full of ideas...", that's exactly who I had in mind as the most recent case. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I would be opposed to an indefinite talk/Wikipedia-space ban, as Doug also makes positive contributions at forums like RfD. That having been said, Doug does need to dial back the volume of participation on talk pages, and recalibrate his understanding of what things are actually worth hashing out at length vs. creating busywork or using this website as a social network. The pinging of administrators to review articles or otherwise deal with non-urgent issues also needs to stop: there are proper noticeboards to request such actions (although I would note that to his credit, Doug has stopped pinging me to things quite so much following my request that he do so). signed,Rosguill talk 18:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Would a 'one edit per page per day' restriction work for them, on Wikipedia namespace pages ? Nick (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , given the format of RfD, maybe a better restriction would be one edit per discussion, with additional replies allowed if someone requests their opinion (including indirect requests such as "delete voters, please clarify whether the new suggestion is amenable" etc.) signed,Rosguill talk 19:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (Ironic that you should mention "...using this site as a social network...": During all of this, I found the essay Wikipedia is not a social networking site in my quest to provide Dmehus a page regarding such concerns. However, it turns out that is an essay that hasn't been edited for some years. Given the prominence of social media these days, it may be a page in need of some serious TLC for today's audience.) Steel1943  (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * weird, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK points to a section of WP:NOT so the underlying sentiment is policy, even if the specific advice is not. We should probably try to reintegrate that essay with the policy. signed,Rosguill talk 19:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm only painting pictures, but I think it's that the policy page is to prevent articles being turned into an extension of FB, Twits, Insta pages etc (it's in the same section as WP:NOTWEBHOST after all), while the essay is advising editors not to treat the site as a social forum :)   ——  SN  54129  20:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Doug's commitment and dedication cannot be criticised. I do however question his judgment and his choice of areas on which to focus. I have been concerned by his editing piechart. When I first discovered that tool, I ran it on some experienced editors I respect. They all had articlespace percentages better than 90. In contrast, Doug is in the low 40s.


 * Our goal is to build an encyclopaedia. An extremely important element of that is improving the 6M articles we have. Anyone can write a new article (and many of them, it seems, do). WP:XFD and other maintenance areas are necessary, but are relatively minor issues. I would like to see Doug develop his editing skills, get his articlespace percentage up somewhere towards a respectable number, and voluntarily hold back from the behind-the-scenes stuff for the time being. Other editors have suggested a couple of possible areas above. To those, I would add: any of the maintenance categories in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month which need cleanup (obviously not tracking categories such as Category:Use American English). Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take care with WP:EDITCOUNTITIS and how to use the edit count tools. I spent five years as FAC delegate, while also active at FAR, and a year building all those articlehistory milestones you see on every GA/FA, which involved a lot of deleted edits, so in spite of my heavy article contributions, my editing pie chart tells a worse story than Dhemus's. Whole lotta Wikipedia edits per FAC and FAR. Use the edit count tool to begin to investigate where the problems are, not for raw statements.  Look at whether Dhemus has specifically made good article contributions (I haven't done that). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I forgot to include my planned sentence saying that such a pattern is unlikely to be unique. But, I've never seen any reason to look at your piechart, and still haven't done so. Also, the piechart isn't the only stat which that tool produces. I first looked at Doug's a couple of weeks ago, because what I'd seen elsewhere made me wonder what the hell he was doing. Narky Blert (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Mentorship
Having read all the concerns above, I recommend that Dmehus be given a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that several people have tried to take him under their wing and the time and advice has been disregarded, the last edit by DM, in fact is great evidence of this. This is a collaborative environment and if someone is unwilling to hear the concerns of multiple editors, I don't see how mentorship would possibly help and has the potential to create an echo chamber. I was originally going to respond to DM's last comment as well, but it seems appropriate to do so here. It shouldn't require a self requested block for you to actually heed the concerns of other editors. What is to prevent this from happening in 3 months if Barkeep were to actually block them? The responses here seem to just be blowing off very valid concerns from multiple editors in a way that shows a blatant disregard for a collaborative project that leads me to believe a preventative block may be in order to stop continued disruption based on the WP:CIR/WP:IDHT/WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior and editing pattern. Praxidicae (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Was trying to add but ECd: perhaps a topic ban/restriction that only allows for mainspace editing and only on XFD's where DM's content is being nominated..Praxidicae (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I sort of echo 's comment above: Given the apparent WP:CIR and WP:IDHT issues, I don't see a mentor/mentee situation working out well for Dmehus or the mentor. Steel1943  (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless someone is offering to mentor Doug, this is kind of an empty proposal. If someone was willing to mentor him they would have volunteered already – he has certainly asked enough people for help. – bradv  🍁  18:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(Dmehus) What should happen here?
Well, it looks like there's been an amount of evidence and concerns presented, and the discussion is beginning to get into discussing the recommended action(s) that should be taken in response to Dmehus' recent editing activity. So, to clarify things for what seems to be a discussion that is inevitably going to have a closer, I'm creating this section for simplicity for them. What action (block, sanction, editing restriction, nothing, etc.) should happen in response to Dmehus' recent editing activity discussed above? Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, I am in favor of trying the idea proposed by Barkeep49, and accepted by Dhemus, of a self-imposed break. Dhemus agreed to a very long self-requested block (longer than we would likely dish out); this shows good enough faith for me, and I believe it won't hurt to try this for an overly enthusiastic editor who admits they need a self-imposed break.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The user should be indefinitely blocked as NOTHERE. If he wants to return later, he can make an unblock request when he feels he is mature enough to edit in a constructive fashion. The user is an annoying time sink and often disruptive, sometimes in such an insidious manner as it's hard to reject his edits. Many times, by the time he's done his damage, it's a bit late. If it were not for this discussion, I would block him myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless someone has diffs to present of problematic mainspace editing, it seems all complaints are centered around Dmehus participating too much in talk page discussions. A self imposed restriction to reduce posts-per-discussion would seem to solve the problem. Like any editor, Dmehus should be able to request a self block at any time from the admin who offer it. Going straight to an involuntary block seems overly harsh. There are a lot of editors I find annoying, and who find me annoying, but we don’t block people for being annoying. Some concrete volunteer commitment should be tried first. Levivich  [dubious – discuss] 19:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat that an outright indef at this point in time would be inappropriate however I do not think a voluntary restriction is appropriate given DM's clear message here, while they intend to contribute productively, have no intention of addressing or changing the ongoing disruption. I feel that a self-imposed restriction is also inappropriate given the history here which demonstrates a wealth of empty promises and acknowledgement. Praxidicae (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * TBH, in my dealings with Dmehus, I never thought him to be disruptive. May have pinged too much, but that was a minor annoyance for me. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Might as well state my part here too: I don't support any type of voluntary restrictions or sanctions since Dmehus has a proven track record of not adhering to such restrictions or sanctions; Dmehus should be subject to whatever the community decides. Even if the end decision lines up with something that Dmehus suggested, they should have no option to decide when the restriction is lifted or removed; the decision of when and/or if that happens should he made by the community. I mean, after all, Wikipedia is a community project, not a project that one editor gets to do ... basically whatever they want and don't have to stick by what they say ... which there is, again, ample evidence present above that they have done just that. Steel1943  (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ...And as I have stated below, I think Dmehus should be blocked for 3–6 months, and then escalating blocks if the behaviors continue after the block. Any restrictions, sanctions, and anything voluntary will both be ineffective and a time sink for those who become involved with ensuring that Dmehus is following the restrictions/sanctions. Steel1943  (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've run into Doug a fair bit in the last few months, and not once had an issue. He's a bit long winded at times, and comments just to comment in some discussions, but if that's a crime then there's a lot of experienced editors who need a ban. If Doug seeks a self block, that's up to him. But I strongly oppose a community block. A restriction could be reasonable however, perhaps limiting talk/project space page edits to one a day a page (or whatever folks think is reasonable). Let's give Doug a chance to follow a simple restriction. If he follows it, bam, no problem and we lift it in like a year once he's learned his lesson. If not, then it's a CIR block. Easy. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I feel as though the self-requested block, to enforce a wikibreak while I work on offline activities, would have the dual effect of giving me the opportunity to reflect on what seem to be the main issues here—that is, my excessive use of the 'thanks' log and pinging editors with whom I've collaborated into discussions in which they were involved. I've recently seen Steel1943 and other editors make use of the noping template to hyperlink to a referenced user, in referring to their participation in a related discussion, without causing a ping notification. Following my enforced wikibreak, this should used almost entirely. While I have never intended to canvass editors into discussions to solicit a particular viewpoint—indeed, it is either because (a) I have valued their expertise and had a question or (b) I have valued their expertise in related discussions. While neutral notifications can be done, it seems prudent that I should limit my notifications to talk pages and the village pump. In merging discussions, a neutral talk page merge note to substantial contributors can also be done, which I have done for the proposal to merge small penis into penis (disambiguation), which generated no complaints. A combination of having a mentor that would provide between-the-lines guidance on appropriate and inappropriate notifications and my voluntarily curtailing notifications to users who had not already participated in the discussion at hand would alleviate any concerns. So, to address Praxidicae's and Steel1943's concerns of some sort of community-sanctioned penalty to accompany the self-requested block to enforce my wikibreak, it seems there is at least rough consensus to formally admonish me for my inappropriate, albeit good-faith, notifications and excessive use of the 'thanks' feature. Some guidance, from a mentor following my wikibreak, on specific instances when the 'thanks' should be used and to what frequency would also be helpful. And, finally, I will also institute an Opt-out page to allow editors to add their names to opt-out completely from 'thanks' and/or 'pings'. Doug Mehus T · C  21:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I've seen Doug around quite a bit lately, and have a very similar impression of him that I do of many other users in their early days, including people in this very thread (and which, possibly, some others had about me). Doug seems to have fully guzzled the Wikipedia Kool-Aid recently, and is eager -- perhaps overeager, in some ways -- to be involved, to help out, and to understand. And he's looking around for all sorts of opportunities to do so (mostly in projectspace). I do not get the impression that he's not interested in learning, even if he does continue to make mistakes. As such, first and foremost I strongly oppose the suggestion above that this is a NOTHERE issue, or that an indef is at all needed. This sort of energy is something that needs to be helped/focused/maybe redirected, not shut down. From what I'm seeing here, the issue is more about a compounding tax on people's patience rather than any of the particular edits being all that egregious. I'd like to hear from Doug what sort of voluntary restrictions he would be willing to abide by, taking into consideration the various concerns above, but stopping short of a block (I really don't think that's in the best interest of Wikipedia). How about these for a couple possibilities: (a) a voluntary restriction to main, talk, user, and user talk namespace for a period of time; (b) voluntarily limiting yourself to 2 comments per discussion outside of those namespaces; and/or (c) maybe something unusual like editing fewer than 25 times each day (the idea being taking some time to reflect, etc. before saving, and so that if there are mistakes while you're learning, they don't overwhelm the other volunteers). Just throwing things out. I do feel like something voluntary is a good step here. I know it can be overwhelming to see so many people taking issue with things you're doing. I would take onboard what people are saying, but consider it part of the learning experience. You'd probably be surprised how many of the experienced, well-respected editors you see around today started out frustrating people in one way or another. :) &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not a big fan of Doug trying to set the terms here. Let's just block him for six months and then he can decide how to act when he returns. He doesn't need to tell us now. – bradv  🍁  21:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I'm on board with this option. After seeing examples of what editing sanctions would look like for Dmehus, I feel like it's going to end up looking like the paragraphs of fine print in a contract; it would require too much of other editors' time to both make sure they understand the sanctions in their entirety as well as ensure Dmehus is following all of the aspects of the sanctions. Just block for 3–6 months, and deal with whatever behavior may arise afterwards. (I also agree that a indef may be too much at this point; do the 3–6 months, and afterwards, escalate appropriately if necessary.) Steel1943  (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment in reply to Rhododendrites and Bradv's reply. To what Rhododendrites is saying where he writes that I am "eager, perhaps overeager, in some ways," I think that's hitting on the nail on the proverbial head. It touches on what I discussed on my talk page, whereby I feel as though I'm trying to be too involved in too many areas. I think I should limit my behind-the-scenes project namespace focus to a particular area after more fully absorbing related policies, whether that be at CfD, RfD, or MfD, rather than trying to participate in everything, sometimes poorly and without thought. So, maybe that means I focus more on our categorization of articles and guidelines and participate more at CfD, or maybe I understand the nuances and guidelines at RfD, and participate only in discussions in which I have a firm command of and understanding of the issues. If I don't understand the rationale behind keeping, or not keeping, redirects from foreign languages, then I should avoid that discussion. Similarly, there's clear consensus here that I need to focus more on my main namespace editing—I've expressed an interest in writing articles on Canadian provincial prisons, so perhaps that, combined with work in improving the categorization of articles and adding additions to articles would be beneficial at diversifying my editorial contributions by namespace. Taken together, by focusing my maintenance-related contributions to less areas of the of the project and only into discussions into which I have a firm command of the issues and on article space edits, which have been sound but just too sparse for most editors' likings, I will, in turn, have less time to socialize with editors or to request their expertise on various topics. Doug Mehus T · C  21:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While a self-pause would be good, I just don't see their actions as warranting either an indef or a month+ community ban. CaptainEek's thoughts seem reasonable - a rate limit for wikipedia/wikipedia talk or some more nuanced form seems a good route to take. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how easily the rate limit idea could be implemented, but this could be a very effective tool to limit my project namespace participation following my self-requested 2-3 month block to enforce a wikibreak. Something of, maybe, 10-15 edits/discussion contributions per day in either Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk. This could be in existence for, say, three months following my return in May/June, possibly tied in with a recommendation of a mentor who could assess a more balanced participation across namespaces and a more focused participation instead of trying to participate in too much, sometimes with less expertise than is required. That is, if the mentor felt a longer rate limit was warranted, then they would simply make a note of that on the applicable noticeboard, and the per day WP/WT edit rate limit would be extended on a rolling month long basis. Doug Mehus T · C  21:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this a bit more, I have come to the conclusion that the best thing for the development of this encyclopedia would be to block Dmehus for a considerable length of time. His editing is a time sink for other editors who would be more productive without him. I know he's always nice to everyone, but let's remember that our primary purpose is to be a workplace building an encyclopedia, not to be nice to each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Awww...c'mon now. Doug is a good person, a bit overzealous/enthusiastic as bradv pointed out and definitely not beyond learning to assume the type of behavior expected of him by others in the community. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Levivich, Rosguill & SandyGeorgia also made good points, and I agree with all of them for the most part. Keep & userfy - dont delete. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 22:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by your last sentence? This is a discussion about an editor, not an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What I took from Atsme's last sentence was that they were using the !vote icons to signify what should happen to me. "Keep" and "Userfy" in this context means they're supportive of efforts to correct the behaviour that needs correcting (principally, the excessive 'thanks', excessive use of pings, and excessive participation in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces), versus "delete," which would mean a community-sanctioned block or ban. Doug Mehus T · C  22:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That takes quite a bit of mind-reading to get from Atsme's comment. Shouldn't we let the editor who made it explain the meaning, which is far from explicit? Or do you have some inside knowledge about that editor's thoughts? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it means that Atsme opposes a block ... at least from what I'm understanding, and possibly getting Dmehus a mentor. (Note, these are not my opinions.) Steel1943  (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , if he could accept that he lacks the competence to opine in the vast majority of places he turns up, it would be fine. But the entire reaosn we are here is that he doesn't understand that small but fundamental fact. Guy (help!) 22:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposals
Seems there are a couple of things we could try at this point. I'd be happy with 2, 3 or 4. Guy (help!) 22:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Do nothing.
 * 2) Six month block.
 * 3) 12 month ban from project space.
 * 4) 12 month content-only restriction (no RfCs, moves on pages he was not already editing, etc).
 * 3–6 month block (Option 2). Reasons why already explained above. Steel1943  (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2. I have also explained the reasons above, and prefer to keep things simple and not open to interpretation, because this editor appears not to understand anything approaching subtlety. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2 3 or 4 if 2, an additional restriction upon his return that would fall in like with 3 and 4. Praxidicae (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking, 2 should be the only option at this point based on this absurdly tone-deaf statement to the point I'd now also support option 5, an indef. We're well into WP:IDHT territory now. Should Doug return from that block, 3 and 4 should be required. Praxidicae (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest that some sort of action wasn't necessary, but rather, other options were discussed above, and the discussion was continuing. So, we should be to assess from the discussion thus far in the above section what action(s) to take that would have broad community support from the editors who have participated. Doug Mehus T · C  23:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * (a) Prefer three-month self-requested block to enforce a wikibreak accompanied by,
 * Formal community admonishment for the excessive use of the 'thanks' feature, good-faith albeit, at times, unnecessary and excessive use of pings, and to pick an area or two on which to focus, hone expertise, whilst increasing article namespace edits, and,
 * 3-9 month (longer, if needed) daily rate-limiting editing restriction in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces to help to enforce the idea that I need to focus more time editing articles and limiting my involvement to one or two areas of the project namespace (this could be extended by either of the community or the NPP School "mentor"/coordinator); or,
 * (b) Three-month self-requested block to enforce a wikibreak followed by,
 * Option 4, Formal community admonishment, and/or 3-9 month (longer, if needed) daily rate-limiting editing restriction in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Doug Mehus T · C  23:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It feels like this lengthy comment is sort of indicative of the problem people are trying to point out to you, Doug. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that, but there were only four options listed, even though other options were discussed above. So, it felt as though the four options presented were too constricting, and were trying to effect a desired outcome from a certain group of editors. So, I wanted to show that I'm open to multiple options, but not, specifically, the ones presented. To be honest, it's not clear this section was even needed; other editors have already expressed their views above, so we should be able to assess from that an outcome that meets the prevailing consensus of the sentiments expressed by all editors. Doug Mehus T · C  23:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You should never have to request formal community admonishment of yourself - if you recognize that you need admonishment and are continuing the behavior, then that shows that you are just not getting it and a formal community action won't change anything. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not support any form of admonishment, because this editor is clearly acting in good faith. I support a block as a preventative, not punitive, measure. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't even read this anymore. Option 2. – bradv  🍁  23:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. After requesting a block, Dmehus has since !voted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Recent. He does not have enough self-control, so nothing short of a block will work. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note, though, that I've requested a block to enforce the wikibreak due to the lack of self-control. In tandem with that, I do think some sort of editing restriction within Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces would be appropriate, but rather it shouldn't be limited to, say, 6, 9, or 12 months. It could be extended, if necessary. Ultimately, since blocks are meant enforce corrective action and not be punitive, a three-month self-requested block should do this just fine; it would enforce the wikibreak and, following that, an appropriate control measure to help ensure my time is limited in Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespaces would be much more in keeping with our guidelines. Doug Mehus T · C  23:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2, some kind of block even if not a whole 6 months. Based on the replies Dmehus has posted in this section it's pretty clear that he has no understanding of what the problem is. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh. Still of the opinion I wrote above, which isn't covered by 1-4. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 23:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to prolong this, especially with Dmehus continuing to respond to almost every message. Blocked for 4 months — I know that many preferred six, but what can I say? I'm an optimist. El_C 00:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CBAN, community sanction discussions have to be open for a minimum of 24 hours, please undo your block. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 13:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've undone it as El_C has been off for quite a while. Hope that's alright. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 14:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread the timestamps. Carry on! El_C 15:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

(1) He pings a lot more than he needs to, and he should probably consider not pinging anyone unless it's an emergency. (2) He also has the bad habit of bludgeoning certain XfDs he takes a liking to, which I first noticed here (yeah, his bludgeoning saved a template I spent a significant amount of time using, but it didn't feel great seeing him respond so much in a single thread like that...). Should I have told him this at the time? Almost definitely... it's just well... I didn't want to break it to the guy that he was being disruptive since he's such a genuinely nice person. (3) I should also mention he also has a bad habit of accidently !voting multiple times in XfDs he's in (see this RFD for example). I think he could just do with a formal community warning, but I'm so obviously biased here that my opinion on the matter should be disregarded. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 15:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong opposition to a complete block I have been following Doug since November and have been offering him some advice on how to act in XfDs, one of these threads were even cited by Praxidicae in the opening statement . I've seen Doug improve over these months and have taken well to some formal suggestions such as when Primefac suggested they should stop closing TfDs which they haven't done since (link). This clearly shows that they have the ability to improves which makes me highly skeptical that a block would be the best way to handle this. Dmehus enthusiasm would be very beneficial as a content creator or new page reviewer and preventing them from helping in these areas would be more punitive then preventative since as far as I can see no concerns have been raised about their work outside of discussions. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2. As I stated in the discussion, my preference is for a longer block. Dmehus's comments in this thread confirm that his conduct is disruptive and unacceptable. As for 's closure, although it was done in good faith, it was wrong not only because it was way too early, but also because the closing administrator should judge the community's consensus, not reduce the block length because of their personal feelings.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per 's comment on my talk page, I am providing a brief statement on my thoughts on the "community block," particularly because I do not want to carry this on any further. I accept that my above my comment was too lengthy and, while I accepted that I do tend to overuse the 'thanks' feature, excessively ping experienced editors whom I know, and do tend tend to edit disproportionately in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces, 's comment that I needn't have replied to every reply in a discussion that also focused on my bludgeoning of discussions was entirely on point. While not my preferred outcome in terms of it being characterized as a "community block" and while also somewhat longer than I would've preferred, I still think El C's closure was reasonable in that his rationale reflected the prevailing concern from the discussion—the bludgeoning of this discussion and previous discussions. I had contemplated 'thanking' El C for the closure or replying to his comments on my talk page, but took heed of his advice not to do that, to demonstrate that I was getting it. So, my preference would be, as I stated above, for a three- or four-month self-requested block (four months is actually fine as well) followed by a mentorship by a willing adopting editor. This mentoring editor could be the same as the NPP training editor or a different editor. A mentor would be particularly instructive in providing functional guidance on when it's appropriate to reply to other users' arguments in, principally, XfD and merging/move discussions and when it becomes too much. I should add that I'm willing to accept a daily rate limiting editing restriction in Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces as suggested by Nosebagbear for a period of time following any block as may be applied (note I've requested at least a two month block to help enforce my wikibreak), but a namespace ban, I don't think, would be helpful because strikes me as punitive not corrective in nature in that it doesn't address the main problem—that of over-participation in that area. In contrast, a rate-limiting editing restriction would provide a governor to controlling my participation. Amended. Doug M. T · C  15:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I mean this in the nicest possible way: stop. Every time you comment here, you are showing that you are not listening to the feedback of the many editors who have already weighed in on this discussion. If you genuinely cannot stay away from Wikipedia without a block, then request the self-block. Come back in a few months ready to learn, but to be blunt, if you feel that you have to have the community impose a restriction on you in order for you to behave, then that shows a distressing lack of self-control. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Immediately following Creffett's edit, you decided it appropriate to make this addition to your prior statement which indicates to me that nothing short of a 6 month outright block, at minimum, is appropriate. This is absurd and a great case to provide at WP:IDHT as an example of this behavior and frankly your willingness to accept anything is irrelevant at this point, since it's clear the behavior isn't changing. Praxidicae (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I personally like Doug, yet I couldn't help but notice there was some problems with some of his conduct as well.
 * Can you provide a more concise statement (say 1 or 2 sentences) about what you intend to do and areas you plan to edit upon your return? Praxidicae (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed close
Trying to thread the needle between too mean and too kind, and trying to figure out what to do when there is clear consensus to do something but not a clear consensus on exactly what, and balancing between current disruption and potential future positive contribution, is difficult. I don't want to supervote. Unless a clearer consensus (or a better idea) emerges, I'm planning on closing as follows when 24 hours from Guy's proposals are up; I think this proposed close comes as close as possible to reasonable compromise of current opinions. But I want to know if there is significant objection that this is too far from community consensus: Thoughts? And Doug, please, for the love of all that is holy, don't comment on this with anything longer than 3-4 sentences, and only comment once. And don't ping anyone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Doug is blocked for 4 months. This is not a self-requested block; since this is a community discussion, it would require community agreement to unblock earlier. (Doug, as an aside, I am very confident that the community would not agree to that, and strongly recommend against trying.)
 * Upon his return, he will be indefinitely banned from the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces, except to participate in discussions started by other people about (a) articles he has made significant contributions to himself, or (b) about him.
 * If disruption switches to other namespaces, an admin can block indefinitely.
 * If there is no disruption to other namespaces, Doug can request a loosening of this restriction at WP:AN. (Doug, as an aside, I am very confident that the community would not agree to that if you request it sooner than about 4 months after being unblocked, and strongly recommend against trying.)
 * A strong suggestion to make a loosening more likely, but not a requirement, is that Doug find an established editor willing to mentor him prior to requesting a loosening of the namespace restriction. Another strong suggestion, but not a requirement, is that Doug request being able to contribute to only one or two types of WP/WT space discussions at a time, and see how that goes before trying more. But of course the exact type of loosening would be determined by the community discussion when it happens. (As an aside, I'm hoping the community would simply defer to a mentor's judgement, if there was one, rather than micro-manage restrictions.)

''This addition made after comments below started: This isn't intended to be a continuation of asking what people think should be done; it's intended to ask if people think this is a reasonable interpretation of consensus above. Kind of like the distinction between DRV and AFD. If you want to comment on what you think should be done, feel free to comment in section above, which I'll re-read before closing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)''


 * support as written, and I second Floquenbeam's aside to Doug. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 17:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as written, as it functionally meets what I've suggested with a firmer restriction than the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk namespace edit restriction. Doug M. T · C  17:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blocking the guy for any length of time, unless he shows he ain't gonna abide by the concerns of others in this ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support it's a start. Praxidicae (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a good summary of the consensus here.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While I disagree that a block is needed I think this is a fine reading of the consensus. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With more comments making good arguments against the proposal I don't think this would be a good close, at least not yet. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Query 24 hours,, I apologize for not having done the math, but did you add on the 15 hours per EL_C's premature close and the need for a 24-hour period for community bans or blocks? I ask because, after Dhemus continued to ... over-respond here ... I decided to hold off on forming my final opinion.  Where are we on the 24 hours? The failure to adhere to the 24 hours (besides being one  of the problems one fequently sees at ANI) really messed up what I was hoping to observe vis-a-vis Dhemus's behavior and response. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My thought was to close this 24 hours after Guy posted his proposals, i.e. in about 5 hours (22:45ish); the 1 hour interruption from El C's block was not included, that hour seems like noise in the signal. The thread as a whole has been going on for longer. Are you asking to postpone closing past 22:45? For how long? Especially in a case where the target of the sanction is agreeing with the sanction... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a 15-hour interruption; what am I missing? If it was only one-hour, yes, I agree we should proceed. My thought was that the premature shut-down didn't permit adequate observation of whether Dhemus would adjust behaviors (and didn't allow me to adjust my position accordingly).  If my math is off, please do ignore me :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's my math that's off. I looked at QEDK's timestamp, not El C's. You're right.  I'll pause the clock during El C's block, where no new discussion happened.  I'll do the math later, but for now, I'll make sure the thread has been open for discussion for at least 24 hours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry again for disrupting the process due to my misreading the timestamps. I thought it has been over a day, but obviously I was in error. El_C 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a problem; I obviously misread timestamps myself. I did the math, and, I won't close this before 13:40 (UTC) on 5 March. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both. The unfortunate thing (for me, at least) is that the premature shutdown really did stop me from observing what I thought needed to be observed vis-a-vis the problematic behavior and whether it would continue or moderate. Considering that, I will refrain from lodging an opinion now; I feel we unfairly prejudiced the discussion, and I can't go backwards on that.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest re-writing indefinitely banned from Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk space as indefinitely banned from the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces or similar. The way it's currently worded makes it sound like Doug would be banned from editing Wikipedia after his block expires, which is contradictory. Otherwise, this seems reasonable. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Honestly, with the best will in the world it seems as if Dmehus can't help themselves. Perhaps this will? In any case, since it's not much more in duration that he was willing to voluntarilly undertake, I hope it wil be useful rather tan painful. ——  SN  54129  19:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support; this is reasonable and a good read on the overall consensus above, I think. I've personally had good experiences with Dmehus and I'd potentially volunteer to be a mentor upon his return if he does want to get back into projectspace editing; but it's pretty clear that people who've dealt with him in more discussions than I have are now very, very tired of his behaviour. A block is clearly warranted by the consensus above; I'd have no issue helping Doug out afterwards once it's blown over. ~ mazca  talk 20:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I believe that Floquenbeam's assessment of current consensus is fairly accurate. Steel1943  (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Dmehus has been editing in the "Wikipedia:" namespace for the past few hours now. 1 2 etc. For this reason, I believe the block should be extended to 5–6 months due to their apparently lack of self control even when an official sanction/block is not present. Or, if the community sees fit, indef block per Ivanvector's suggestion below. Other than that, I agree with the assessment of the consensus ... there has to be a block as part of the resolution for the reasons I've already stated above. Steel1943  (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, this is an excellent threading of the needle. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per... well, really per . I can't remember a more convincing demonstration of the Law of Holes. Guy (help!) 00:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am of two minds here. Mind one: I think this remedy is more appropriate than anything that was being mooted before El C's close. Mind two: I think this is a subversion of our process (this remedy is being presented as reflecting the consensus of the discussion which it didn't have but by proposing it in this way garners it consensus it didn't have before) and we're telling someone who had accepted their block without protest "you know what we didn't get a chance to make things bad enough for you, so we're going to reopen things so we can impose a stiffer sentence." I think it's a poor way to treat the human on the other end of this. But I really do think that this is a better remedy for the project. So there are my two minds. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the 4-month block, but I don't think we should be setting restrictions at this point. As I said before, he can decide how to behave upon his return. – bradv  🍁  02:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Either set the restriction or do the block, both just seem punitive and honestly, way too harsh for a good-faith editor, Floq has completely missed the aspect where multiple editors (Atsme, Rhododendrites, Trialpears) have stated that the correct way is to refocus their efforts into something productive, this seems to be somewhat of a pattern after another two editors were dragged to ANI over the same thing, while I am perfectly fine with the community drawing a line and saying "stop", this "stop" seems to be more like a "we didn't like you tried too hard". Also, read Barkeep49's apt summary above. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 08:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I recommend letting it run for a while so we can get concrete consensus, as it stands now any administrator can probably supervote this to a close without opposition I'm sure, but that would be unfair to the editor concerned, imho. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 08:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with qedk: it seems odd to do both a longish block and a bunch of restrictions; if the restrictions will work, they'll work without the block. --JBL (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, QEDK, Joel B. Lewis, and (partially) Bradv have now expressed the concern I have about how we are treating a good faith but overly exuberant editor. Thanks for letting this thread run longer, as we have now been able to see that Dhemus has backed off and has gone about productive editing elsewhere.  One only need look at some of the egregious diffs surfacing on RFAs to know that other editors are not even warned over extremely serious behaviors, while we are looking to hand out a pretty stiff penalty to someone who has been a good faith pain in the neck.  More than ten years ago, I mentored a very difficult editor who was occupying my time almost 'round the clock, and seemed to be incapable of turning around or demonstrating CIR.  Today, she has a GA, and is still productively editing. We can take greater care in how we treat editors who are acting in good faith, particularly when they acknowledge the issues. Dhemus requested a block, acknowledging perhaps that they have a hard time pushing back from the computer; we don't need to add on scorn.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think there's any doubt about Doug's good faith here but there comes to a point where we have to expect a certain level of competence and self-control and I know I'm repeating myself at this point but he has demonstrated an inability to take constructive criticism (as and  pointed out) and self-control which is why I think people feel so strongly about a block over starting with restrictions, especially when they're still making edits like this, despite this very ANI and their promise to stop doing such things just hours before. Not only is the request quite absurd, since that is the French spelling, it is completely frivolous to take something (uncontested, at that!) to RFD with the rationale I'm not advocating deletion, which is the theme of the underlying behavior, speaking to hear oneself speak. yes, I've voted there because I came across it while de-spamming Butcher Praxidicae (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If we "have to expect a certain level of competence and self-control", we should expect the same of all editors opining here in other recent examples, where some of the worst diffs I have ever encountered on Wikipedia are in plain sight. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any issues with Doug's edits outside of discussions? If not I really don't see why a block would be necessary when editing restrictions would be sufficient. Doug stopped closing TfDs when firmly instructed to and has clearly shown that his behavior can improve. I don't see any issue with the RfD you linked either. He wants a discussion about how we should deal with the redirect since he isn't sure what the best course of action is and started a discussion at an appropriate forum. The request isn't frivolous since disambiguate is a perfectly plausible outcome based on Doug's nomination. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Doug needs time away from Wikipedia but I think that for Doug not the project. I think the best thing for Wikipedia is for Doug to have clear editing restrictions. As such, I would prefer for this thread to close with the editing restrictions and Floq's were good ones which is why I said I liked this better than anything being mooted before. If Doug can't abide by those he's going to end up blocked anyway. I think Praxidicae's example only provides more evidence for restrictions over just a block. Doug could then have the option of requesting an enforced wikibreak via block and I'd advise him to take that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Praxidicae, for the love of all that is holy, chill out, cut DM some slack, we're all volunteers and it's pretty damn cheap to be nice to each other. It is very obvious from that request that DM just wants the redirect to be retargeted to something more apt in their opinion. I wish you meant it when you say I don't think there's any doubt about Doug's good faith because each time you comment here, it is so obvious that you'd rather see them blocked than have them contribute, not allowing room for any improvement on their part, what kind of editor retention are you even trying to advocate here. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 14:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (literally) small segue: Following up on SandyGeorgia's comment, if civility was enforced as easily as we were handing out blocks against clearly good-faith editors who have been unintentionally disruptive, this community would be much better off. I'm saying this particularly because so many of our amazing contributors don't start off well but they atleast try and they remain civil throughout the process. This is a difficult community (explains our terrible editor retention) and we have a responsibility to cut people some slack for people who have difficulty in getting it. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 桜 c) 15:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose a time-limited block followed by restrictions. If the restrictions purport to solve the problem, just do that. If the restrictions address the problem, then there is no need to force the editor to sit in the penalty box for a set length of time other than to punish them, and we don't do that. If the restrictions don't address the problem, then block them and don't set an expiry; enough time has been wasted. I separately oppose the second bullet of the proposal as it's currently worded, because it would ban the editor from venues like dispute resolution and noticeboards like this one unless they're being dragged there by editors they're presumably in conflict with, which can only lead to drama. Honestly I agree with what Steel1943 said a while back in the discussion that the set of restrictions that would address this behaviour without being overly restrictive will be too much of a burden on other editors to patrol. Also, Doug has separately stated, maybe more than once and not in these exact words, that he can't help himself. Really the only plausible approach here is an indefinite block, which may be appealed at any time to the community if and when Doug figures out a plan on his own for how he will constructively participate here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Barkeep’s second mind, Sandy, Trialpears, QEDK and Atsme, and also per Doug editing elsewhere and not replying in this thread anymore. Those editors worried about timesinks have now spent more time on this thread than the amount of time Doug has cost them. And oh that incivility were treated with as much vigor as verbosity! Doug did WP:PEPPER too much but seems to have taken that on board now. Seems to have resolved itself. I oppose an indef also. El C’s premature block may have done the trick (good job El C!). Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Those editors worried about timesinks have now spent more time on this thread than the amount of time Doug has cost them." ...This thread hasn't been open for over five months. Steel1943  (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And Doug hasn’t cost you five months. One option open to you is: do not read what Doug writes. Just skip over it and keep scrolling. There are plenty of editors whom I just skip over like this. I don’t ask them to be sanctioned. Ymmv. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I disagree with that, especially since that plan of action doesn't work in XFD forums. Lately, I've had to be more selective where I have been editing thanks to Dmehus' behavior. Considering that unless I did work in a space that didn't turn into an apparently repetitive WP:IDHT discussion time sink, yes, I count that as time lost from portions of Wikipedia I am more productive. So, to each their own interpretation. Steel1943  (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware of, and have considered, the later opposes, but there is still a consensus for this remedy, with some tweaks. And, not to get too meta, there's a consensus that this is a fair reading of the previous consensus.  Including from Dmehus himself.  Several people say they want to leave this open to get a better consensus, but no new suggested remedies have been proposed in the last 24 hours (except a renewed call for an indef block, which is actually harsher than what others who oppose this want, and comments that one or the other remedy is punative, which I have considered and address below).
 * It is extremely clear that there is consensus for some kind of editing restrictions, and we have to pick some scope, even if there is not uniformity on what it is, and this is as close to a compromise of all the proposals I've seen as I can get. It also has the benefit of being simple. This has been discussed a lot now; it doesn't make sense to only block for now, and then discuss specifics for the editing restrictions all over again when the block expires.
 * There is a less-clear-but-still-there consensus for a block of some duration, from 2 months to indefinite. Both to give the community a "break", and because Doug has said several times he is fine with (and actually wants) a time-limited block to force a wikibreak.  I'll shorten the block to about 3 months, June 15th which Doug initially requested, but it's still a community block.  Both in deference to the consensus for one, and because an optional one doesn't actually force anything.
 * Also, a shout out to User:Mazca, who has offered above to mentor Doug upon his return. IMHO this offer has contributed more to a potential long term solution than anything else in the thread. Thanks. Because of this, I'll tweak the wording to say that rather than waiting 4 months to appeal the editing restrictions, that if he has an experienced mentor, he should appeal as soon as his mentor thinks he's ready, and that if he doesn't, he should probably still wait 4 months for it to have a decent chance at being successful.
 * Closing momentarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding "... waiting 4 months to appeal the editing restrictions..., may need some clarify on that in the close. Is that 4 months from now, or 4 months after the end of the block (or something else which starts the 4-month timer)? Steel1943  (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Incivility help
There is a lengthy discussion that has persisted on talk:DC Extended Universe. Editor has recently decided to start accusing users that disagree with them of WP:SOCKpuppetry as well as WP:BLUDGEONing. They may or may not bring such accusations in another thread, but the user continues to contradict themselves simply to further along their proposed argument. Trying to be collaborative and civil with them is not working. Can we get some assistance, please? Thank you.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You were warned about bludgeoning because, even as the discussion was winding down and we were waiting for others to comment, you kept replying over and over to every single comment (often with two comments at a time) restating your position. As the discussion died down, you were told by both me and that there's no reason to keep going in circles and we need to allow others to comment, and you still kept trying to burying the thread with your replies because the discussion wasn't going your way. As soon as Joebro mentioned something about an RfC and I stated that I was about to open a fourth Arbitrary Break to wrap up the discussion and gather final comments/votes, you immediately rushed to open an Abitrary Break yourself, ,   just to restate your position (for the umpteenth time) and rant about how "But consensus is not based off of votes!!!"
 * Then, almost immediately after you opened the Arbritary Break, shows up to the discussion and becomes the only user to strongly support you in that entire thread. This user only has six edits to their account., , , , ,  and they're all recent. Every single one of the accounts edits are at Talk:DC Extended Universe, taking the same position as DisneyMetalhead in discussions. The only two exceptions were from yesterday, when the account came to defend DMH and then added a space ,  to their username and talk page, to create those pages and get rid of the redlink (in order to look less suspicious).
 * Not only were you guilty of WP:BLUDGEON and opened an ANI report as soon as you were warned to stop, but give us one good reason why we shouldn't open a WP:SPI. Your only defense so far for bludgeoning has been "just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm bludgeoning", which immediately falls apart under scrutiny.  Dark Knight  2149  18:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As if that wasn't evidence enough of WP:SOCKing, 's account was registered in September 2016 . was registered only a month later in October 2016 . So far, Popfox's only defense has been "actually I'm not a sock because my account was registered in 2016 and I simply didn't use it until recently."  In other words, "I didn't use my account until I needed to support DisneyMetalhead at Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions."  Dark  Knight  2149  19:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While that does appear suspicious, you need to be clear, DK - are you stating, without equivocation, that DMh and Popfox3 are the same user? If so, you need to come out and call for a SPI investigation and file the report. I get how, if it is true, it is infuriating (I've had the same accusation made about me as well, and it is a stain that - if not specifically debunked - remains forever), but you cannot even make the accusation as part of an argument without having created an SPI report. As upset as you might be at DMh, tainting their reputation is completely unwarranted without a truckload of proof. Submit the report, await the results and frame your argument accordingly. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not just DisneyMetalhead's reputation that is being tainted. I finally have time to attempt to contribute, and I immediately have accusations hurled at me and a potential investigation into my account, all because I agreed with a user in a discussion. I am NOT a sock puppet, and it is infuriating and humiliating that I have to go through this and have my reputation tainted before I even really do anything. I actually welcome an investigation if that's what it'll take to get Darknight2149 to stop. This is ridiculous. Popfox3 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that, throughout the discussion, you have tried to be the middle man of the discussion who has tried to find a middle ground between everyone involved. However, there is no middle ground here. DisneyMetalhead's behaviour fits the exact parameters of WP:BLUDGEON. My point is that there is overwhelming evidence that Popfox3 is a sock puppet of DisneyMetalhead. I'm waiting for administrator feedback first, but I probably am going to have to open a WP:SPI at some point today. I'm not clairvoyant, but from what I can see, this more than warrants a checkuser.  Dark Knight  2149  19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that DisneyMetalhead stop reply-spamming at Talk:DC Extended Universe, and give others a chance to comment. For the moment, unless someone addresses me or something I said, I will be doing the same.  Dark Knight  2149  19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - I am not going to reply directly to your comments as, at best, you are an SPA, and not really worthy of comment. At worst you are a sock, and I literally will not waste any further time (apart from this single comment) to interact with you until you either build a more diverse set of edits and an SPI comes back as unrelated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I myself have been accused of BLUDGEON (even before the term came into fashion); it comes from being young and unwilling to consider other viewpoints; a person doing so is absolutely convinced that the other editors suffer from anterograde amnesia and won't remember the previous comments make. Its rather disrespectful and I cringe at the fact that I used to be that way.
 * Understand that DMh is likely young and needs a bit more marinating in the Stew of Life before being taken seriously. If they are socking, they deserve every single awful thing that Wikipedia can do to them (please forgive my draconian view on this, but it will not be softening or changing - socks deserve the Swift Sword of Icky Death, imo). I would have suggested on their talk page that they give other the chance to respond before addressing the comments en toto and not piecemeal. If that failed to work, get an RfC; don't wait for it, just start one. Lots of eyes will come to the page and if DMh keeps doing that, their comments will likely boomerang back onto themselves.
 * I think an ANI is bit much (as you skipped a step), unless you are seeking help on how to correct the problem. If you came here seeking punishment for DMh and Popfox3, you've done this incorrectly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't skip a step. I actually did leave DisneyMetalHead a message asking for them to cool it down, and they retaliated by filing this report. I didn't file it. This is a WP:BOOMERANG scenario.
 * To be honest, I don't buy Popfox3's story at all. When I was a newbie, I didn't even understand what a talk page was or the discussion process until a few weeks or so in. Yet his/her supposed first (and only) order of business is to only reply to Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions? And they happen to take all of the same positions as DisneyMetalHead? And they happened to show up to the thread just as DMH was growing more and more desperate and overzealous, and the thread was seemingly leading to a close or a RFC? And as soon as they supported DMH, they created a blank userpage and talk page to get rid of the redlink and make their lack of activity less obvious? And their account was created just a month after DisneyMetalHead's? Yeah, everything about this smells fishy. I already have a WP:SPI tab open. I will alert this thread when the report is filed.  Dark Knight  2149  20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you you following the necessary steps, dotting your 'i's' and crossing your 't's'. Maybe hold off on talking any more about your suspicions regarding the connections between DMh ad Popfox3 until after the SPI. The ANI is to deal with tendentious editing behavior or personal attacks, which DMh correctly did; accusing them of being part of a socking is a PA unless proven, as the lack of AGF is apparent. Others will offer far more wise advice than I. I am suggesting you don't make any further comments regarding the SPI until it is complete. Focus on what you feel is DMh's disruptive editing behaviors as you see them, because I can guarantee that the user is doing the same here.
 * The hardest lesson I had to learn in Wikipedia is that trying to verbally annihilate another user in an edit summary or in talk is counterproductive; how can you even wrap your head around working with someone like that ever again, hating them that much? The short answer is that you cannot. You have to just walk away for a while and let them dig a big enough hole for themselves, jump in and start throwing dirt on themselves. You can sit by the side an eat popcorn or whatever. Just stay above their personal implosion. The point is that you point out a problem, and allow the larger contingent of very smart people here figure out how to resolve that problem. Anyone is prone to mistakes, but not a larger group of thinkers, like you see in Wikipedia. Give the system a chance to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The hardest lesson I had to learn in Wikipedia is that trying to verbally annihilate another user in an edit summary or in talk is counterproductive; how can you even wrap your head around working with someone like that ever again, hating them that much? The short answer is that you cannot. You have to just walk away for a while and let them dig a big enough hole for themselves, jump in and start throwing dirt on themselves. You can sit by the side an eat popcorn or whatever. Just stay above their personal implosion. The point is that you point out a problem, and allow the larger contingent of very smart people here figure out how to resolve that problem. Anyone is prone to mistakes, but not a larger group of thinkers, like you see in Wikipedia. Give the system a chance to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


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


 * User:Darkknight2149 your vehement beliefs that User:Popfox3 is me through WP:SockPuppetry is humorous. File your WP:SPI and you'll just come to find that you were wrong. I'll wait patiently for your apology. User:Jack Sebastian, I awarded you on your page for being a mediator throughout the discussion and for trying to stay neutral. I've appreciated those things. I would point out that your response to Popfox3 is not the most welcoming comment to a recently registered editor, but your opinions are your own. It's unfortunate that Darkknight2149's behavior requires admin input. I will continue to provide input (with their reliable sources) in any discussion that I'm a part of. Regardless of whether DK2149 likes it or not.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean asking you to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, or alerting the discussion to the indisputable suspiciousness of the Popfox3 situation? (I have around 10 notifications from you just from the last few days alone...) I'd say at least of those certainly requires administrator input. It just might not be the administrator input you want. The SPI will sort that out regardless, so there's no reason for me to keep harping on it here.
 * I hope you and Popfox3 aren't bluffing, because if this turns out to be a coincidence and Popfox3 really is just a single-purpose account, that's one heck of a coincidence (or rather, multiple coincidences at once). So far, two other users have backed up the suspiciousness of the situation, so I'm not sure what result you're expecting by filing this report.  Dark Knight  2149  23:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, by their own admission, Popfox has been here for several years; they aren't a "recently registered user". I have little respect for SPAs and far less respect if they are indeed a sock account. As per BEANS, I'm not going to point out why Popfox3 is a red flag. I am giving them the consideration of not bothering to talk to them until the conclusion of the SPI.
 * As well, you should hold off on commenting after every. single. comment. in a discussion. People are not stupid. Given folk a chance to compare your clearly stated view with others. No one is going to assume that you have magically dropped your objections if you don't say anything for a day or two. Let others weigh in. That is the advice I would give you on preventing friction in the discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: As stated before, I will continue to wait for the apology. Funny thing is, there's one editor here who is jumping to conclusions and "pointing fingers" - and it's not me. Meanwhile I remain calm, and simply would like some assistance from an admin with the entire discussion. I have continued to respond to comments/placed input/and added new sources to the discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe. Though accused of WP:BLUDGEONing, that has not been my intention. I have simply attempted to respond to statements, and contribute to the article with reliable sources. As a sidenote: any and all users - whether non-ANNON/new/old/etc, can constructively contribute to articles. No one should discourage them anyhow. I'll be hot-tubbing in your Stew of Life with the Swift Sword of Icky Death, waiting for the WP:ANI to prove that User:Popfox3 is not associate with me at all **emphasis on humor intended**. I wonder however, what you think of the recent sources in the discussion - since you contributed to the discussion earlier. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My attention has been drawn elsewhere, . I think that others can get involved in the discussion. I made my opinion known and that should be enough. I am sorry of you took offense at the 'Stew of Life' comment; I see a lot of how I used to act in your behavior, and I am not trying to shame you into being better, but I think its fair to say that the vibe you are putting out there is not having a positive effect on other editors. You don't need to respond to every comment. You just don't. Sit back and let the collaborative discussion happen without you having to reiterate your points (unless directly challenged or asked). There is no hurry. And I've said about Popfox3 all I am going to until the result of the SPI.
 * , please include a link to the SPI request, for the purposes of discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slight wait. It will be up soon.  Dark Knight  2149  03:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Stew of Life comment I just made, was meant to be funny. To clarify I did not take offense, and I believe that some of my comments are being read/taken in a sinister/argumentative nature when they are not intended to be. I appreciate your candor and your peace-keeping angle throughout the discussion. I have no ill-will towards anyone on WP, and simply am trying to preserve the integrity of an article. I know that I don't have to response to every comment, but when I am the sole input out of 3 editors, stating why I disagree with the notion (up until that is) - I was merely attempting to provide all the resources that support my argument. I will wait for that SPI 'investigation' to be over with, and I hope at that point there are some apologies that go around. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Continued bludgeoning from DisneyMetalhead
The SPI hasn't even filed yet and is continuing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. Both myself and have warned them about it at this point, and advised them to drop the stick and wait for others to comment. Even when the consensus is stacked against them and when everyone has explained why repeatedly, DMH insists on replying to every single comment to aggressively hammer the point in some more. I guess DMH thought that by filing a retaliatory report and spinning it as an incivility report (all because of this message and this notice, by the way), they would get some kind of "get out of jail free" card to continue exactly what they have been doing. I have well over 20 notifications from DisneyMetalhead from the last few days alone, and they're all from the same discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe.  Dark Knight  2149  07:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:DK2149; your anger is evident on each thread. However, an ongoing discussion that has not reached remotely any consensus, can/should/will be continued with new and updated sources. There was no WP:BLUDGEONing in a message that was my attempts to ping various/additional users who have contributed to the article. I have not replied to "every single comment" nor has there been any "agress[ion]". If you choose to read my comments as such, that's entirely in your error. My attempts here are to preserve and article. I've already stated why I submitted this request to admins. It has nothing to do with the reasoning you just said. In the meantime, and I are still waiting for you to file your SPI...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No one here is "angry" and WP:BLUDGEON is defined as "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for Deletion, Request for Comment, WP:ANI, an article talk page or even another user's talk page. Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view." You have absolutely been doing this in spades. There also has been a consensus so far, which you are trying to change by replying constantly with the same arguments over and over, while also trying to argue why the standing consensus isn't valid because you don't like it. Every time you have provided "sources", they have either failed to justify your point or failed to contradict the majority viewpoint in the discussion (for the same reasons explained repeatedly). Your more recent sources are no exception.
 * The discussion is going in a literal merry-go-round. And as the thread died down and as soon as opening a RFC or wrapping the thread up by taking final comments/votes was mentioned, you immediately jumped in with a new section just to espouse all of the same points all over again and create excuses for why the consensus isn't a consensus. Everyone there understands your position perfectly well. Trying to burying the thread in comments (often at least two comments at once) to try and get your point across is highly disruptive. We get it. Until other users have had a chance to comment, you need to drop the stick and lay off the discussion. As previously mentioned, I have well over 20 notifications from you just from the last few days alone, all from the same discussion. Do I need to post a screenshot?  Dark Knight  2149  19:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation
The sock puppet investigation has been filed.  Dark Knight  2149  21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are currently under investigation for suspected sock puppetry.
 * You are currently under investigation for suspected sock puppetry.
 * To note, the users have been found unrelated by a check user. Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be noted (and I myself pointed it out at the SPI even before the CU was requested) that this could be a likely outcome of any CU as it seems that different IP addresses would be in use for each account in purpose to avoid detection, as per DisneyMetalhead's own acknowledgement that they knew Popfox3's IP address was "nowhere near mine" (sic) despite WP:WIA barring any user sort of a Checkuser from knowing such details, and their repeated taunts for a SPI to be filled – they simply knew any CU wouldn't work.  Impru 20 talk 00:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also left an inquiry for on this topic. The evidence tells me that there is too much here for this to be a coincidence. The fact that others were able to dig up even more damning evidence of a connection (such as DisneyMetalhead being telepathically aware of Popfox's IP address) means that this has to be a WP:MEAT situation at the very least.  Dark  Knight  2149  00:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. Prefall just noted they've gotten away with socking while logged out in the past, so I have a hard time believing that there's genuinely no connection between DMH and Popfox. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  00:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All that I can say is that I do not know DisneyMetalhead and was actually taken aback by their IP Address comment because I wouldn't even know how to go about checking that (and from what I am gathering, is in fact impossible without Check User privileges). I took the same position as them in a discussion, it is as simple as that. All the "evidence" used to attempt to prove otherwise is completely coincidental, and nothing more. Popfox3 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like even more evidence is unravelling about DisneyMetalhead having possibly behaved similarly in the past, this time while logged out . This would correlate to them having acknowledged themselves in a past discussion on 24 January that "I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames" (sic). Aside of the presented evidence, any claim of editing with alternative accounts would forcefully require them identifying as such on their user page—or not trying to actively deceive other editors in the case of editing while logged out—which does not seem to be the case here.  Impru 20 talk 01:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You were "taken aback" by DisneyMetalhead's IP address comment at 17:33, 8 February 2020, yet still said nothing about it until now, came to this ANI thread in their defense at 19:52, 8 February 2020 without making any mention at such circumstance and even replied by thanking them for their "kindness", "courtesy" and "warm welcome" at 05:22, 9 February 2020? I would surely not be "looking forward to work" nor would be so excited with someone with whom I am "taken aback" because they somehow know about my IP address. Seems odd to say the least.  Impru 20 talk 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I would defend and be excited to work with Disneymetalhead, because they are the one user who have attempted to make me feel welcome at Wikipedia. Try looking at it from my point of view. I contribute to a discussion and am immediately attacked and accused of being a sock puppet account. Multiple times in this ANI thread I have endured personal attacks against the credibility of my account and explanation for the coincidences and was told by one user that I was not even worth talking to, and this was well before an SPI was even officially filed. So forgive me for being willing to defend the ONE user who has been willing to defend me and attempt to make me feel welcome as an editor at Wikipedia. Popfox3 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to clarify, that in my comment regarding IP addresses - I have no idea how these SockPuppetry investigations go. I would have imagined that there was a way to look at IP addresses. I, in no way, actually know 's IP. Nor do I understand how the whole processes go. Needless to say, I am in no way tech-savvy. Furthermore my statement "I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames" (sic) is in regards to years ago when I had a different profile. The username was deleted, and I left Wikipedia for some time. A similar occasion happened shortly thereafter, before I registered my current username and have since stuck to it. I do not concurrently use multiple log-ins, as has been insinuated (and as my previous statement can be interpreted to mean). --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Then how do you explain this? Moreover, why did you claim that Popfox's IP address is "nowhere near" yours? I'm not alone when I say this - None of this adds up.  Dark Knight  2149  01:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How do I explain what exactly? I just stated that I don't know the user known as Popfox3. Assume WP:GOODFAITH, and understand that I misspoke - stating how I thought it would be proved...through IPs. I stated that they are nowhere near me - because they aren't me. Cheers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If they're not you, then how would you know where their IP address is? That's a very specific way of putting it. But back to my first question, how do you explain the strong evidence of socking between you and presented by  at the SPI? This wasn't a simple case of logged out editing, because you directly interacted with the IP as if it were a separate user. Also worth mentioning, Popfox3 made their first non-DC Extended Universe edits today by making some edits at Harry Potter articles and joining the Harry Potter Task Force, and even that is a topic area that you have been known to edit in the past, , . As others have pointed out, checkusers can detect proxies and VPNs, but they can't necessarily detect if you are using a long distance IP from another computer or instances of WP:MEAT.  Dark  Knight  2149  04:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * DisneyMetalhead, would you care linking to your previous account(s)? The account isn't deleted, as it's impossible to delete an account. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  12:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I was going to comment about this. DisneyMetalhead claims he had "a different profile" (singular) years ago and that "the username" (singular again) was then "deleted"; however, Wikipedia profiles can't be deleted as per WP:FAQ and WP:UNC. Further, they relate to just one previous account here despite having previously referred to "various usernames" on 24 January and claiming in their own userpage that they "have been for years as an unregistered editor, and previously other editing profiles that were since abandoned/unregistered". On this, it is remarkable that their userpage initially claimed, in March 2017, that they "have been for years under an unregistered editor name" only. It was not until June 2019 that they made mention to "other editing profiles". And they edited it again to add the "that were since abandoned/unregistered" bit at 01:51, 10 February 2020, this is, in response to my comment earlier at 01:02 where I pointed out that they had previously claimed having had several usernames.
 * If DisneyMetalhead did use other accounts in the past, which do obviously still exist because they can't be unregistered or deleted, their identity must be disclosed. We can't have an user apparently having undisclosed sleeper accounts around here, as that's a potential hotbed for socking and even block evasion.
 * On the IP issue, the concern is not that DisneyMetalhead claimed having a different IP than Popfox3 (that would be obvious if they are different people). The issue is that they claimed that Popfox3's IP was "nowhere near mine". You can't know where a IP range originates from without knowing such an IP address beforehand, thus being impossible to determine whether it is near or far from your own.
 * It's also becoming very obvious that Popfox3 is only commenting in places where DisneyMetalhead is present. Indeed, their user talkpage discussions are becoming a near-insult at pretending they are different people. The way the two accounts are engaging to each other is not natural at all (Further, it wasn't DisneyMetalhead who opened this ANI thread? One would think they know nothing about it from this comment.... This has gone beyond WP:BOOMERANG already).  Impru 20 talk 14:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We definitely need to get some admin involvement. I think it's safe to say there's definitely something fishy going on here. <small style="colo--[[User:DisneyMetalhead|DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)r:red">JOE ]] BRO 64  21:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Users: Impru20 and TheJoebro64 - an admin reviewed the case and closed it. I misspoke in the past when I said that I had various users. What happened in the past is that for years I made edits on Wikipedia without having a registered login. That was my choice. When I registered a user, it was in the early days of my edits. It was my impression that the old user was done away with.... unless I'm mistaken. I will look up my old username. Regardless of this past mistake, I have only ever used my current log-in/user since creating it. As for my comments on 's page - I am free to congratulate them on the ending of this ridiculous witch hunt. I changed my user page to reflect what I had originally meant when posting the comment that IMPRU is referring to. I have re-stated and clarified what I have meant by each comment. I stand by my clarifications.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: Honest question (this may perhaps show my lack of tech-savviness)... how do I look at when an article was created? There was one article created with my previous editor log-in.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, previously when I stated that I had used other 'log-ins' I was being ambiguous as to how many... and when I added that I did not know that it was not allowed to have multiple. That is why I have adjusted it to state what I had originally meant.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , you should just go into the article history and keep going back until you get to the earliest revision. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  23:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you inform us on what the article is, we can find it for you.  Dark Knight  2149  07:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

and the only article created with a previous log-in was an article about The Storm, the American rock band. However, as I previously stated that log-in has been abandoned/never used long ago. Reviewing the edit history however, I go to the oldest edit and I don't see the article being created. Perhaps I'm looking at this incorrectly(?). In all honesty I don't even remember the old username that was used (this was years ago).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon searching my old user-name, the page no longer exists... with some further digging, reviewing articles I have edited years ago, as well as talk-page discussions that I was involved with - I found an ANI regarding incivility allegations in 2016, with a discussion regarding some edits I had done years ago. They can be found at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933 .--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The account in question is, which is indefinitely blocked, and I'm not entirely sure why you didn't just retract the supposed legal threat (and become immediately unblocked) instead of creating a new account two weeks later.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  23:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

the honest reason was that I thought it had been deleted/removed (I didn't know it could be unblocked). On top of that, the title of username had personal significance in my life at that time. After going through some traumatic marital experiences, I wanted a "clean slate"/fresh start and changed all my log-ins on various pages. In the meantime, my busy schedule did not allow for me to be constantly checking WP. I hope this shows that I have not used 'multiple user names' as I miss-stated on my talk page. I edited without a registered log-in for years, simply because I did not care to/have time to. When I made the user referenced above and upon being blocked (in addition to the personal life situations), I made a new log-in to start over. Those are the only user names I ever made/used. It was my understanding that the username was deleted/removed...I didn't know it could be unblocked at the time.
 * You are telling me you have been evading a block for four years? Wow.
 * That's not how WP:FRESHSTART works. It is explicit in that Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions imposed (including, but not limited to, those listed here); or is currently or about to be formally discussed for their conduct (such as at an administrative noticeboard or in an open case with the Arbitration Committee); or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start. You can't just create a new account because your previous one was indeffed, then claim it is a "clean start". That's anything but "clean".  Impru 20 talk 00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On top of the apparent socking with IP addresses, this would blatantly and unambiguously fall under WP:Block evasion.  Dark Knight  2149  05:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seemingly, their previous account did acknowledge already in September 2016 having been an editor "under various emails and usernames". Plus, under the DisneyMetalhead account they attempted to pose as if the two of them were two entirely different and unrelated editors (diff). Considering all presented evidence, it is very likely that this older account isn't the only one or even the first one being operated by this person.  Impru 20 talk 12:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I just remembered something. I thought this account sounded familiar, and it turns out, I have a history with . Lorem is actually, who actually had an extensive history of original research, WP:CIR, restoring edits reverted by multiple editors against consensus, and a whole list of other problems. Burningblue52 renamed their account right before they were blocked, and they weren't blocked for no reason. If Burningblue and DisneyMetalHead are the same user, that's definitely a major problem.  Dark Knight  2149  19:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Tagging, who blocked Lorem ipsum5656/Burningblue52 the first time.  Dark Knight  2149  19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this certainly answers a lot of questions I had. I'm absolutely stunned and saddened that DMH has been block evading for years now. I think we need to keep doing some digging to see if we can find any other potential sleepers/previously blocked accounts, as this is by no means a small issue. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If DMH has been doing that, shouldn't they be blocked by this point? -- Rockstone   talk to me!   23:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We're still waiting for an administrator response.  Dark Knight  2149  23:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment from TheJoebro64
I was pinged here, and while I've had nightmares about getting tied up at ANI before, it was rightly so that this discussion was started. So, here's the gist...

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

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

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

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

And let me tell you, that's just one case of this. Just look at the talk page and its history. It's mind boggling. I knew it would eventually make it to some sort of noticeboard one of these days, I just didn't know when. There. I said it all. I'm at peace now. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  23:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Just so everyone is aware, this thread has been open for nearly 20 days and (despite unanimous consensus that block evasion and bludgeoning took place, and clear evidence of sleeper accounts) the case still hasn't received administrator attention. Not that there's any rush, but given the threat of a premature archive, someone might consider adding a DNAU template.  Dark Knight  2149  02:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I added the DNAU template for 45 days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 45 days is extraordinarily excessive. At this point, I don't think this is a matter admins are willing to censure anyone over, and it's dragging on. Adding another month and a half is not going to improve matters at all. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a little excessive. I've shortened it down to at least 10 days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a note to let everyone know that an admin is reviewing this discussion & taking appropriate actions. -- llywrch (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This thread is a month old. Um... ? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Generative grammar
I would like to ask for administrator attention on the generative grammar article. User:Weidorje has been making POV edits, most of which do not accurately reflect the sources cited. For instance, the user added the sentence "Consequently, it is stated that generative grammar is not a useful model for neurolinguistics" cited to a source which does not mention generative grammar at all. I have attempted to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, but this user has refused to engage seriously with my concerns. See, e.g. their comment "it is not possible to remove well-sourced information only because it is uncomfortable". Botterweg14 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that there seem to be similar things going on at the Syntactic Structures article. Botterweg14 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not real up on the technical aspects of linguistics here, so I can't speak to who is 'right' (and that's not an admin's role anyways), however the page history shows a clear two-way edit war between yourself and Weidorje. I would advise strongly that BOTH of you desist from editing the articles under contention, discuss the matter on the article talk pages, and seek outside help from somewhere like WP:DRN or WP:3O if you can't come to an agreement.  Also, you're required to notify someone when you start a discussion about them here.  I have done so for you this time; in the future please let people know when you've brought them here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying the other editor-- and my apologies for not doing that myself. My concern isn't who is right about technical questions of linguistics, it's that the other editor is not responding constructively to |my comments on the talk page and that their edits do not reflect the sources they are citing. I have already attempted to discuss the issue, with detailed source-backed comments, but the other editor is responding by mischaracterizing my edits and telling me to stop editing the article. (I have also already raised the issue on 3O.) Botterweg14 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jayron . Botterweg14 is confused because he doesn't realise that the two articles are from the same researchers. They made a study in 1993 which showed no validity of the generative grammar claims, and then comment on their research in 2015 stating they never used the model again. Botterweg keeps deleting the sources without reading them – for me it's extra work for nothing on my special day. The issues could be discussed one by one and one at a time on the talk page, but we're not quite there, yet. Weidorje (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, it appears you're both already commenting on the discussions at Talk:Generative grammar. If you can also both agree to avoid editing the article text unless and until the matter is resolved at the article talk page, we can consider the matter closed here.  Can you both agree to let the discussion play out, seek consensus, and ask for additional help as needed before editing the article again?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be very happy to do that. I have laid out my specific concerns about specific sentences from the article on the talk page. However, before we close the issue here I'd like some assurance that the discussion will address on the substance of my comments. In particular, where I've raised concerns that the article doesn't accurately reflect the citations, I would like the discussion to focus on specifics of what is and isn't in the citations rather than blanket statements that I am wrong or accusations that I have a hidden agenda. Botterweg14 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think those are reasonable ground rules. If  can agree to comment ONLY on the content of the citations, and not on Botterweg14 or their motivations, we've come a long way towards resolving this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've compiled my concerns in a new section of the talk page in the hopes that this will help focus the discussion. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or advice. Thanks! Botterweg14 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's try that :) Weidorje (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Weidorje, should I understand this comment as agreement with the proposed ground rules? Botterweg14 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I'm working on it but I might not be able to finish tonight. No hidden agendas! I'll actually be quite grateful if the whole generative community is not activated (because it was a nightmare when I worked on the Neuro-linguistic programming page back in 2006 through 2008). So, there will be a critical section, and we'll check together that each claim is accurate. I think there will also be a little room for a critical spoiler at the end of the lead. Weidorje (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigFacts
I will like to bring into the administrators' attention, the recent blocking of by  for the reason "username impersonation". He was most probably referring to. Although third parties are supposed to appeal against a block, I am making this exception as DBigFacts is a newbie and I see this block as a case of WP:BITE. WP:IMPERSONATOR requires the two usernames to be "very similar" to justify a block, which they are clearly not in this case. Also given the fact that DBigXray has retired, the policy does not even apply here. ("Usernames that are similar only to unused or inactive accounts should not be a problem.") El C also went against the WP:HARDBLOCK policy as the general practice is to use soft blocks in such cases. I told El C about my concern, in reply to which he justified his action as a response to "provocation". As suggested by him, I am appealing against his decision on this forum, which I believe to be the appropriate place for it. Bharatiya 29  16:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse block - Bharatiya29, you can't see the edits, but this editor made a series of edits which had to be removed from Wikipedia because of their nature, in a forum where was likely to see them. I also don't know what was written but trust that oversight is not carried out except in the most serious cases of abuse. You should spend your time on something else, this account is not going to be unblocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The account has also been globally locked. I'm closing this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that DBigXray just retired a few days ago, is the subject of an off-wiki harassment campaign, and DBigFacts started editing in the Delhi Riots area (directly related to DBX's retirement) I'm with El_C on this one - that was almost certainly an intentional impersonation with the intention of trolling or otherwise disrupting. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 16:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflicts) This editor made exactly ten edits to other pages (enough to get confirmed), and then started immediately making edits to Talk:North East Delhi riots, the page which lead to DBigXray receiving so much harrassment that he had to retire, and he is probably still fearful for his safety. I can't imagine a situation where a block could have been more justified. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * They're globally locked so quite frankly anyone's opinion at ANI at this point is irrelevant. But also good block, ! Thanks for looking out for our tired and harassed Wikimedians. Praxidicae (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409
Three times now, despite an active and extensive RfC here with no clear consensus so far to change a passage in question, the same redlink editor has inserted their preferred change as if the RfC had already been decided in their favor!

As WP:RfC states: "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved."

Regardless, this editor violated that here by unilaterally replacing the longtime status-quo passage with their own preferred version. This happened two days after the RfC began on Feb. 19.

The status quo was restored, and other editors began working on a compromise solution on Feb. 22, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peppermint_(drag_queen)#Possible_solution_amenable_to_both_sides? here].

Regardless, that editor later saw consensus was not necessarily leaning their way and tried twice more to make an end-run around the RfC and insert their own version:


 * THere at 15:50, 4 March 2020. When another editor restored the status quo, Gleeanon409 did it again
 * here at 19:30, 5 March 2020

As you know, the RfC process cannot work if editors insert their own personal, non-consensus version as if they are above the discussion and RfC does not apply to them. This editor was warned once about disrespecting RfC, and responded with snark. Another editor at that warning post, User:Yilloslime, then reminded Gleeanon409 that per RfC protocol, the status quo "should stay unless and until a consensus to remove them emerges, or wikipolicy changes." But Gleeanon409 appears to believe the rules don't apply to them. It's causing contentiousness in an otherwise mostly civil discussion where editors on both sides are actively attempting to reach compromise. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't make heads or tails of who is "right" here, so I've gone and upgraded protection to full protection. Please sort this out on the talk page, and AFTER you have reached a consensus, we can unprotect it to add the consensus changes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank for full protection. It was requested and denied twice at WP:RPP. Yilloslime (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

BHG again
As many of you may know, was desysopped a month ago after a lengthy case involving the portal namespace showed that she was engaging in harassment and WP:ASPERSIONS during portal MFDs. While she is tbanned from portals, she seems to have gotten around by moving to a different namespace (categories) to persist in this behavior towards both me and, as shown here:
 * User_talk:Miraclepine
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom.
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_6
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_4 - she suggested that there should be "(pre-1707)" in the categories because of orthodox English scholarship, but only one Parliament of England has existed and WIkipedia is not a place to promote "orthodox English scholarship".

Before you ask, all those constituency categories don't fail WP:CATDEF because constituencies are required to be an MP which makes them defining of their career, and nearly all those constituency/parliament categories don't fail WP:SMALLCAT because the constituencies were heavily stable from more than 500 years encompassing the entire GB Parliament.

Best, ミラP 22:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How is this not a content dispute? There is no harassment in the diffs presented above, nor casting aspirations. BGH seems to be trying to explain to you her side of her reasoning and you not agreeing. Sounds like content dispute to me. Valeince (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * She accused me and Rathfelder of "disruptive editing" here. If you read the evidence I provided and compare it to the evidence provided in the Portal case against BHG, you'll see what's happening. ミラP 22:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying someone's editing is being disruptive isn't casting aspirations if she provides diffs for the accusation, which I see she did. So what are you trying to do here? Valeince (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First, she didn't "move" to a different namespace; she's been heavily involved in categories since forever.
 * Second, we don't argue about whether you're right or she's right at ANI.
 * Third, although I've crossed swords with BHG before in other areas, I think a general rule of thumb is "if BHG says something about main space categories, there's a >95% chance she's right", so you should really consider the possibility that you're wrong.
 * Fourth, what is it you're actually complaining about here? If it's rudeness, use diffs, don't link to a whole discussion.  If it's that she disagrees with you, then don't bring it to ANI.
 * Fifth, if you're editing disruptively, it's OK to tell you so.
 * --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * +1 Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I know she's been into categories since forever, but I've never seen her repeat that same behavior in portal MFDs in CFDs before. ミラP 22:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that I noticed Miraclepine not-so-subtly threatening BHG on their talk page a couple of days ago. Why they'd want to display that particular conversation on a drama board, I have no idea - those sort of things rarely go well. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't threatening her. I was just reminding her of the exact ArbCom decision that led to her desysopping. ミラP 22:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am sure she is well aware of it. What you said is not appropriate. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course you were. How silly of me to misinterpret it. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC

As I've already said, if anyone can compare BHG's statements in all the discussions I linked to the evidence against BHG, that should prove my point. ミラP 22:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You want everyone to read all of the discussions you linked to, and then read all of the BHG arbcom case, so you don't have to do any work? I think not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll give it to you soon. ミラP 22:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

And now you have posted a rushed reply which misses the point. That disingenuity plus the multiple procedural flaws in this nomination mean that my ability to AGF is being very rapidly eroded. Wow. Just wow. Miraclepine refuses to discuss the substance of my concerns, directing me elsewhere, then responds glibly when they realise it looks bad to not do so ... and responds with layers of deflection and word games. That sort of passive aggressive tactic is designed to either drive the other editor away or produce a series of followups which can be dismissed as confrontational.
 * And I'm back. Now let's see:
 * BHG MFDs a portal with a rationale that starts with "Static micro-portal abandoned since 2007"; BHG tells me, "These sparsely-populated categories are no use for navigation. Regardless of anything else, they should be deleted unless they are full populated, or a serious effort is being made to populate them."
 * One person at the case said "discussing with BHG is unpleasant" and that people have felt bullied by BHG's confrontational approach; The Ipswich MP CFD thread in my UTP has BHG acting very confrontational especially with the "How often is Gladstone referred to as the MP for Portarlington?" question.
 * In this diff found on the above section, someone accuses BHG of "actively preventing WP:POG from being improved to conform to actual reality"; My concern is BHG's behavior giving me less motivation from improving categories.
 * Sections of evidence are devoted to BHG insulting people, their work, and engaging in aspersions; BHG calls my response to the issues with the constituency categories "transparently disingenuous rubbish" and accuses me and Rathfelder of disruptive editing.
 * Another section is called "BrownHairedGirl attacks by proclaiming users as unintelligent"; BHG accuses us of "having a very pour [sic understanding of the issues [and of] editing prolifically in area where you demonstrate ability to check even basic facts, let alone understand the wider context."
 * Best, ミラP 23:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Engaging with Miraclepine would be more fruitful if Miraclepine had some regards to the facts.
 * For example:
 * Miraclepine quotes my words "transparently disingenuous rubbish", but snips them from the context. Here's my full comment::
 * That's transparently disingenuous rubbish, . It is not a matter of not responding promptly enough.  You responded within ten hours  to announce a refusal to discuss the issue.
 * You played a disingenuous game. You refused to discuss the issue until your refusal was raised in another forum, whereupon you tried to misrepresent your refusal as an oversight. I you want to play disingenuous games like that, I will describe them as such.
 * Miraclepine complains (re User talk:Miraclepine/1) of BHG acting very confrontational especially with the "How often is Gladstone referred to as the MP for Portarlington?" question.
 * Miraclepine's conduct here is a form of gaming. It is not the conduct of an editor working in good faith to produce a scholarly encyclopedia. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have been populating categories which already exist. I dont think that is disruptive. If someone thinks these categories should not exist there is a well established system for discussing them. I have asked about the naming of categories. I dont think that is disruptive. I've been adding subcategories for the English, British and UK parliaments to existing categories, which I think is in line with the existing scheme. I have created very few new categories among the MP categories otherwise. And I have put the MPs of the English parliaments into the existing date categories. Is that disruptive?  BHG's position appears to be that MPs should not be categorised by constituency at all.  I dont think that is a defensible position.  We have hundreds of such categories, some created by BHG.  Rathfelder (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * in the discussion at WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, thee were two editors objecting to this form of categorisation (me + ), yet Rathfelder's contribs list for earliuer today shows that Rathfelder was proceeding to populate create and populate these categories even while discussion is underway.
 * I think that there are severe problems in categorising MPs by individual constituency (WP:DEFININGness and category clutter), but Rathfelder seems unable or unwilling to engage in that discussion, and prefers to misrepresent my previous categorisation work (the by-individual-constituency categories I created in England were for university).
 * As to Rathfelder's claim that We have hundreds of such categories, that's only because Mircapeline has been on a creation spree, and Rathfelder has been subactting Mircapeline's creations. (see the list at User talk:Miraclepine/1). This is WP:FAITACCOMPLI conduct. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The categories on which I have been working seem mostly to have been created by User:Philafrenzy. I dont see how it can be seen as disruptive to populate categories which have existed in most cases for several years, and whose existence has not been challenged.  Rathfelder (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * for goodness sake, that is utter nonsense. The existence of such categories is being challenged in the discussion at WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.
 * You were participating in that discussion, so you must know very well that their existence is being challenged. One of the reasons that I regard your efforts as disruptive is that even such a simple point of fact seems escapes you. Other reasons include your disruptive conduct at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 6 where you were WP:FORUMSHOPPING. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not aware, and am still not aware, of any proposal to remove all the categories for MPs by constituency. I raised a question about the naming of a set of categories, specifically to ascertain your views. That was not intended to be disruptive, and if you thought it was, I apologise.   Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Then when I mentioned that failure at a CFD 6days later, Mircapeline returned to their userpage to make a belated glib response which ignored most of the points I made. Miraclepine then played word games until I gave up. Mircapeline and Rathfelder are tag-teaming to make widespread changes to the categorisation of topics of which they have repeatedly demonstrated very poor knowledge.
 * It appears that the main "evidence" so far is that BHG saw that particular actions were still being taken despite an ongoing discussion on the validity of those actions, and labelled that as "disruptive". Which it is, because once a discussion is underway about a dispute and consensus is not obvious from prior discussions, then you should wait for a consensus to emerge before continuing with the actions under dispute. And the Portals Arbcom case has no bearing on this dispute. BHG was sanctioned specifically for her conduct re portals, not in any other area, and it should not be used as a stick to beat her with in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I suggest this thread be withdrawn, and the OP to engage with the subject matter at hand rather than attacking the individuals with whom they disagree. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd be the one making a complaint against Mircapeline and Rathfelder, but hoped this would be resolved without ANI. But if Mircapeline wants ANI, then so be it.
 * Both Mircapeline and Rathfelder have been running amok overcategorisng MPs, and making ill-considered CFD nominations.
 * Both of them have persisted in their efforts even when discussion is underway. Both of them have demonstrated very low knowledge of the topics of which they are working.
 * Some examples:
 * Mircapeline's asssertion all those constituency categories don't fail WP:CATDEF because is something I strongly disagree with, and which I have tried to discuss with Mircapeline in two venues. Previous CFDs over the years have deleted similar categories.
 * At User talk:Miraclepine/1, Mircapeline simply refused to discuss, saying I don't really mind. [SNIP] You should take further discussion to WT:OCAT and WP:CFD..
 * At WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, Mircapeline opened the discussion, but made no substantive comment. Miraclepine has chosen to base an ANI complaint on their assertion as fact of a contested point of interpretation which they choose not to discuss sensibly.  That is an odd decision.
 * Note also WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 6, where Mircapeline made a nomination based on the false assertion that Until 1885, Huntingdonshire was the only constituency that had its borders within any part of the county of the same name, so this name is anachronistic. In fact, Huntingdon (UK Parliament constituency) was a parliamentary borough which had sent MPs to Westminster since the 13th century. But Rathfelder supported the nomination (I'm happy with this) without checking the facts.
 * As to Miraclepine's opening comment here at ANI that WIkipedia is not a place to promote "orthodox English scholarship" (the link is to WP:SOAPBOX) ... I can only ask why on earth a person who regards "orthodox English scholarship" as a "soapbox" is editing an encyclopedia, or why any other editor should have to waste time debating with someone who takes that anti-scholarly view -- it's a rejection of the principles of WP:RS. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Previous CFDs over the years have deleted similar categories. Which ones?
 * Regarding your response to my "orthodox English scholarship" comment, Wikipedia's a global encyclopedia.
 * Best, ミラP 23:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is indeed a global encyclopedia. But the issue here is the Parliament of England, and you dismiss the importance of English scholarship. Of course the English view is not the only one, but you complete dismissal of the English scholarly view is the stance of an anti-scholar who is not here to build an encyclopedia.  (And before you accuse me of pro-English bias, I am Irish, and we had to fight a war to end 7 centuries of English rule over us).
 * I am searching for the previous CFDs, but the search tools are not great for this task. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am searching for the previous CFDs, but the search tools are not great for this task. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Close and let them settle it on talk pages and the relevant discussions. This is a misguided and borderline malicious attempt to use an unrelated ArbCom decision to silence an editor rather than engage with them. Slywriter (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * An unrelated ArbCom decision obviously makes BHG a soft juicy target for further persecution. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 23:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * if BHG says something about main space categories, there's a >95% chance she's right"
 * More like 99.9%. I don’t know why User:Floquenbeam would imply a 5% possible error rate. BHG knows everything about mainspace categories.
 * User:Miraclepine should read WP:CIR, pull his head in, and stop doing random weird things.
 * Propose interaction ban, User:Miraclepine to stay clear of BHG. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * although I agree that this was an ill-conceived ANI report, this isn't the place to discuss the rights and wrongs of the content dispute, and editors don't get to win arguments just because they've been around for longer than someone else. The issue is whether or not there was incivility or harassment on either side, and it appears at first glance as if the OP has been doing more of that than BHG, but I don't think further action is needed other than a continuation of the category discussion on talk pages. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have now read through all the discussions and diffs, and find the OP’s position to be frivolous, vexations, without basis. Also, he has been annoyingly a nuisance at a number of forums. It’s not that BHG has been around longer, but that BHG’s statements were all correct, did not cross civility lines, and BHG has recognised expertise on the topics of discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * this situation had been escalating towards the point where I would have opened a ANI thread to ask for Mircapeline and Rathfelder to be topic banned from MPs. I still had hopes that might be avoidable, but the conduct of those two here at ANI makes that seem like an appropriate response. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I followed the ARBCOM proceedings, but, having no reason to do so, took no part. That decision was final. To this outsider, this thread looks like a WP:WITCHHUNT. Narky Blert (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Everyone, my mistake for failing to realise how badly this thread could go. If it makes all of you feel any better, we'll just close this thread before this gets any worse and start a CFD on the constituency categories. And yes,, I promise not to create any more of those categories until the CFD ends. ミラP 00:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoah there. Miraclepine played games in dodging discussion, then decided to up the ante with a bogus ANI complaint to defect from their disruption ... and now expects to walk away Scot-free without even withdrawing all the shit they hurled at me.  I hope that's not how this ends, and that Miraclepine doesn't get the impression that malicious shit-slinging is OK so long as you just desist when it doesn't succeed.
 * And no, a CFD is not the next step. There is an ongoing discussion at WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom which has some way to run before a CFD would be appropriate. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, I noticed this comment on Rathfelder's talk page from Miraclepine, telling them they have email, and this right after BHG's warning about disruptive categorization. This smells like an attempt at WP:CANVASSING., care to explain? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * was already involved in the dispute at the time, and I was a little too afraid of BHG to tell them in public, so I decided to send one email to them asking if they could open an ANI. When they didn't respond, I opened the ANI myself. ミラP 01:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , that sounds like WP:STEALTH, "Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages.)" Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a specific reason not to use talk pages: I felt very afraid of BHG after what she said to me, so I thought it was best to tell Rathfelder in private. ミラP 01:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , that still seems like it falls under stealth canvassing, since you were coordinating with another user to raise an issue at ANI, and indeed that other user did show up after you started the discussion. And I'd point out that you weren't that afraid, since you came to ANI after all. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still afraid of BHG but not as much as I was at the time of the message. ミラP 01:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Scared because I repeatedly asked you stop playing games? Scared because I asked you to stop disruptive editing?
 * And you think that being asked to behave better justifies stealth canvassing and a malicious attempt at muckraking? Sheesh. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'll be constructively succinct and point out that currently it looks like you were engaging in stealth canvassing in order to attack BHG when they're down on a high profile page. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to attack BHG, I was trying to raise concerns about her behavior. But I've realized that the thread is unnecessary spiraling out of control and I need an admin to close it so we can do what's right: continue the discussion at WT:UKPOLITICS and abort the category-making until the discussion is solved. ミラP 02:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You should know that all involved users behavior is examined in an ANI report, and it is not for you to decide when one is closed to avoid said scrutiny. This will be closed once an acceptable resolution is found. Valeince (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * My god. Reading ANI is like having "Fodderstompf" on repeat for 24 hours straight.  We only wanted to be loooooooooooved! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Once upon a time I was falling in love, now I'm only falling apart. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * When this sort of nonsense hits the fan, editing Wikipedia is nothing but a heartache. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is entirely bogus. It is Miraclepine and Rathfelder who are behaving as if they have consensus when they don't. Rathfelder claims to have created 'few' of these and yet their creation log reveals over 20 and many more MP categories (some of which might be OK - if only Rathfelder would slow down and pay attention to others). Oculi (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I plead guilty to creating some new categories, but the categories I have created are all, as far as I am aware, part of well-established sets, which must, taken together, have several thousand members. If the existence of constituency categories as a whole is to be challenged then it needs a much wider debate, and I find it very hard to believe that it would succeed. Rathfelder (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Miraclepine has named User:Rathfelder as part of his complaint, but I haven’t seen User:Rathfelder signing off on Miraclepine‘s posts. For Miraclepine‘s part, a formal reprimand is called for. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As for warnings, was formally warned by  less than a aweek ago; this warning was then reinforcedby  with the comment that MP appears to be posting to a administrative board for the sake of posting to an administrative board. This current thread seems to be very much a contuation on that theme. I suspect that, for Miraclepine, the time for warnings—formal or otherwise—is over.  ——  SN  54129  13:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In the discussion on 's warning, there is a comment by about 's unhelpful involvement with SPI: You don't have the experience or the ability to interpret nuance that is required to work effectively in this area of Wikipedia.
 * That comment applies just as much to Miraclepine's ham-fisted openings of CFDs on MPs, when they clearly had no grasp of the topic:
 * CFD Feb 26: Ipswich MPs
 * CFD Mar 4: Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707)
 * CFD Mar 6: Huntingdonshire MPs
 * ... and also to Miraclepine's conduct at User talk:Miraclepine/1.
 * There seems to be a pattern here of Miraclepine wading into areas where they bring nothing to the table and demonstrate no willingness to learn.
 * In this case, Miraclepine has attempted to double down on those failings by turning a muckspeader onto an editor who does have expertise in the area. I hope that this discussion leads to some restraint on this pattern of conduct, or at least to a topic ban from British MPs, where Miraclepine's involvement has been wholly disruptive. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I’ve blocked Miraclepine per WP:CIR as explains. This is yet another attempt by MP to get involved in things they know nothing about and try to get noticed while wasting the time of others. They recently were doing the same on meta’s equivalent of SPI, so the fact that the time wasting has gone cross-wiki makes it exceedingly unlikely this is going to stop here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you also block and ?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ yep. Thanks for spotting those. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding wrong categories of descent to bios – four months of disruption from New Jersey
Someone using IPs from New Jersey has been adding unsupported or false categories to biographies, such as claiming that David Ogden Stiers has Greek ancestry, despite nothing in the biography supporting such a category. and have reverted this person a lot. A range of IPs is involved, geolocating to Woodbridge, New Jersey. Recently active ones are listed below. Can we get a rangeblock to catch all of these? Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Harassment by COI editor
Can someone please have a work with User:Amoquay? He or she has a connection with The School of Architecture at Taliesin and not only continues to edit the article to add obvious POV and COI material but has also begun to harass other editors e.g., this edit whose summary is a clear attempt at intimidation. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked... with talk page access preemptively revoked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer
Persistent long term vandalism. Requesting page protection and rev/deletion of defamatory content, where necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock request
An IP user has, since last May, been disrupting Plummer v. State. This is an obscure 19th-century criminal case from Indiana that has become part of an internet meme supposedly justifying use of deadly force against law enforcement officers. The user has been attempting to insert a large and poorly-cited list of events that they think proves the meme is true. They have use a number of IP addresses and been warned and blocked at some of them in the past for this disruption but it continues as recently as today. The previous warnings and block were to 99.23.245.198 but the same text has been added by the range below and they are obviously the same person. I'm not sure exactly how rangeblocks work but the addresses are (probably?) the same device and certainly the same user. Could an admin who knows the right buttons to push take a gander? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 2600:1700:4000:9f90:68c6:40a1:4823:f5e7
 * 2600:1700:4000:9f90:49fb:2c24:b495:6fac
 * 2600:1700:4000:9f90:18ce:be09:2b1c:1286
 * 2600:1700:4000:9f90:8e4:1a64:d196:238c
 * 2600:1700:4000:9f90:d497:9418:e600:ac83
 * 2600:1700:4000:9f90:994b:46a5:ee71:67f4
 * It's an easy /64 block that will only affect a single user, for a year. Done.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much,, for the prompt and definitive response. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Epistle to the Galatians: multiple redlink authors massively changing and adjusting
Within the last hour or so (since around 20.00, 4 March) many new authors with no user pages, and a sampling of their contributions suggests WP:SPA, have started some huge changes at the usually quiet Epistle to the Galatians. This doesn't feel right. Could you advise, please, and possible take action? (My preferred action would be roll-back to before this action accompanied by some sort of page-protection.) Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , from a quick look at the history, I'm guessing class project or something similar (see the edit comment in Special:Diff/943949348). Recommend a friendly message on their userpages about sourcing, etc. to start. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Edits do indeed appear to be in GF, and given the timing It looks like a US class, as suggested. Later edits did start adding citations, though heavily primary as is common with new editors. I've watchlisted and will drop a line if it looks more than a flash in the pan. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the talk page asking the students to have their instructor register the course with Wiki Education, so they'll get training and support from us. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Chuckwick 2020 - MOS:NUMERAL + no edit summaries
seems to have a preference for integers written as figures, not as words, and has been going through various articles modifying integers in them to number format (e.g.). MOS:NUMBER, on the other hand, states "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)." In addition to these entirely unnecessary changes, Chuckwick 2020 does not use edit summaries, nor do they use their Talk: page. Thus a series of notices on their Talk: page have gone unnoticed or unheeded. Is there some way of encouraging them to stop making unnecessary changes, and start using edit summaries? Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was notified that I may be involved, but I only provided one of the six warning templates on Chuckwick 2020's talk page, and it was requesting the use of edit summaries, That was repeated by another editor a few weeks later, and the rest are actual warnings. From what I can see, some of Chuckwick 2020's edits apply MoSs correctly, while others do not. I think that we need to know what the editor is thinking and why the incorrect changes are being made, and engagement with other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess the first step is to get them to respond here. They've continued to edit, but have neither replied on their Talk: page, nor commented here. Jayjg (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging. Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the ping. The only interaction I've had with Chuckwick 2020 concerned their edits on Tupac Shakur. The edits removed some of the clunky inline Unreliable source? tags but also correctly changed the capitalization in a reference name to match its source title. It wasn't really evident to me why they removed the tags given the lack of edit summaries, and I myself didn't see any problems with the tags, so I reverted the edits so that the tags can possibly aid future improvements to the article. I then added a  to their talk page as a courtesy. Although they seems (to me) like a novice editor acting in good faith, despite the lack of communication, I definitely think that competence is required at some point and that they should at least try to communicate their intentions (and help edit more in-line with MOS and the like as necessary). – Aranya (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC) (edited again 03:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC))
 * They are still editing, and still doing the same: . They clearly know how to add an edit summary; they just choose not to. Unresponsive users who have never used their Talk: page are typically blocked, to bring their attention to their Talk: page, and to get them to engage. Unless someone objects, I think that's the next step. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User:210.6.209.89
Blocked user (second block, first for edit warring and now disruptive editing) is now attacking editors on their talk page, specifically this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also this though more incivility than a personal attack. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * please notify the IP of this discussion – even though they are currently blocked, they have to be notified. --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , yikes, I thought I had done that. Thanks, notice given. Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, my advice is to not argue with blocked editors. I've never seen anything good come of it.  But I've revoked the IP editor's talk page access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

user warning needed
Sorry If it is wrong place. I noticed translating article from bnwiki without giving proper attribution. Also he is also translating articles using google translate (i'm 100% sure, i found 100% match). I'm not familiar with enwiki's warning/notice system. Could someone send him a warning/notice regarding this two issue please. Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are right. is creating largely unedited machine translations. I have issued a 24 h block to get them to stop, and will explain the issue.   Sandstein   22:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also WP:PRODding the machine translations.  Sandstein   22:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikieditor19920
There is an AfD that I am a part of; actually I was part of some work this weekend to strike out the names of the suspect from the article in keeping with Wikipedia privacy policies. When it was first posted, the nominator asked why this particular missing persons case was unusual (per WP:NOTNEWS and etc. about not having an article for every crime.) I quickly noticed it and before I had decided one way or another, posted a link to the article Missing white woman syndrome which discusses why some crime victims get more press than others.

Sometime later, after I had made a comment about how I felt the article should go (in opposition to the other editor's thoughts), User:Wikieditor19920 decided to strike through my comment without leaving an edit summary, leaving this note in the article: "Striking as inflammatory and off-topic." They had asked me a few hours earlier to do so, but both the request and the strike was done while I was working. I was a bit shocked, and wasn't even sure if an editor was supposed to do this (as it turns out, it's not, WP:TPO). I double checked to see if they were an admin; surely that's more of an admin thing. Thankfully another editor backed it out. I attempted to talk it over with them with mixed results.

This one incident seems one of many as it turns out - they went to the talk page of editor User:Black Kite who put the article up for AfD asking them why (which is in the AfD), and later accused the editor of ignoring policy and being disruptive - none of which makes much sense, AfDs are procedural and this isn't a case where someone has put the article up for an AfD repeatedly which would be abuse. Or calling the logic of someone who supports deletion "hopelessly flawed" - all this seems to fly in the face of AfD etiquette. I've participated in many AfD discussions, and this is more of a personal attack than a discussion of how to properly apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

This apparently is not the first time at the ANI rodeo for this user: see, , , and this edit war that went way out of control. This is getting a bit absurd, and while I don't feel harassed yet, there is definitely a discomfort when wanting to engage with this user. Even bringing this up at ANI was hard because I knew it would likely distract from anti-vandalism work.

But none of this feels right. We are supposed to be civil. This - what has been doing on - isn't civil, and after that many notes at the ANI, I would have think they would have learned their lesson. Apparently not. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This report makes no allegation of a violation other than trying to Poison the well. User:Mr. Vernon suggested at an AfD discussion (Murder of Tessa Majors) on an article about a murder that the victim's race was the only reason that reliable source sources had reported on it. Further, they based their delete vote on this reasoning, which completely disregards AfD guidelines and frankly violates WP:NOTFORUM. I raised an issue with the editor about this, and they have since repeatedly posted on my talk page to challenge me about it, restoring a thread I had deleted violating my right to WP:BLANK.
 * In addition to beating a WP:DEADHORSE on my talk page, this user is also canvassing "support" for this thread. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not use quotes around something I did not say. I never said the victim's race. I did say that if she were of another race, she wouldn't be getting this kind of press coverage, and the article I linked to has peer-reviewed data to back up that assertion. Second, this isn't WP:CANVASSING; there cannot be an attempt to move the needle on consensus because ANI does not operate based on consensus. These users have had interactions recently with this user and may want to provide input; but that's all they can provide, input. All of these users have had interaction with this user recently about this specific AfD (and only those users.) Notifying them that there is an ongoing discussion seems correct. If it IS canvassing (or otherwise against another policy that I am not aware of), please let me know ASAP and I will remove the notifications and apologize for getting it wrong, and accept whatever punishment I get for breaking the rules. Also, the "vote" (which it isn't, AfDs run based on consensus) had nothing to do with this, but rather my reading of WP:EVENT and determining notability guidelines for crime based on a reading of the material; see here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User acknowledges that they said what I said they said (I italicized for emphasis, didn't use quotes) and asks if they can unring a bell re: WP:CANVAS. Over a comment that I agreed to disagree with them on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Odd, I thought Canvassing was more like this attempt to solicit a user's "vote" into the AfD you are involved with. Did I get that wrong? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The above diff shows that I solicited the advice of an uninvolved admin about an article possibly qualifying for WP:SPEEDYKEEP, whose position I had no idea about beforehand. Indeed, the admin disagreed with me. You are going around asking for editors who you believe will be on your side because they either a) agreed with you at the AfD discussion (constituting a small minority), b) have had disagreements with me in the past, or c) both, to "chime in," or rather, gang up on an ANI thread. Apples and oranges. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Followup on canvassing: my mistake, I interpreted the article to apply to matters of consensus only. I've rolled back the changes, and as far as I know those editors have not read it (they have not posted here or tried to contact me.) It's up to the admins how they want to handle it. Of course the edits are still there (Wikieditor19920 has linked to them) so they can be examined and the appropriate action taken. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And for repeatedly restoring a deleted thread (yours) to my talk page? Was that a mistake as well? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , how is that inflammatory comment?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * —is it proper to imply that the article exists because the victim is a white woman? Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * that's not what he/she said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * —why are you saying "that's not what he/she said"? Of course that's "what he/she said". And Mr. Vernon goes on to say "If she were of another race, there wouldn't be this kind of coverage." Also User:LaraGingerbread responds to saying "So Tessa's case got attention because she's white?" The whiteness of a victim is not a reason to delete an article. Such comments can be considered extraneous to a deletion discussion. And possibly a violation of WP:FORUM. Mr. Vernon is still writing (4 days ago) "Furthermore Missing white woman syndrome is an input here. She is getting significant coverage because she's a young attractive white woman." I don't think Wikipedia second-guesses sources and looks skeptically on sources based on our belief that we know what motivates sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Question Is it permissible to ping the talk pages of an admin to ask them to Speedy Keep an article going through AfD? I've read WP:SK and it gives very limited reasons for doing so, none of which apply here. WP:SNOW wasn't even applying (not at the time, anyway.) I've always thought that the folks at AfD do a good job of monitoring and applying Speedy Keep/Snow/etc. when they apply without needing to go around asking. It also seems odd that once the admin said no, Wikieditor19920 kept pushing . This is an honest question - is this ok to do? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikieditor19920 appears to be WP:BLUDGEONING at this AfD. Not only 14 additions to the AfD (one now gone), but editing another user's edit and posting to three user TPs  . I suggest a warning to let others !vote without harrassment. O3000 (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And now the canvassing kicks in. I'll note that User:Objective3000 is criticizing me for my number of contributions at an AfD, while exhibiting the same behavior at a move discussion for that same page. Ironically, 03000 took the AfD as another opportunity to attempt to re-litigate the move discussion, which was completely irrelevant.
 * User:Mr. Vernon purports he didn't know that canvassing was a technical violation, but common sense should hold that seeking out other editors to gang up on someone is not in accordance with WP policy. He actually violated 3 tenets of canvassing with this thread: 1) posting a non-neutral message "chime in... Wikieditor is getting absurd..." 2) to a non-neutral audience (those he believes more likely to agree with him for reasons above) and 3) perhaps spamming (posting the same message rapidly on 4 different user talkpages). It's difficult to believe that this was an unintentional innocent mistake, and you can't unring a bell.
 * Lastly, this user forced me to delete his thread from my talk page four times to challenge me on something I had already acknowledged, our disagreement about his comment, and which there was nothing further to say about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am confused about how an editor can force you to remove something from a talk page. Being very proactive about pruning a conversation from a talk page (as in, within a few minutes) seems like a choice. Your comment is still on my talk page; what of it? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not entitled to restore comments to my talk page that I have deleted. Removal is an acknowledgment that I have read it, as were my (multiple) responses. WP:BLANK, WP:TPG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All involved need to stop bickering here and at the AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, which is why I suggested a warning about bludgeoning with no sanction. O3000 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd love to. It should be kept at the AfD. And if Wikieditor19920 did that, as is the case for most AfDs, that would be fantastic. But they take it to my talk page. They [edit my comments. They harass the person who nominated the article for AfD on their talk page. They request a speedy keep from an admin and harass them after they say no to the point where the admin says "I must also admit some curiosity as to what you think you'll accomplish, practically speaking. It should be clear by now I'm not going to change my mind." I'm wondering if this user is here to build an encyclopedia or not. --[[User:Mr. Vernon|Mr. Vernon]] (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Simply, the user needs to stop bludgeoning debates in which they are invested. Deletion review/Log/2020 February 16 is not too impressive, as is the AfD mentioned above. Pretty much all of their last 90 edits are related to those two issues.  I don't particularly mind the issue of my talk page; after all, I'm an admin and get pinged for stuff regularly - however this assumed bad faith.  Oh, and "If you can find the sources to meet GNG, then it is notable" is nonsense, which seems to be all too often repeated at AfD. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Aggressive bludgeoning is WE19920's main mode of interaction on talk pages; a stern warning from an attentive admin is sorely needed. --JBL (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * — nicely asks on their Talk page if they would consider striking their comment. They explain that the comment is "in very poor taste in an AfD discussion like the one above". And  nicely asks  on their Talk page about the same subject. I will point out that  says that this incident "shouldn't have gotten the disproportionate media coverage it has". No, that is not what Wikipedia is about. We follow sources. Sources clearly enunciate that the Murder of Tessa Majors is interpreted by some to herald a return to high crime rates in New York City. Wikipedia does not get to decide that the incident "shouldn't have gotten the disproportionate media coverage it has". Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that you have learned nothing from your recently expired topic ban. --JBL (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * JBL—there are often two sides to a story, and I feel it is important to support somebody being treated shabbily. I think I am weighing in to this discussion in a measured manner. Thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't want to be blocked again. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * —you say "Simply, the user needs to stop bludgeoning debates". An overly simplistic understanding of the current juncture might find that you should not have initiated the AfD Articles for deletion/Murder of Tessa Majors. It is OK to have such a discussion—why should we have an article on Murder of Tessa Majors? We can discuss this. But it has to be done in a civil manner. That should not include an extraneous comment about Missing white woman syndrome. That comment immediately followed your nomination of the article for deletion. I don't think that is what you had in mind. You made no mention of race in your explanation for why you were nominating this article for deletion. The comment should have been expunged and that is simply what Wikieditor19920 was endeavoring to do. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Mr. Vernon—your comment about Missing white woman syndrome was illogically placed near the top of that discussion, right after the nomination of the article for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because it was I saw the AfD a few minutes after it went live and replied to it immediately. As far as I know that's the basic order of AfDs, top-level comments are in chronological order, which is why my input (keep or delete) is much further down the page. I'm not sure why I saw the AfD so soon, but I had been watching that page closely due to issues regarding posting the names of the suspects (not by anyone involved here) and of course when I'm looking out for vandalism, watching recent changes/new pages is a must. --Mr. Vernon (talk)


 * You don't mention race in your deletion argument therefore in my opinion your comment about Missing white woman syndrome is gratuitous and needlessly inflammatory. Bus stop (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest both the OP and Wikieditor199220 give that AfD some breathing room and leave each other alone. That should resolve everything. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but User:Mr. Vernon has now 1) violated my talkspace by restoring a thread that I intentionally deleted, multiple times, and 2) has filed a frivolous ANI report over an issue that had ended (my striking of a comment he made at an AfD discussion, that wasn't part of his vote, and with an explanation, which he objected to and that I took no further action on) and 3) engaged in blatant canvassing to unduly influence an ANI thread against me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Further, the fact that this user would try to compensate for the lack of any perceptible reason to have come to ANI in this instance by trying to create prejudice with a full history of any time I've been involved in an ANI thread (which is limited and never resulted in any sanction), in addition to the canvassing, is a complete misuse of what ANI is for. WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * where is the restoring multiple times? The only time they seemed to restore comments you deleted is here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikieditor19920&diff=941597059&oldid=941595345] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikieditor19920&diff=941597166&oldid=941597117]. While generally speaking editors should not restore comments that an editor deleted from their talk page, the explanation [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikieditor19920&diff=941597969&oldid=941597720] offers some understanding of why they did so. I don't see where else they restored comments that you had deleted. They did make that new comments on the issue after you had deleted the thread, but that is not a WP:OWNTALK issue. If we're ignoring psychic nonsense, by definition you cannot have read comments which had not been posted before. And while yes, if they use the same section heading technically they're restoring the section heading that's a fairly pointless semantic debate since the editor could just give a different section heading.  For WP:harassment and other reasons, if an editor wants to drop an issue on their talk page, this generally should be respected, just as if an editor wants to completely ban another from their talk page. But that's a different point. And frankly, I can understand why Mr. Vernon wanted to offer their explanation if you're making such a big deal over what is actually a single restoration of deleted comments.  Further if you want someone to drop an issue, it helps a great deal if you don't respond either other than with a basic message saying you no longer wish to discuss the issue. While editors should generally still respect a request to drop an issue on their talk page even if the other editor has said a lot as unfair as that can be, it's generally a bit lame to expect you should be the one to get in the last word.  Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, this user is not allowed to restore any comments to my talk page, once, twice, or at all. And repeatedly re-opening a thread title that I deleted with new comments is just as much of a restoration as his restoring a deleted conversation thread.
 * This has nothing to do with who has the "last word." I could not care less, nor do I owe him a response to every one of a series messages confronting me about something long dropped, to either his satisfaction or yours. I politely raised an issue with User:Mr. Vernon on his talk page about a potentially inflammatory comment he made an an AfD. He took exception with my striking the remark at the page and posted on my talk page about it. When I gave this response, there was nothing more to say about it. I shouldn't have to repeat myself with this post, which was the last response I gave before he came to ANI (and which shows how unnecessary this report was). As for If we're ignoring psychic nonsense, by definition you cannot have read comments which had not been posted before., I have no idea what you are talking about. I removed the thread once he had posted it, in addition to offering written replies. This is a user who seems to have lost his temper and apparently didn't get the response he wanted from me, and that's why where at ANI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I came across this when looking for something else and since it's still open and has had a reply about a day ago I might as well reply. I think you've misunderstood my point. I already acknowledged that Mr. Vernon should not have restored that comment that one single time they did so. I simply said, I also understood why they did so, given their stated reasons, and the likelihood that they were unaware of our guidelines in this area. If you cannot accepted that editors make mistakes, and are going to make such a big deal over a single mistake, I don't think you are going to last long here. And I emphasise the single mistake bit. You claimed "restored twice" but this did not happen. The comment was only restored once. And no, making additional comments is not the same thing as restoring. Especially if your comments are different things from what you said earlier. As I indicated, one of the key reason why editors are forbidden from restoring deleted comments is they serve no purpose. If an editor deletes a comment, it's take as a sign it's been read and understood. An editor cannot have read and understood something which has not been stated. Therefore such a reasoning does not apply.  Offering further comments to an editor after they deleted your comments is not behaviour that is explicitly forbidden by WP:UOWN and WP:OWNTALK. It may or may not violate WP:Harassment, but that's a far more complicated issue.As I also indicated, you did not simply remove the comments without responding. You responded and then immediately removed the comments. While you are entitled to do that, any suggestion that the other editor should have stopped responding is far more complicated when you're effectively demanding the right to respond, without the other party being able to respond in the same place. In other words, if you want someone to drop and issue, stop responding. Don't respond and then delete your comments.   I would not support someone commenting on an editor's talk page if an editor has explicitly asked them not to, even in such circumstances. But this isn't what happened here. You never made such a request. You simply deleted the comments, which again you were entitled to do so, but this also makes it far less clear cut whether it was inappropriate for an editor to respond  further. As I already said, if you don't want an editor to respond further, your best solution is to simply say so. It's not to respond saying other stuff, then delete all the comments and expect the editor to understand this means you want no further responses, even if an editor feels there is an important point of clarification based on what you said.  As for the rest of the stuff, I don't really give a damn. I only responded here because I felt, and still feel, it was wrong for you to imply that comments you deleted from your talk page were restored twice when this isn't what happened. They were only restored once, with a second followup using the same subject heading but without restoring the earlier comments.  Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The main question, in my opinion, concerns the propriety/impropriety of striking through a flippant comment on race. I wanted to do something about the comment "What makes this one unusual?" Please see Missing white woman syndrome—but I did not. It is a response to the Nom (Black Kite) asking What makes this one unusual? There in fact may be a racial component to the Murder of Tessa Majors but it is imperative that any such racial component be addressed in a serious way. The comment was out of place. If I would have done something, I probably would have outright reverted it. In general, I support Wikieditor19920's striking through of what I am terming a flippant statement. The statement is not respectful of anyone—not black people, not white people—and we can know that it was not intended with complete seriousness because there was no followthrough—that line of argument was not continued in Mr. Vernon's actual deletion argument. In fact there is no mention of race in Mr. Vernon's actual deletion argument. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Except judging by your comment you have not understand what that editor said. It was a perfect comment. The editor asked why that was unusual and that was the right reply, showing why the media is extensively covering the story. It was not inappropriate.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , LOL, good one. My English is still developing and I listen to Trump all the time. He has some influence on my English.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope you're joking. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Has this thread gone far enough into the Twilight Zone yet? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think of ANI as more like the Towaway Zone. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * —if the idea of Missing white woman syndrome was a part of a cogent argument for the deletion of the article Murder of Tessa Majors, wouldn't we expect that concept to be invoked in the actual deletion argument posted by Mr. Vernon? We do not. Nor do we see any reference to race. If it was such a "perfect comment" then why doesn't use that comment or related concepts in their deletion argument? Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * - you're missing the point completely. Whether the AfD I started was correct or not, the editor has been bludgeoning discussions that he doesn't agree with (not to mention heading off to other editor's talk pages to annoy them), and he needs to stop doing it.  This was quite clearly pointed out above.  This is not about the validity or otherwise of a particular AfD or DRV. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment at your and Vernon's talk page was not to "annoy you" -- it was to ask that you reconsider an off-topic comment about race that has absolutely nothing to do with notability guidelines. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Multiple users cited my arguments as persuasive enough to influence their vote, and frankly, it seems like the discussion is overwhelmingly favoring keep. Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have, though when an editor agreeswith you, it seems it isn't bludgeoning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * similar behaviour in Talk:Ilhan Omar in the RfC. The same editor has been bludgeoning almost every vote in that RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have". Some advice - I'd stop replying when you can't even count. You've made twenty-eight comments at that AfD. Mr.Vernon has made nine. I don't think I need to say anything else, so my point about your bludgeoning stands. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where you are pulling those numbers from. I have about nine comments at that RfC, most of which are very short replies to pings, and Vernon has seven, including an extremely long counter-response to Levivich's analysis. I suggest you double check your work before accusing other editors of "not being able to count." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You've edited it 28 times, Vernon 9. I dare say some might be typo fixes and so on, but, whatever.  You made 25 edits to the DRV as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a few typo fixes for each comment - guilty of occasional typographical errors? Sure. Vastly more participation than Vernon? I don't think so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have. Not according to ctrl+F. You have made the double amount of comments made by Mr. Vernon.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your contributions to this discussion have been partisan and sloppy, . I really don't even want to engage with you on this, but note that Ctrl F captures a) pings (including yours) and other editors citing my username when agreeing with my arguments "Per Wikieditor19920..." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , omg, do you think I would search only for "Wikieditor19920"? I searched "Wikieditor19920 (talk)" see the screenshots.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Does that include my responses to yourfour comments you made under my vote demanding some further explanation? Enough. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , It was a response to Black kite question. Why this was covered widely in the media.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


 * —I pointed out that the reason given for your initiation of the AfD was detoured by the next comment by Mr. Vernon. It was a non sequitur. Mr. Vernon was asked on their Talk page to remove their comment, but they refused to do so. That is an out of place comment. If there was any cogency to that comment then Mr. Vernon or someone else would have told us that the article should have been deleted because the news tends to favor white female victims over black female victims. But we don't see that. An extraneous and inflammatory assertion should be removed from an AfD such as this one, especially appearing at the top of the discussion. They were literally responding to a question you posed, Black Kite. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted that you don't think the comment from Mr. Vernon applies. But, other editors are allowed their own opinions. Hasn't this been discussed enough? O3000 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * O3000—I didn't ask Mr. Vernon to initiate a section on WP:AN/I about Wikieditor19920. If it has been "discussed enough" then maybe Mr. Vernon can request that this thread be closed. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the issue now seems to be bludgeoning. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever sticks, right? As discussed above, my participation at the AfD under discussion has been essentially equal to the user filing the report and mostly in response to pings. Further, my arguments persuaded - his did not. Another editor might see a problem with the fact that the filing editor a) engaged in improper canvassing for this report and b) this same editor's refusal to allow me to blank my own page per WP:OWNTALK. This has been an enormous waste of time, esp. considering the extremely long report does not name any specific basis for coming to ANI, and the reason that this discussion has become so drawn out is precisely because of the filing editor's canvassing. Note that I did not at any time ping Bus Stop to become involved in this conversation or otherwise notify him about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk)
 * The filer was incorrect in restoring an edit on your TP, and you were incorrect in striking the filer’s edit on the AfD. Your comment persuaded on your incorrect statement that GNG overrules NOTNEWS when GNG is a guideline and NOTNEWS is a policy. As to canvassing, this is not an example of bringing like-minded folk to an AfD or RfC. This is bringing involved people to an AN/I discussion and seems kosher to me. And, your whatever sticks, right is uncalled for. O3000 (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC).
 * , Wikieditor19920 has made more than 50 comments in Talk:Ilhan Omar (based on ctrl-F "Wikieditor19920 (talk)"). This is bizarre. However, I don't think it has reached the point that it is sanctionable but I would support a warning for this behaviour.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * <Small>Just ignore that “RfC”. It is way overdue for closure, there is no way the consensus will change, and requests for closure are heavily backlogged. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with O3000 that that discussion is due for closure, though I think we'll disagree on how it should be closed. I haven't commented on that discussion in almost a month, and I think you'll see pretty extensive involvement in that discussion from several editors. is the type of user who will pester me multiple times at an AFD to expound on my vote  and then come to ANI and try to pile on accusations of bludgeoning for my replies at that same page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , because your vote was "Speedy keep, snow" which is something that would require more clarification, and yet even if we removed the comments you made in response to me, the number of comments you made is still more than the number of comments made by -Mr. Vernon. Also, I am not the only one here accusing you of bludgeoning. There is also O3000 and Black Kite. I have seen the same bludgeoning by you in this discussion where you made 53 comments in that RfC including some three to four unindented bullet comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , There is nothing in the sources that suggest that this is any different from any "murder" or "killing" that happens in the U.S. in daily basis. This is why wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.? Your repeated pings and comments under my vote were not about "clarification," you were merely quibbling me over my vote. Which you also did to other editors at that page.. When I reply, don't come to ANI and complain that I've "bludgeoned" the discussion by responding to you. This is a perfect illustration of why canvassing at ANI is prohibited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , In addition to that RfC and that AfD. Here is another recent example of your bludgeoning . Note: I wasn't even in that discussion so you can't say I forced you to reply. An editor there, noted your response to every vote and said From the large number of times you've posted in this discussion, I would tend to suspect that you might be very concerned about the outcome. It's up to you, but I do suggest that you consider not replying quite so much. And yet you continued.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If a user makes a comment about me as the nominator at an AfD or the propriety of the nomination, I'm allowed to address it. As for threads where we've been mutually involved, you, tend pester me and others for responses to inane or pointed questions long after everyone's begun ignoring you, and then you come here to cite my replies to your pings as bludgeoning. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Enough. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

your incorrect statement that GNG overrules NOTNEWS... I'm not going to rehash our positions at the AfD here. Canvassing is equally inappropriate at ANI as at article discussion pages. User Vernon only pinged editors who either a) disagreed with me at the AfD and agreed with him, b) have had disagreements with me in the past, or c) both. You and SharabSalam are included under c). I have not had any prior interactions with Black Kite but he opened the AfD discussion and Vernon has been a strong advocate of deletion. Further, the message that he pinged with was a copy-paste, in rapid succession, on four users pages and completely non-neutral, making it clear that he was expecting your "support." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm asking nicely: please stop.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 20:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't believe that we've ever interacted (or if we have, I'm not remembering) and I don't think I've ever interacted non-trivially with any of the other main parties here, so I think I'm fairly uninvolved here and can look at this without any sort of bias. As such, please hear me when I say that while others may not be guiltless, you really aren't doing yourself any favors right now. You keep responding frequently and somewhat aggressively to most of the statements here (hence the repeated references above to WP:BLUDGEON), and it's really not helping your case. It seems like this behavior is what Mr. Vernon was concerned about when filing this, so you're actually proving them right and drawing attention away from any potential misdeeds of theirs. I suggest you take a moment to listen to the concerns of others, even if you disagree with them, then try to see it from their perspective. They're not crazy, just passionate about Wikipedia, too. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. Everything's a two-way street, and my striking Vernon's comment was a mistake. I take WP policy seriously, so if something I do is on the line, I'll admit it. WP:TPO does seem to restrict those kind of actions for an off-topic comment. Maybe hatting it would've been the better approach, or just leaving it be (which I did after being reverted). So I do have an end in this. I think I acknowledged this to the filer, but apparently that wasn't enough to dissuade them from repeatedly bringing it up on my talk page and restoring a thread repeatedly after I'd replied, and then filing and canvassing this ANI report. I don't think any of that was necessary, but I've said my piece on it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

At the informal request of the OP, I am re-opening this thread, as it seems that, despite the reported party recognizing and acknowledging they made a mistake, there are still loose threads and other general concerns regarding this user. As I'm not familiar with the reported party, I will leave future closures to those who are more familiar; as such, I won't involve myself in this case, other than this courtesy notice that I've re-opened the thread. Amaury • 21:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:JUSTDROPIT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to be confused with WP:JUSTDOIT Logo NIKE.svg – Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[ dubious – discuss] 05:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just close this, then. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Shashank5988
, who is editing for over 6 years with a clean block log, has been blocked by over what appears to be a single edit to revert a serial ban evading sock.

Shashank5988 restored an earlier version per this edit with the summary "revert socks and unexplained removals". The edit summary seems accurate because all of the content (discounting refilling, bot edits), was added by ban evading sock puppets such as "Vijay bramhane", "Mahendramisal", and his IP socks geolocating to Maharashtra.

Now I am not seeing why Doug Weller, who is himself an involved party, had to make this block with a clearly misleading block summary "Major blanking despite warnings" in the clear absence of any recent warning or absence of edit done in bad faith. This came after made a misleading revert by wrongly claiming that Shashank5988 made "unexplained removal" on the article and himself restoring excessive puffery and excessive catalogs added by the banned sock. The edit was correctly explained and didn't required Newslinger to revert, let alone dropping a frivolous warning on talk page of Shashank5988.

To wrap it up, the user in question should be unblocked because there are no valid basis behind this block. Azuredivay (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * who is editing for over 6 years with a clean block log is an extremely misleading description of this edit history. Someone who registers an account and hardly ever uses it for four years, then over the course of two years makes about as many edits as I used to make in a month, cannot be described that way in good faith. Was it written with the specific intent of misleading the reader, or is it just a lack of due diligence before filing an ANI report? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I see a lot of warnings on their page, going back several years, for making the kind of edits for which they received a block. Their edit summary says "reverted socks and unexplained removals" but in fact in this edit removed well more than half the article.  Newslinger is correct, that is a misleading edit summary.  I endorse the block.  It is for 31 hours, not forever.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 04:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Were there any recent warnings, say, in last 6 months? I found none, and the block is a clear violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK over reverting a sock puppet. Do you have any evidence that the "more than half the article" wasn't written by the ban evading socks contrary to the evidence substantiated by OP? I support speedy unblock in this case.Pectoretalk 04:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My revert of at Special:Diff/944597629 used the edit summary 'Revert unexplained removal of content. The edit summary of Special:Diff/944594667 is not consistent with the changes made. Please explain on the talk page who the alleged "socks" are'. Shashank5988's edit used the edit summary "revert socks and unexplained removals", yet removed 19,257 characters of content from the article. That's what I intended to highlight with the phrase "not consistent": Shashank5988 claimed to revert "unexplained removals", while removing a large quantity of content from the article. As outlined in WP:EDITCONSENSUS, an edit that departs from the current consensus can be reverted if an editor does not believe that it improves the article. Shashank5988's reversion of the last years' worth of article improvements was bold, and I restored the longstanding version of the article. User talk:Shashank5988 shows a long history of warnings and complaints from other editors about inappropriate reverts and other disruptive actions performed by . In light of this, 's 31-hour block is well-justified. I do not see any indication that Doug Weller is involved, as they have only behaved in an administrative capacity in regard to Shashank5988's past disputes.  Finally, please be sure to notify all involved editors with, as required by the notice at the top of this page. —  Newslinger   talk   04:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Note that I've unblocked Shashank5988 after looking again. I've a script that shows blocked editors which should have shown the socks but for some reason didn't. It does now. It's unfortunate that Shashank5988 went offline immediately instead of, as he says he was going to do, explain on the talk page, but we all make errors. at least this eventually came to my attention, but I've never edited that article. Doug Weller talk 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Afdafadsfas - New user engaging in bot-like edits with no edit summary.
Normally I'd take this to WP:AIV, but I want to get some extra eyes on this user's diffs after they appeared on my watchlist today. The acccount seems to have been creating today,a nd their only edits (160-ish so far) are adding or changing the Vital article template. No other edits, no user page, and no edit summaries have me a little intrigued.

I've not dug into whether these are valid contributions yet - Edits like suggest to me the user is running some kind of bot script, but I'm not familiar with the behaviour. Someone more familiar with WikiProject Vital Articles may be able to provide more useful commentary than I can. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 13:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OBVIOUSSOCK. ——  SN  54129  13:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Catdogkid -- Not quite sure what the hell's going on here
There seems to be some... very schizophrenic editing going on by. I was going through my watchlist and caught the two edits in this diff, and reverted as blatant vandalism. I then checked their contribs, and found a weird mixture of genuinely helpful edits and more blatant vandalism (just a few samples of each). I'm... not entirely sure what to do about this, so I thought I'd throw it to you guys. It's almost as if either they think that productive edits "make up for" vandalistic edits, or we have two separate people logged into the same account at one time. Advice? rdfox 76 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an LTA vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Winniepediaa
Hello, I didn't know where to put this but was suggested to write here. A user has the password of the account in the userpage. Anyone can log in the account. User: User:Winniepediaa. J3133 (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the account as a compromised account. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think his user page should be deleted.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This might have been overkill, but I've also requested a global lock.  Alex Noble    - talk  11:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the user page should be deleted, for reasons that I won't state, per WP:BEANS. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done so. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Nselaa Ward AFD
Nselaa Ward was AFDd Articles for deletion/Nselaa Ward and an IP nearly immediately closed the AFD as speedy keep with no rationale. That in itself wasn't that concerning, but then they took the notice off the page and put the past AFD template on the talk page suggesting a level of experience I don't expect in a new IP editor. See contributions Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:1C22:1001:28FA:DC35:A47:4D68 Jahaza (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that the deletion discussion has been reopened. I can't think of any better way to prejudice a discussion against the position supported by the editor. If I hadn't seen so many cases of gross stupidity on Wikipedia I would suspect that this was actually done by someone who wants the article deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The Charlie Bondhus article and User:Mbondhus
Can we get some assistance on this? Mbondhus says he's Charlie Bondhus, and he keeps changing the text of the article to a different name. Says he wants the title of the article changed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have provided links on the Talk page and have offered to supply the newspaper article announcing the name change. I tried to upload the latter to Wikimedia Commons but it won't let me because I don't own the rights to it. I'm not a Wikipedia editor and I don't really know what to do. I'd just like my page to be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbondhus (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that Bondhus' website reflects the name change, as does https://www.raritanval.edu/node/2421. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  00:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've moved the article to "Michael McKeown Bondhus"— Diannaa (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert warring at Lee Ka-eun
The article about a pop singer was redirected to the band last year following AfD discussion, based on assessment of insufficient individual notability. has since continuously tried to reinstate it against consensus because notability is "obvious", and has been reverted by half a dozen editors who disagree. They apparently don't intend to stop despite the discussion not going their way, talk page warnings,, and laying out the situation for them quite clearly. Would someone please consider putting a stop to this, be it by way of a more strongly worded warning, a short block, or similar. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbruh123 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the trolling above and the repeated edit warring, I've blocked Coolbruh123 for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalizing User Investigation Required

 * Listen, this guy Gradoved is ruining my progress and harming my edits as a contributor to my edits. I clearly use accurate and reliable sources and I try to reason with him but it's no use. He denies anything I post, deletes my accurate edits and vandalizes the quality information for the public to us. People have even threatened me for my edits and it's injustice and intolerable, I highly request that you investigate this user and impose a penalty for his false actions. It is very possible that they might try and sock puppet to preserve their own work which is not tolerated according to the Wikipedia guidelines. I ensured everyone my sources are good and I keep my word on it, as a contributor of this community, i'm so angry that I couldn't even get an administrators help. It's so hurtful that I am trying to do the right thing by giving back to the Wikipedia articles and only to have everything mocked, erased, harassed and even claimed against me.. This despicable action towards me must stop and these claims against me should follow suite, please investigate this user and help me protect the valuable information I give on this website and not have it tarnished by others.(e.g. vandalised past 4th warning). IntercontinentalEmpire (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are required to notify an editor on their talk page when you open a discussion about them on AN/I. I will do this for you. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Or could beat me to it, I suppose. creffpublic <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"> a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't accuse people of vandalism when this is simply a content dispute. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What should I do in the meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntercontinentalEmpire (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In the meantime, IMO I'd suggest formulating a good argument for why you yourself should not be blocked for disruptive editing, or at the very least topic-banned from Russia. Going back to at least February, Talk:Russia, you have been waging a 1-against-everyone war to get your way on topics, and thus far no one is agreeing with your positions, be it maps regarding the illegal Crimean annexation, or the Russian population decline. ValarianB (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You know what, that's it, I'm done with this community. All I get is accused of everything for no reason. I guess trying to do the right things is not something to do and it's disgusting. Since i'm such a large target for people, good, see you never and you can take these lies and spread them. I'm done with Wikipedia, you people have shunned me for the last time, GOOD DAY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntercontinentalEmpire (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:AIV way backlogged
Admin help requested over there. Toddst1 (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly fixed now. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion request
I am a new user. I have been blocked on fr.wikipedia.org I registered 9 days ago. Unfortunately, I have been blocked permanently by Arcyon37 on fr.wikipedia.org. He decided that I was not contributing "correctly". So, I can not undo anything or ask any help from administrator. However, the english version of Wikipedia allows me to talk to an administrator.

I do not agree with Arcyon37. However, I no longer want to contribute to Wikipedia as I no longer believe in this public encyclopedia. Before stopping everything, I want to delete all my contributions of the last 9 days. Change my username and park my account, until it is deleted.

Can an administrator delete all my contribution on the fr.wikipedia.org? Or, unblock me so I can do it myself?

After, I will just change the username of my account and park it with the mention "delete". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlainPainchaud (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is English Wikipedia. You'll need to discuss on French WP. Praxidicae (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Mapsfly disruptive editing
This user repeatedly added unsourced information to Josh Norman here, here, and here before finally adding a source here while warning that my next reversion will lead to a report at 3RR. The source added to the article cites an anonymous source, which is not good enough per WP:RSBREAKING and long-standing consensus at WP:NFL player articles. I posted on the talk page here and instead of discussing the edits with me, they attempted to change the guideline I cited and tried to block me.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that non admins are not able to place blocks, so even if you had done anything wrong it would have still been improper for them to use that template claiming to have blocked you for 31 hours. I think this is clear cut WP:TROLLING and not a good faith content dispute Michepman (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they placed the block template on my talk page thinking (hoping?) it would actually block me from editing. I don't think it's trolling, but I agree there isn't much good faith on their part here.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This editor adds his own opinions to articles freely (see and ) but removes any opinion he dislikes (see  and ),, , , etc.  I'm seriously considering a WP:NOTHERE block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This above response is a very obvious political disagreement at most and is not even the issue at hand, stay on topic--Mapsfly (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the nonsensical comment above, NRP’s diffs above and Mapsfly’s behavior at RSN, I’ve placed a NOTHERE block.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sulfurboy stonewalling changes at College Kumar (2020 film)
Editor has unilaterally decided that  has to seek consensus for any edit made to College Kumar (2020 film), and is basically stonewalling Kailash's efforts to improve that article, refusing to even explain what about this edit was problematic when Sulfurboy reverted it.

As brief as possible: Kailash, an article content creator involved in Indian entertainment subjects, suspected another editor of being a sockpuppet of B.Bhargava Teja. Kailash also suspected the IP creator of College Kumar (2020 film) to be a sock of the same user. I certainly thought it was possible based on the high number of intersections between the creator IP and B.Bhargava Teja. Same thing with some other early IPs who edited it.

Kailash had also been working on a version of the same article, and asked me if there was any way to move his "superior creation" over the potential sock IP's version. This bit of braggadocio, "superior creation", has apparently incensed Sulfurboy, who thinks Kailash has some pernicious motivation to insert his article over the existing version, which again, was likely created by a user who is forbidden from editing at Wikipedia. I noted in the SPI that I couldn't delete it under G5, because other people had substantially edited it. But I guess I said that too late--

Meanwhile, Kailash, who I guess doesn't have the strongest understanding of deletion procedure, overzealously and erroneously tried to have the article speedied under G6—an accident, since he probably meant G5—then Sulfurboy suggested Kailash take it to AfD, which he did, but later withdrew. Then there was a paste-dump, maybe a redirect in there somewhere—it was a mess. Admin blocked Kailash for a week from editing that article, also having concerns that Kailash might have been engaging in subtle ethnic warring by listing Tamil before Telugu, and that Kailash's critical reception section might have too many lengthy quotes.

Meanwhile again, Sulfurboy opened an SPI on Kailash, accusing him of logging out and using a Plano Texas IP to restore changes to the College Kumar article. That didn't go anywhere, but Sulfurboy's hostility toward Kailash becomes quite evident here.

Kailash explained and justified his overzealous edits to Cabayi, and Cabayi restored Kailash's ability to edit College Kumar. Kailash edited it, and Sulfurboy reverted Kailash, noting in the edit summary You were told not to edit the article for a week. You've once again removed content and added in your own when you knew doing so would be controversial. If you want to add content or remove it, I'm now requesting you build consensus first on the talk page. Continuing to remove and add your content will be conidered intentionally disruptive. I interpreted that as Sulfurboy not being aware that Kailash had been unblocked, but Sulfurboy didn't self-revert, and upon further discussion on the talk page, Cabayi asked Sulfurboy if he would expound on specific objections he had to Kailash's edit. Sulfurboy responded No, because it makes zero sense for me to consider the edits as I have an inherent conflict of interest. Just as everyone else does here. Kailish should feel free to edit the page after consensus is arrived by editors without a COI. Again, that's Wikipedia 101 WP:COI. Note also on the talk page that Sulfurboy states, I think you and Cabayi's friendship with this person has blinded you both to just how egregious this editor's actions were. Cabayi's only punishment was a week ban from editing the page which has already been rescinded. Sulfurboy apparently thinks Kailash should be "punished".

So we have a situation where it appears Sulfurboy intends to stymie any edit Kailash makes unless Kailash first seeks consensus, which doesn't seem justified or appropriate, as Kailash is not presently restricted from editing that article, and the chief opponent to his edits, Sulfurboy, refuses to participate in content discussion.

My hopeful outcome:
 * 1) Kailash should be able to edit that article without the gatekeeping, unless there is a justifiable reason for that not to be the case. If someone wants to admonish Kailash, feel free.
 * 2) Sulfurboy should be reminded about assuming good faith.
 * 3) Sulfurboy should be educated on what blocks are for, i.e. not for punishment.
 * 4) Sulfurboy should be advised that he doesn't have the authority to prevent someone from editing, and certainly shouldn't be stonewalling changes out of spite.

Thanks. Sorry for all the words. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , The idea that I didn't assume good faith is patently false. My serious and reasonable decline in his AfD showed good faith. When he proceeded to say his "superior version" should supercede the article in place even though it clearly wasn't a G5 is when my good faith started to ween.


 * Even still, when he blanked the current article and replaced it with his own because he didn't get his way in AfD, I still assumed good faith by reporting it to and letting him sort it out since they seemed to have a rapport. That showed good faith. When he again blanked the article and overwrote it with his content I again assumed good faith by letting  know about it. At any of these turns it would have been reasonable to formally report him to an admin, because he actions were vandalism and agenda setting. I didn't. I assumed good faith and tried to get an admin he knew to work with him to sort it out.


 * The last revert I did was under the impression that Kailash was still under a one week ban (why was this even removed?) and again he was overwriting content with his own. When I found out the ban had been lifted I suggested that consensus should be built about additions from parties that don't have a conflict of interest.


 * Kailash has a very clear and present conflict of interest. He has on multiple occasions tried to replace an article with his own for the sole reason being that he feels his version is "far superior" (his own words). Its very clear by his comments in the AfD and his actions afterwards that this was never about protecting WIkipedia from a blocked editor, this was instead all about him getting his version in place and damn to the rest of it. He is clearly an experienced editor and this idea that he didn't know better is pretty absurd. This overwhelming COI lead me to the very reasonable request that the aforementioned conflict of interest be considered and additions be made by neutral parties that don't have a COI. That's Wikipedia 101, avoid COI and build consensus.


 * That's not stonewalling. That not preventing someone from editing. That's firmly suggesting basic policies be followed. The idea I should be reprimanded for that is laughable. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also it should be noted that followed none of these steps:


 * ''Before posting a grievance about a user on this page:
 * Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility
 * Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page
 * Or try dispute resolution.


 * Instead he brought on this drama days later when I clearly walked away, have taken no action on the page or responded to any more comments. So much for assuming that good faith he's going on about. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You reverted Kailash yesterday with this arrogant edit summary: "You were told not to edit the article for a week. You've once again removed content and added in your own when you knew doing so would be controversial. If you want to add content or remove it, I'm now requesting you build consensus first on the talk page. Continuing to remove and add your content will be conidered intentionally disruptive." Kailash's partial block re editing the article had been lifted a couple of hours before your revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That was not an arrogant edit summary. Partial blocks are relatively new, so there Sulfurboy could've had number of justifiable reasons for believing that was still accurate. No comment on the rest of the report though. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Arrogant is intentionally trying to get an article deleted because you feel your version is superior and then when warned against it still proceeding to try to overwrite content with your own. At the point of that comment I had seen Kailish push an agenda in an AfD and thrice attempting to remove content and replace it with his own. I also had no knowledge his block had been lifted. What you call arrogant I call stern. I was trying to avoid formally reporting his actions. I should have just reported him after the first revert. Lesson learned. Looks like assuming good faith is now biting me in the ass. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The situation we're left with is that made a change to the article (diff) which gave equal focus to the two languages in which the film was made,  reverted the change purely because it was made by Kailash (diff) and when invited (diff) now refuses to discuss the substance of the changes or what objection he may have to the text, citing WP:COI. (diff) Not so much WP:BRD as Bold-Revert-Refuse to engage.
 * Sulfurboy is effectively claiming WP:OWNership of the article. Kailash made a very conciliatory offer (diff) which Sulfurboy has ignored. Cabayi (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I have made a series of separate edits, so I hope someone will review them before deciding if they should be reverted or not as per Sulfurboy's wishes. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  18:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Cool, so now I'm being ganged up on by even more false accusations. If I choose not to work with an editor that's my choice and my right. Wikipedia is not compulsory. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me three times I lose respect for the editor, fool me four times no way I'm working with you. I made clear my reason for the revert which was warranted.
 * My choosing to not work with this editor was done because I have zero knowledge of the topic and have a COI. Further, I no longer trusted anything the editor had to say. My duty of assuming good faith was long over with. And I don't even know how to address the assertions that I'm claiming ownership of the article. I didn't create the article or add anything to the article. The only things I did on the article was approve the article out of AfC and make three reverts. The three revers were on two agenda bound acts of vandalism and one revert that I reasonably thought was in violation of a ban and would be considered a controversial edit on even the loosest of interpretations.
 * I've never claimed ownership of the article. I never told Kalish he couldn't edit the article. I requested he build consensus before removing and adding his own content. Requests aren't compulsory. Requests aren't demands. Requests aren't claims of ownership.
 * We have an editor here who is experienced enough to know better, but pushed an agenda in an AfD, who said probably a dozen times that his edits should go in because they're "far superior", who committed two acts of vandalism, who twice disobeyed your instructions as an admin and somehow you think I'm the bad actor here. I mean with this will all due respect, but if that truly is your determination, then it's likely that your friendship with this editor is hindering your wherewithal to objectively view how egregious Kailash's actions were.
 * I'm choosing at this point to no longer explain myself unless directly asked a question by an admin or third party. I've stated my case clearly and as objectively as possible considering the bold assertions made. Considering that the accusations against me are getting more and more absurd, I'm worried that I might say something I later regret.
 * Again, if a reviewing admin or third party has a question or needs clarification, I'm happy to oblige, but until then I'm choosing to remain silent to avoid any possible confrontation. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We have an editor here who is experienced enough to know better, but pushed an agenda in an AfD, who said probably a dozen times that his edits should go in because they're "far superior", who committed two acts of vandalism, who twice disobeyed your instructions as an admin and somehow you think I'm the bad actor here. I mean with this will all due respect, but if that truly is your determination, then it's likely that your friendship with this editor is hindering your wherewithal to objectively view how egregious Kailash's actions were.
 * I'm choosing at this point to no longer explain myself unless directly asked a question by an admin or third party. I've stated my case clearly and as objectively as possible considering the bold assertions made. Considering that the accusations against me are getting more and more absurd, I'm worried that I might say something I later regret.
 * Again, if a reviewing admin or third party has a question or needs clarification, I'm happy to oblige, but until then I'm choosing to remain silent to avoid any possible confrontation. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, if a reviewing admin or third party has a question or needs clarification, I'm happy to oblige, but until then I'm choosing to remain silent to avoid any possible confrontation. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, if a reviewing admin or third party has a question or needs clarification, I'm happy to oblige, but until then I'm choosing to remain silent to avoid any possible confrontation. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm confused - maybe I'm missing something, but could you please explain how WP:COI has any bearing on any of this? You say it's Wikipedia 101, but I'm not seeing it - please can you spell it out? Thanks Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I believed - and still do - that Wiki's COI policy means the same as real life COI: "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". But I can assure you, I have with anyone involved in the film's making. Did anyone read the apology I already made for the G5 and AfD over here? <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b>  (talk)  19:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , As far as I know he doesn't have a direct connection to the subject. The COI to me is, Kailish had a clear interest in pushing his own version of the article. It should be made clear that he wasn't trying to add to the article or tweak it here and there. He was outright blanking the page and replacing it with the article he created that got CSD'd. He didn't try to add in piece by piece until repeated warnings and blocks. This COI is also evident in the AfD done under false pretenses, his blanking of the article in favor of his content, and his repeated claims that his version is far superior. Since he had an interest in pushing his version, I believe there is zero chance he could objectively view and decide what content should stay or go. As such, requesting he get consensus from a fresh set of objective eyes is perfectly reasonable. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK - I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, or to criticise you unfairly - I believe that you are acting in good faith to defend our content, and I thank you for that. However, COI has a specific meaning here, which you can learn about by following that link. If you don't think he has a connection with the subject, then there is no COI. As for his interest in pushing his preferred version of the article - well, that's what we all do, all the time, when we edit an article - we change it to our preferred version. Nobody can be described as having a COI because they want to argue in favour of their preferred version of an article - that's what the BRD cycle is all about. If you are willing to engage in a discussion about Kailash's version, then by all means do so, but what you can not - must not - do is prevent them from making any changes until someone else willing to discuss it comes along. Does that make sense? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sure that makes sense. And maybe I'm using COI in the broader spirit of the term and not specifically wikipedia version of it which is leading to confusion and my bad. And yes, I totally understand people want their version in, but there's a proper method to that. It's not pushing an agenda in an AfD and it's not outright blanking an article and putting yours in when said agenda doesn't work. My actions might have come off as terse, but appropriate. I tried to assume good faith as long as possible. My intent was never to block Kailash from editing, I was trying to find a reasonable way to stop what could be broadly construed as disruptive editing without getting an experienced editor into any sort of trouble. The irony of the above claims is I think I assumed good faith too long, when in reality I should have formally reported Kailish's actions before my most recent revert. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't like saying this to an editor with as much experience as you, but I don't think your actions were appropriate, and I agree with Floquenbeam below. See WikiDragon - big, bold changes are permitted, quite commonplace even in certain subject areas, and are often a Good Thing. If you have to tear up a crappy article and start from scratch, so be it - I'm planning to do that myself in the next couple of months to a crap article about a Scottish building which has been in mainspace for over a decade. If Kailash went about it in the wrong way with the AfD first, that doesn't necessarily mean that their version of the article isn't an improvement. If you feel that you aren't in a position to discuss whether it's an improvement, then you aren't the person who should revert. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think at this point it's agree to disagree. In the future, I'm just going to formally report these actions and let someone else sort it out. This drama is not what I came here for. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , fair enough - I'm good with that. Can I add one thing though, with my CVUA trainer hat on? If I've interpreted you correctly, you described some of Kailash's earlier edits as vandalism - to be clear, blanking an article, if you intend to replace the content with different content that you believe is better, is unambiguously not vandalism. Vandalism takes lots of forms - from writing 'I fucked your mom' in an article, to making a subtle change to the height of a sports star in the knowledge that your change is erroneous - but anything you do because you are trying to improve the article can never be vandalism. Please be careful about applying that label to another editors work unless you are certain that they are actively trying to degrade our material. Best Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , That I think is the crux of the disagreement. My view of the situation is the editor was only blanking and replacing the article because he wanted his article to be the one published, not because they were seeking to improve it. Off record comment as I don't want this to be a formal accusation, I feel what happened here is the editor created a page without realizing there was already one on mainspace, when they saw their article was going to be CSD'd they took rash, disruptive action. Again, this is leading us back down the rabbit hole of agree to disagree and subjective opinions. I don't mean to minimize anything, but this whole thing seems pretty silly. I'd rather not have to sink anymore time into this. AfC has a backlog of 3,000+ articles that would my attention would be much better spent on. I do appreciate your input though. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I take your point about 'better things to do...', and am inclined to agree with it. But again - if he thought his version of the article was better, then trying to replace the current version with it is not vandalism. That's a word you should use carefully - as the introduction to WP:VANDALISM makes clear, it's a term we should avoid using except in totally unambiguous cases, where nobody could possibly disagree with you. Stick to 'disruptive' or 'against consensus' (unless it involves assertions of fucking the reader's mom...). Best Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Fair enough. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is easily solved if everyone resets their AGF meter back to its factory settings. Both Sulfurboy and Kailash29792 want what is best for the article. No, Sulferboy, you did not assume good faith too long, you did it too short. Kailash29792 does not have a COI, and can edit the page as normal.  If anyone disputes any of the changes, they can revert that change and discuss why on the talk page, as normal.  No one should revert solely because there is not yet consensus for a change, but only if they actually disagree with the change, and are willing to discuss on the talk page. As normal. Kailash29792 has been editing the article in pieces to make this easier. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have zero issue with walking away from this. That was already my intent, and I've even removed the pages from my watchlist. I'd much rather spend my time constructively contributing instead of having to fend off an avalanche of crazy claims. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like this is good to close with no further action necessary - Sulfurboy is happy to walk away, Kailash29792 is free to edit the article subject to normal BRD cycle stuff. All's well that ends well. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

IP editor signing edit in a way that suggests a logged in editor
This is a "what is the correct action" sort of case. An IP editor !voted in a RfC []. Normally that is no big deal but the IP editor signed their edit with an unregistered user name []. ,, and cannot agree on the correct way to handle this !vote. Should it be reverted as it included a false signature or should it be kept with a refactored signature line noting the actual IP and edit date? Personally I'm inclined to remove it due to the deliberately falsified signature but I think this is a question for those with better policy knowledge. Springee (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for seeking clarification on this, Springee. I'll copy the comment I just made at the RfC:
 * Comment An IP editor with an editing history of a few dozen edits stretching back to May 2017 attempted to !vote in this poll. Their !vote was as follows:
 * removed their !vote, noting in edit summary "we can't take an IP editor's word." I reverted, refactoring to correct the malformed parts, since to my understanding, there is no policy blocking IP editors from !voting in an RfC, and per WP:TPO, we should be careful before removing others' talk page comments. reverted me, noting in edit summary "There’s no reason to include this." I note that both DIYeditor and Toa Nidhiki05 have expressed views counter to the IP editor on the issue this RfC is about; regardless of intentions, I do not think it comes across as a good look to be removing !votes of editors who express an opinion you disagree with. Sdkb (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the username, others here who have more experience dealing with IPs may have better insight, but my (perhaps overly good faith) interpretation was that the IP editor may have just been trying to mimic the user signatures of signed in editors, not knowing how to create an account themselves. Sdkb (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing whatsoever an any Wikipedia policy that prevents an IP posting in an RfC (even as their first and only edit), and anyone removing such a post risks being sanctioned. The only action that could possibly be justified in a case like this would be someone adding a note after the post to the effect that the username has not been registered, together with a link to the IP's contribution history. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just fix the sig. Use Unsigned IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

, I think it would be helpful to discuss what policies might or might not apply. I think what the IP did was WP:SIGFORGE and WP:TALKNO, "Do not attempt to impersonate another editor". As such I would argue the comment should be refactored. This single IP editor's reply isn't likely to tip the balance of the RfC but I would still like to know why policy doesn't support removal of the comment. Springee (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If they were actually impersonating another editor, that would be a different issue; but that user doesn't exist. It isn't unknown for IPs to sign with a name ("Bob 192.168.0.1"), but usually they do it in a way that doesn't suggest they're registered.  Since they haven't technically done anything wrong, I (and apparently NinjaRobotPirate above) don't see that we should remove the post. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone made a comment. They didn't sign it correctly.  Now it's signed correctly.  Please just let it go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, OK, that is the sort of discussion I was hoping for. Sometimes it's it's helpful when editors/admins who are familiar with policies talk the rest of us through the thinking.
 * NRP, when editors are asking to better understand things it's not helpful to tell them to please just let it go. That's the sort of answer I would hope an admin would never offer in response to a non-bludgeoning, good faith question. Springee (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should follow the same practice? Since you're probably a more experienced editor than the IP, maybe you could have talked to them about why they shouldn't have done what they did rather than advocating deletion of their comment without ever having done so, or even given them the compulsory notification of this thread that you started in part based on something they did? Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who doesn't understand why 1) We're having this discussion, but no one has actually talked to the IP explaining why they shouldn't do that when signing until I did so. 2) No one actually gave the compulsory notification to the IP about this ANI thread until I mentioned it when doing 1? And this is despite the fact, from the IP's history, it's possible this is a sticky IP. Sdkb at least welcomed them and suggested they create an account. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne, we are having this discussion because it may be helpful to others to understand the involved policies better. Consider we have 4 editors who in effect offered their opinions prior to this ANI.  Three showed their understanding via edits.  I expressed my understanding and reservations via comments.  I did not open this discussion to try to sanction anyone one.  It's helpful when admins explain their reasons rather than just offering the conclusion.  I'm not sure why you would say, "Maybe you should follow the same practice?"  I made no edits to the page and only expressed my opinion here were others could, hopefully curiously, explain why they don't agree.  Black Kite did explain once asked.  NRP's post closing comments were not helpful.  Your comments with regard to a better way to interact with the IP editor are helpful but questioning why an editor might want to understand how best to handle this situation is puzzling.  Clearly not everyone who acted, and I didn't act, reached the "correct" decision hence this is a good teaching moment.  I'm sorry that my intent to learn from a teachable moment wasn't clear.  Springee (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * My revert was the original one. I made the incorrect assumption that because the signature was forged (was not generated with ~, had an incorrect date and time) and because the comment was inserted out of time order that it was a malicious forgery of an existing account or something similar. I did not see the other interpretation that this was simply a misunderstanding, and did not bother to verify whether this was an existing account. Problem solved, mea culpa. As to I note that both DIYeditor and Toa Nidhiki05 have expressed views counter to the IP editor on the issue this RfC is about that is some major not-AGF on its own. That had absolutely nothing to do with it on my part and it is an insulting insinuation to make. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You should re-read that guote, going past the semi-colon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No I think I got the gist of it quite right, see their latest follow up. Straight out accusation of tendentious editing. I actually supported their desired additions to the lede on this (just wanted to tweak for POV) so this seems out of left field. No idea what makes them think I even give two fucks about this article and I don't believe I have a history of editing politics articles with any particular POV. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how many fucks you give about anything, removing a post to an RfC needs a much better justification than the one given. That applies whether the post is from a registered user or an IP. It applies whether it is there first contribution to Wikipedia, or their millionth. And it applies whether you agree with them or not. That is Wikipedia policy. That is how the WMF promotes the project: "anyone can edit". If you don't agree with this, feel free to propose a change of policy. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I already admitted I made a mistake, please do keep up with a conversation. If you want to reply to an earlier comment please use proper indentation to indicate that rather than disrupt the ongoing discussion which had changed to the topic of continuing accusations of tendentious editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With regard to Springee's original question, I think it is helpful if regular IP editors sign their comments with a name in addition to the four ~. I know the IP editors known as "Spectrum" and "Bob", for example, but I would never recognize their actual IP addresses. Signing a name helps facilitate communication. However, the signature shouldn't look as if it is coming from a registered account. So no User: and no wikilink. But I would encourage Spectrum to sign their comments as "Spectrum" or whatever name they want to use for themself. If multiple people are on the same IP, it'd be even more helpful if they signed their comments with unique names, so everyone else can know who they're talking to. Frankly, I'm surprised that it's been 20 years and "IPs signing their comments" isn't a "thing". Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[ dubious – discuss] 21:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Spectrum
Lets try to review. An IP adds an incorrect signature to a !vote. An editor acting in good faith removes that comment based on their understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines. Another editor acting in good-faith restores the !vote based on their understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines. A brief revert war follows. In hindsight some of the reverts may not have been the best look given the positions already taken in the RFC, but that would not have been obvious in the heat of the moment. The issue is brought here for wider community input. The result of the discussion is to restore the !vote with the correct signature. This was a genuinely non-obvious result and not previously knowing the correct outcome should not reflect negatively on anyone. An unfortunate side-effect of the dispute has been to raise the temperature in a sensitive topic area, and some things are typed in haste that should not have been. Some apologies have already been issued it probably would help if there were a few more even if the mistake was rather minor, to help calm the situation and reassure everyone that in the end we are all despite occasional missteps and mistakes and good-faith disagreements working together to build an encyclopedia. Finally, looking at the big picture this is a rather picayune issue. RFCs are !votes, judgement of consensus is assessed by strength of argument. Therefore a single editor more or less restating in a !vote arguments that have already been made by others should have minimal to no effect on the outcome. Recognizing that, perhaps everyone can gain perspective on this apologize as necessary and agree to let bygones be bygones. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

AIV backlogged again
WP:AIV is severely backlogged once again: there are over 15 reports, some of which are almost 5 hours old. Willing admins, please take a look. ComplexRational (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks – often, that's fine. See the header and my comment on the talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Scott Piercy
Article needs to be protected. And I'm revisiting the question of whether the defamatory accusations meet the level of rev/deletion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected. I'm going to rev-delete, although I'm equivocal on whether they rise to that level.  Of course, a properly sourced addition of the incident to which the vandalism refers would be completely acceptable, as long as it was not WP:UNDUE. Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Looks widely reported. I'm thinking two sentences, including apology and sponsor withdrawals, with multiple sources. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Without having heard of this guy or knowing what this is about, a simple web search found this right away. Might still be UNDUE.  Revdel probably was overkill though. 2601:640:108:A5F5:F823:7F80:84B2:C54D (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Terry Christian
Please lock this and rev/delete the defamatory crap. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article has been protected. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Terrific. Now, short of me copying the link or quoting the offensive content, perhaps we can have the defamation expunged. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually the problem goes back at least to February 1, if not longer ago. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Make that at least 20 June 2017. Narky Blert (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not still in the article. Most articles get vandalised I assumed this was about long standing inaccuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is part of the edit history. Defamatory and libelous content may--must--be permanently reverted and deleted from articles and edit summaries. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In UK. call a stranger by the names in my diff, and brace yourself for a punch in the face followed by a good kicking. They aren't banter, and IMO have no place in edit history. Narky Blert (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's my point, . It wasn't clear to me that understood that whether the offending material is in article space, talk page or edit summary, it has to be removed permanently from public view. It's sometimes difficult to get administrative attention on the matter. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's completely bizarre that, while we're sitting around discussing it, the material is still in the blooming article. Wot gives? ——  SN  54129  18:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Amen, . 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * CD63, exactly. What is jocular abuse, or even innocuous, in some circumstances or in some places can be wholly unacceptable elsewhere. It should be revdeled. Narky Blert (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (et al), before my own RfA I had quite a few conversations with different admins about the threshold for what could fairly be described as grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, and the impression I built up was that it depends. I wouldn't hesitate to revdel unsourced sex abuse allegations, or edit summaries with racist abuse in them or similar - but, going only on the diff presented above, I don't think it's routine to do it for the addition of insults such as 'twat' to an article. Happy to be corrected by me learnèd colleagues if they feel differently. I haven't been through the article history though, so if there's something more serious in there, you can fire diffs over to the admin's IRC channel. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  18:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is actually no point at all in even joining a converation about BLP violations in an article history if in your own words you haven't been through the article history.  ——  SN  54129  18:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I didn't have time to read through three years of article history (since NB said it went back all the way to June 2017). I understand why CD63 didn't want to present diffs here, so I was suggesting an alternative channel (I don't know whether or not they were aware of that option already). That's perhaps not the most helpful thing I could have done, but I thought it was better than just ignoring the request entirely. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll let someone close this before I have to point out that the most egregious was less than 24-hours old. Oops. Close, please. ——  SN  54129  19:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , brilliant. If I'd known that, I'd have looked. I saw NB's comment, thought I don't have time to sit sorting through years of vandalism working out which revisions needed revdel, and suggested another channel they could use to report the relevant diffs. Sorry for misreading the situation. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . ——  SN  54129  18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. People complaining about lack of admin action need to consider we are a limited number of volunteers on a Sunday looking at a huge noticeboard among many other problems. About the revisions, I've removed what I've spotted of some clear BLP violations. When it comes to other edits, like the word 'twat', I am not so persuaded. I will have to have a think about it and revisit, so the response, if it comes at all, may be slower. I won't get into the technicalities of whether it's libellous or grossly offensive, but I quite like the definition mentioned by Narky Blert above - whether it would normally get you a swift punch in the face. Can we write that into policy? -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , joking aside, I'd like policy to be a bit clearer on what ought/ought not to be revdelled - it seems very subjective. I remember being embarrassed a few times when I reported stuff that I thought was grossly offensive (certainly a lot worse than 'twat') on IRC only to be told that it didn't meet the threshold. Some sort of community discussion to arrive at a more helpful set of guidelines would be a good thing, in my view. The punch in the face test might be a good place to start... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I think, now, that you've both been very reasonable about it, and from my earlier run through the history what's been caught was the most important. Many thanks. On a lighter note, I'm not sure I'd run with "what gets you a punch on the nose" being a good starting point—in my local that sometimes doesn't have to be much more than a raise of the eyebrow in the wrong direction ;)  Happy Sunday all.  ——  SN  54129  20:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. And I do understand that there are times when fewer volunteers are at the keyboard. Sometimes that results in issues sitting for so long that they're overtaken by newer threads. As for whether or not 'twat' merits the rev/deletion treatment, I'd venture that it does. Not from any sense of priggishness, but because it's reasonable to make a case that any aspersion that likens a subject to genitalia doesn't have much place in the edit history. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Terry Christian's entire recent career largely consistes of calling himself "a twat" (e.g. here, in which not only does he self-describe as "a twat" but a sympathetic profile nonetheless describes him as "the most hated man in television"; this is a reasonable reflection of his current reputation. By all means remove actual libel like the most recent diff, but if his biography mentioning how widely disliked he is, something is wrong somewhere. We manage to handle it for other famous-for-being-disliked figures like Piers Morgan without too much difficulty. &#8209; Iridescent 20:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My "punch in the face test" was a rhetorical point made in argument, but it could be the basis for a rule-of-thumb guideline. : in which city would you feel it safer calling a stranger in a pub "a jessie"? (a) New York (b) York (c) Glasgow.
 * If someone self-describes, or is RS described, using a slur, either they (a) have a sense of humour or (b) deserve whatever's coming to them. Narky Blert (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry if I'm being dim, but I don't understand the point you're making - where do the word jessie, or these different cities, come into this? I know what the word means in Glasgow, and while I might use it to a friend in jest, I wouldn't use it to a stranger; I haven't heard anyone use it in York or New York, so don't know it there is a difference in meaning that I should be picking up on? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My point was only that offensive terms can be regional or national. "Queer" now seems to be acceptable in North America; IMO, it remains barely acceptable or unacceptable in UK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @Girth Summit, I assume it's an elliptical way of saying (correctly) that slang doesn't travel and the word "twat" has different meanings in different places. I remember a very confused David Cameron having to apologise for saying it in an interview back when he was PM; in the South of England it's pretty much exclusively used in its a term of abuse: a contemptible or obnoxious person; a person who behaves stupidly; a fool, an idiot&nbsp… implying that a persons's behaviour, appearance, etc., is stupid or idiotic, with little or no greater force than 'twit' (OED) sense. &#8209; Iridescent 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, understood. Yes, I agree that levels of offensiveness aren't universal - which I think brings us back to a case by case analysis.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's case-by-case. In at least parts of the Midlands, "twat" is only slightly less offensive than the c-word. Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a history of promotional edits to the article as well. By all means add something about his public reception, so long as it isn't undue or rely on blogs or sources like 'The Poke.' But his being referred to by anatomical pejoratives in public discourse does not mean we accept it here. If someone drops an edit into Donald Trump's bio calling him a cunt, we revert it. Given the likelihood that it reflects the thoughts of millions, do we then leave it in the edit history? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to check the history of that specific article, but I expect that yes, we probably do. Revdel is uncontroversially used for libel and hate speech; generic rude words and insults, not so much. Worth considering that a general policy of revdelling words like twat would probably double the overall admin workload. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 21:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Ownership and competency issues on Silver Ghost
has made a series of reverts on this page, apparently on the assumption that $30 million 2005 dollars of “agreed value” (i.e., a claim of insurance valuation) are unequivocally larger than an actual cash sale for $48 million 2018 dollars. A quick look at the recent history of the article will show the certain questions of competence that spill over from his editing on Concord coach and Stagecoach in the past. Qwirkle (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would recommend a warning on their talk page first and requesting them to self-revert. Not only have they been edit warring, they've surpassed WP:3RR. I count seven reverts. If they don't self-revert, then perhaps a short block may be in order. Amaury • 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have never had reason to question Eddaido's competence, nor often any particular sense of ownership to articles; however there refractory obstinacy is legendary. Their is little likelihood of any success in attempting discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On the Concord coach article mentioned above, he edit-warred to restore a claim he knew to be wrong, and added multiple cites to the talk page which explicitly contradicted his position. Perhaps this isn’t typical. Qwirkle (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's typical. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A 48h block for edit warring and ownership seems appropriate at this point - this does need to stop I think. Guy (help!) 11:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Although if we're to start looking at WP:COMPETENCE issues in car-related articles, the obstinate-but-competent Eddaido certainly isn't our worst problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d agree to a point there, certainly, but the drunk-under-the-streetlight research techniques are a competence issue, albeit one that’s pretty widespread. Qwirkle (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The reader is invited to see the latest edits, by IP:73.148.104.176 AKA Obvious IP Sock Being Obvious. Like taxis, there is never a checkuser handy when you need ‘em. Qwirkle (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice thing about socks, how you can get ‘em in pairs.... Qwirkle (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Creation of Page - Dr. K. Hari Prasad
I have been trying to create a page for Dr. K. Hari Prasad - President - Apollo Group of Hospitals.

He is an author, the pioneer of emergency medicine in India - played an instrumental in bringing the emergency medicine concept to India, which has had a very positive impact on the healthcare system in this country on a macro-level, the first doctor in the history of, not just this country, but outside Europe to be honoured with a fellowship of the College of Emergency Medicine, UK and the first in India to receive a fellowship of the International Federation for Emergency Medicine. In addition to this, he has also played Ranji Trophy cricket which is the highest level of domestic cricket in the country.

He heads India's largest healthcare chain. His wiki page was live for a year, before being taken down. The reason quoted was "very little by way of coverage of this individual in reliable sources"

Here are atleast 30 reliable sources of information about the same person, varying from listings in global business databases like Bloomberg to national media-houses of 5 different countries such as Times of Oman, Deccan Chronicle, The Hindu, Arabian Business, NDTV, Trade Arabia, Times Of India, Fiji Sun, Business Line, Mint_(newspaper), The Economic Times, The Hans India, Nigeria CommunicationsWeek, The Financial Express (India) & So on :

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/voyage-of-a-cricketer-turned-doctor/article30647464.ece https://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/we-need-to-encourage-and-empower-emergency-medicine-dr-k-hari-prasad/72250874 https://www.aninews.in/news/business/im-possible-a-book-by-dr-k-hari-prasad-talks-about-the-story-of-his-life20200213141419 https://ehealth.eletsonline.com/2020/02/4-ps-are-hallmarks-of-a-sustainable-and-viable-ppp-model/ http://www.medicaltourismcongress.com/speakers/dr-k-hari-prasad/ http://www.ndtv.com/hyderabad-news/apollo-hospital-performs-8-spine-surgeries-using-mazor-robotics-1449097 https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/health-care-sector-hails-union-budget/1723745 https://gulfnews.com/business/indias-apollo-hospitals-eyes-return-to-the-uae-1.65944222 http://www.livemint.com/Companies/v4rtTLlQyRaEr9Pz9wC6qJ/Apollo-Hospitals-signs-deal-with-Ghana-on-health-services.html http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Hyderabad-Tab/2016-08-24/Mazor-Robotics-spine-surgery-performed/250129 http://www.apollomedicaljournal.net/content/edboard http://www.arabianbusiness.com/company-news/details/?pressReleaseId=51639 http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Gallery.aspx?id=18_01_2017_005_011_003&type=P&artUrl=Quality-crown-Hyd-hosps-in-hall-of-fame-18012017005011&eid=31809 http://www.tradearabia.com/news/HEAL_268782.html http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=144288680&privcapId=8888162 http://www.financialexpress.com/economy/battling-doctor-shortage-indian-hospitals-offer-intensive-care-from-afar/208687/ http://sapienbio.co.in/about-us/board-of-directors/ http://www.nigeriacommunicationsweek.com.ng/other-business/apollo-hospitals-airtel-offer-nigerians-access-to-doctors http://health.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/hospitals/ola-joins-apollo-hospitals-for-road-safety/56626099 http://www.deccanchronicle.com/lifestyle/sex-and-relationship/200316/i-always-knew-she-was-the-one-doctor-hari-prasad.html http://www.ficci-heal.com/programme/pdf/28/HariPrasadd.pdf http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/apollo-group-to-open-250bed-hospital-in-visakhapatnam/article8520187.ece http://www.aherf.org/governance.htm http://ehealth.eletsonline.com/2009/07/apollo-city-one-stop-healthcare-dr-k-hari-prasad-apollo-hospitals-jubilee-hills-hyderabad/ http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/Hyderabad-Tab/2016-04-01/Support-for-TB-treatment-goes-Hi-tech/217986 http://www.pharmabiz.com/PrintArticle.aspx?aid=98414&sid=2 http://www.orissabarta.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24336:apollo-heart-institute-bhubaneswar-implants-first-s-icd-in-odisha-and-apollo-group-of-hospitals-in-india&catid=35:top-stories http://www.cancerci.org/ http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/apollos-rs100cr-hospital-in-city-by-monthend/article7860566.ece http://www.bgr.in/news/after-uber-ola-partners-with-apollo-hospitals-for-road-safety/ http://www.livemint.com/Companies/v4rtTLlQyRaEr9Pz9wC6qJ/Apollo-Hospitals-signs-deal-with-Ghana-on-health-services.html http://www.apollomedicaljournal.net/content/edboard http://news.franchiseindia.com/Apollo-Hospitals-to-invest-Rs-600-cr-in-FY17-13121 http://apolloemergency.com/content/leadership.html https://www.imtj.com/news/apollo-hospitals-looks-gulf/ http://www.newsvoir.com/release/apollo-hospital-launches-a-novel-healthy-heart-challenge-program-1807.html

He has also been quoted in multiple books that have been listed on Google Books : 1. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=HC0UAQAAMAAJ&q=hari+prasad+apollo&dq=hari+prasad+apollo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y 2. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=OSHTyfd_I3cC&pg=PR14&dq=hari+prasad+apollo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hari%20prasad%20apollo&f=false 3. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=S2gbU6Ax69wC&pg=PA208&dq=hari+prasad+apollo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hari%20prasad%20apollo&f=false 4. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=yGySzwPXXp0C&pg=PA41&dq=hari+prasad+apollo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hari%20prasad%20apollo&f=false 5. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7ekJAQAAMAAJ&q=hari+prasad+apollo&dq=hari+prasad+apollo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiasian2408 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not an incident requiring administrative attention. At the top, "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Contesting or complaining about an AFD result is not one of those problems. Your contributions related to Prasad have been getting deleted for six years now. This is largely related to your inability to comprehend the reasons for deletion, which is badly compounded by the fact you do not appear to have ever taken the opportunity to have a meaningful discussion about why the article is being deleted, instead simply repeating the same points endlessly, and then trying again months or years later. If anything, there appears to be an issue with you. I will leave by reminding you that this board does not exist to discuss the merits of any article. If you reply to me on this board with an argument for why Prasad should have an article, I will ignore it. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, you are welcome to ask on my user talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Someguy1221's first sentence (I have not read the rest, as I had drafted this before he posted his comment). ANI is not the appropriate forum for your request. Looking at your edit history, I was able to establish that you are talking about an article that was previously deleted at Articles for deletion/K. Hari Prasad (3rd nomination) and that you have previously been in contact with User:Ritchie333 about the matter. If you sincerely believe that the sources you have linked to provide significant, independent coverage of the person in question, then the correct forum of discussion (and instructions about how to use it) can be found at WP:DRV. I hope this helps! Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Deisenbe relies on the WP has no rules and ignores key policies
In this conversation, the user said:



They have submitted several articles for GA, but not participated in improving the articles based upon the reviewer's remarks, which I summarized in this thread:
 * Excessive use of quotes - which becomes a copyright violation if they are long. See Quotation of non-free text
 * What appears to be original research.
 * Not citing all the content
 * Need to rely more on secondary sources that are current

The reviews have included (but there are many more affected articles):
 * The GA review of Greenwood, New York, insurrection of 1882 and discussion that they would not fix any of the issues
 * GA Review of Union Literary Institute
 * GA review of James Bradley (former slave), in which the user is researching with a primary source and relying on that information and the slave narrative over any other secondary sources. As I understand, the user would like the only cited sources to be the slave narrative and remove newspapers and other reliable secondary sources.
 * There are also DYK that have the same outcome, after someone has taken the time to do the review, like one

The ultimate best case is that the user becomes aware of what is needed to Build an encyclopedia, but it seems that they rely on their knowledge as a scholar above researching with secondary sources. In the meantime, they are creating and editing articles with uncited content, based on their personal knowledge. Their latest comment from this thread is that

At this point, all I am asking for is a warning that it's not ok to rely on primary sources and perform original research. And, that there are some policies and guidelines that are important, like copy vio issues with cutting and pasting a number of quotes into an article, using secondary sources, etc. And, to get guidance about how to manage their patterns of editing.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am unaware of any copyright violations. If these are called to my attention, I will correct them.


 * Carolhenson and I have an unresolved disagreement about whether certain secondary sources are reliable.


 * The talk quote above has been taken out of context. It is from Five pillars.


 * I was unaware that there were suggestions of reviewers that I had not acted on. I assume I was notified but don't remember it. I will review these and see what improvements I can make based on them.


 * My only intent has always been to help build an encyclopedia.


 * I have never said nor do I believe WP has no policies or that policies can be disregarded.


 * I will stop doing original research.

deisenbe (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am really glad to read this,, I think you have a lot to offer! The copyright violations are from copying big blocks of quotes into articles. They have been mentioned in the GA reviews. And, if I can help, I will continue to do so. Thanks so much!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

ANI Report for Graeme Bartlett and Ncmvocalist
I did nothing wrong here. There were no consensus passed for these changes which lead me reverting the change back to original. 1

Ncmvocalist
Ncmvocalist did not review issue before pressing the final button to warn me for edit war. Basically jumped the gun. 1 Action i seek here is clearing of that specific warning and review Ncmvoclist actions. Regice2020 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The warning Ncmvocalist issued looks to be entirely justified because at the time Regice2020 had reverted the reversion of his change three times. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually reviewed the "issue" before I warned you, Regice2020; you did the wrong thing by edit-warring - particularly when you (nearly) broke the 3 revert rule with repeated reversions at 04:19, 8 March 2020, 05:52, 8 March 2020, 06:52, 8 March 2020 and 08:05, 8 March 2020. Instead of taking a step back and reviewing the policies in the warning against your edits, you "jumped the gun" by demanding that the warning be retracted and submitting this report. Your behaviour and the way in which you are editing needs to change as it is not constructive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett
Graeme Bartlett claimed a edit change was passed on talk page, but it was not. Despite WP:CON was never passed. I cant find any history of it. The user went on being disruptive to move forward with unapproved changes. Telling me i going be in violation in 3RR? 1 Regice2020 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Regice2020 has been edit warring introducing his change several times. However it was a mistake, as he was changing the title for the Diamond Princess to International conveyance. However the row with that only included the statistics for Diamond Princess. See for Regice2020 getting up to 3 reverts of the change he put in. All the warnings on his talk page are justified. My plan was to report to the edit warring notice board for a block if there were any more reverts from Regice2020. There is discussion on Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data‎ about how to deal with the Grand Princess statistics and other ships. instead of WP:BRD, Regice2020 has been involved in a BRRRRRRR. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that violates the assumption of good faith in warning you about edit warring when you have been edit warring. That is wrong even when your edit is correct, but is especially wrong when the edit introduces factual errors, as in this case. I would suggest that you withdraw this report before the inevitable WP:BOOMERANG comes your way. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Phil Bridger; the disruptive editing by Regice2020 as OP. There is no merit to the complaint against Graeme Bartlett. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Regice2020 had violated 3RR on Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data.
 * 15:56, 7 March 2020‎ Dying talk contribs‎ 26,134 bytes -9‎  edit link for diamond princess
 * 04:19, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 26,598 bytes -4‎  Does not make sense to say Diamond Princess count as Grand Princess on the table of cases/deaths/recovered.
 * 05:52, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 27,016 bytes -5‎  Diamond Princess does not represent all others - No question askes undothank
 * 06:52, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 27,515 bytes +9‎  Reverting a minor change due to no WP:CON
 * 08:05, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ 22,985 bytes +9‎  Reverting a minor change due to no WP:CON
 * ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Pure WP:IDHT behaviour at their talk-page and at this thread (in combination with edit-warring). Further behaviour along these lines will result in much longer sanctions, I'm afraid. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 18:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A topic ban may be in order since this is at least the second time in recent weeks that Regice2020 has been involved in a thread at ANI relating to SARS2/COVID-19. 2600:1003:B86E:82FF:A9E8:7CF0:E2DB:6FFF (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ^ Blatant sock. Sleath56 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Of who? --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">qedk (t 心 c) 23:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close Who cares? Regice2020 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Haven't the foggiest, but a fresh IP whose first contrib is advocating disciplinary measures on AN/I is pretty WP:DUCK material. Sleath56 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close The person maybe from Talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak. The ip suddenly typed "topic ban", and exactly know how to type "ANI" instead of referring as to the full name (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) like the person been here before. I do not know man. That COVID-19 outbreak Wikipedia article attracted more than 500K views and strange individuals. Regice2020 (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close The ip information. This is so sudden the first edit somehow finds its way to ANI. 04:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Regice2020 (talk)

Personal abuse issue
An edit was reverted at Seventh Seal in these terms and this message was left on my talk page. A message left on the editor's own talk page was replied to in much the same abusive terms. Is there any sanction against such bigotry? Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Anonymous troll blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of racial slur
Martinevans123 posted a racial slur on a user talk page. I asked about the incident, and Martinevans123 response was that it was used ironically (and included a personal attack You're missing a diagnosis.). Enforcement cannot be WP:PUNITIVE. However I do not think we should not tolerate the use of racial slurs in the context of how it was used here and am unsure of what action should be taken. The personal attack is minor but does not help the situation.  Kees08  (Talk)   00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Disgusted of Wuhan Wells" in that third diff is a reference to Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells. Narky Blert (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * absolutely disgusting behavior from anyone much less a tenured editor. Racist jokes aren't funny, they're just racist. Imagine someone making a "joke" of this nature using the n-word. This is no different. Praxidicae (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Trout A joke that missed the mark...badly. I will support a WP:TROUT sent to this editor. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A warning is probably in order since this was not addressed with the last time. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I looked to see if this has come up for Martinevans123 before, and I suppose it has last been brought to administrative attention four years ago for comments like this. Wow.

As this may not be "all that common" a warning for now, but I also think withing a month we will be back here (or at the least his "fuck you Admins" message on his talk page will lead to the usual chorus of "don't be like that"s until his reactions escalate to a full block).Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely disgusting. The editor's ethnic slur history doesn't help. There shouldn't be any tolerance for such a comment. — MarkH21talk 00:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what else there is to discuss. He said something offensive and he uses the excuse of joking, which shows his poor judgement. He doesn't think he's done anything wrong, so he's not going to stop doing this, and apparently he's said things like this before. IMO, him not seeing anything wrong with what he said is the bigger problem here. Block him, and if he wants to appeal, he can agree to not use racial slurs. Natureium (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's not fool ourselves here. The AN/I report I linked to above closed with an endorsement of this statement: I declare this thread be renamed "The ANI sheepshagger fiasco", be closed, deleted, salted and henceforth only recalled with a furrowed brow by the PC brigrade who are actively seeking to excise the freaking soul out of the place. That isn't exactly a warning... &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Some things are so obvious they do not require a warning. Natureium (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You would think... &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 12:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hearts We cannot legislate what is in the editor's heart. But we can admonish, censure and trout. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Martinevans123. Please. Don't be flippant about this. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I searched contributions for 'Chink', which resulted in:
 * July 2019: diff 'I was thinking more of "Chinese whispers" (if one is still allowed to use that phrase without being accused of racism).' (with edit summary "a chink in your grammatical armour")
 * January 2012: diff, later removed for being unsourced
 * I will AGF on this one.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The first one is a distasteful pun on chink. They clearly like to use the word whenever the opportunity to make a joke about anything Chinese arises. — MarkH21talk 06:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The search only looks through edit summaries; I do not think there is a way to look through actual contribs.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I also searched the contributions for "nigger", which resulted in:
 * June 2018: diff, where a link to a YouTube video for Ace of Spades was removed with the edit summary can't be too careful which was wikilinked to Nigger in the woodpile
 * I wanted to establish that this is a pattern and not a first-time thing.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Subheader
Just gonna throw this quote out there: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." I don't see where this fits that definition of what this page is for. Valeince (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So...racial epithets aren't "chronic, intractable behavioral problems"? Good to know where Wikipedians stand on this problem. Praxidicae (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please inform me how this singular instance of the word being used is "chronic" and where is there any other form of dispute resolution that would qualify this as "intractable". And I really don't appreciate using a strawman argument to try and put words in my mouth. I did not say I was okay with it, I just don't think this belongs here. It's minor. Leave your pearl clutching at home, please. Valeince (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to go through MJL's diffs above which link to a long history of this. Praxidicae (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * All I need is to read "4 years ago" and point to my previous point. Why is this on ANI and not trying to be resolved with the users directly?Valeince (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As per his response just in the last hour, he doesn't seem to care or see anything wrong with it. Can't discuss with the unwilling. Praxidicae (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This user didn't even try and engage him, they said one comment, got a flippant response and came running to ANI. I don't see that they tried to engage further, just gave up and threw it here. But this is starting to digress, so let's just drop it and see if there's an admin with an appetite to sanction Martin. Valeince (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no point in discussing this with you if you don't see a need to have a community discussion about a long term editor repeatedly using racial slurs. And this isn't just for an admin to waltz in here and unilaterally make a decision. Praxidicae (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what you are talking about do you? PackMecEng (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, PackMecEng, please feel free to point out where I am incorrect. Cheers. Praxidicae (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently I don't either, I indented too far and my comment was in response to Valeince and not you. PackMecEng (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "a long term editor repeatedly using racial slurs" Just throwing around whatever to try and make this seem like a bigger deal than it is, huh? Twice in 4 years is what I can find based on what was posted above. Twice. Valeince (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly how many times can someone use racial slurs before you think it's "too many"?--Jorm (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's two more times than anyone should ever post here, and probably one more time than anyone should be able to do so without being sanctioned for it. Particularly if the editor reacts to questions about the second incident with You're missing a diagnosis and sees nothing wrong whatsoever when faced with objections to using it "in an ironic way". — MarkH21talk 01:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I think you are asking the wrong question, Jorm. I think we should be asking is this instance of using a slur worthy of needing sanctions? Because it all boils down to context yes? If this was a user calling another person "nigger" or "chink", then yes, we should sanction if they don't back down after a warning. But this was being used in an ironic sense to make a point. Is that the same thing? I don't think so. Others my differ but my overall point is that this doesn't belong at ANI. Martin used a word that is offensive in most circumstances. When he was asked about it he responded flippantly but provided a reason for doing so. There was no rebuttal to his point, nor an effort even made. EENG's page was actively being edited by admins and a freaking arb and no one else seemed to have a problem with it. So why is it such a big problem that it needs to be here? Valeince (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your responses here are absurd. An editor who has a decade of experience and 100k+ edits doesn't need to be hand held into not using racial slurs. If he (or you) want to spit them out so casually, there's a website for that. Praxidicae (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a lot of livestock to eat all that extra straw you're manning over there? Valeince (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Cute, but perhaps you need a dictionary. In order for my argument to be a straw man your argument would have to be substantive of something other than racist drivel. Praxidicae (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Editing a giant page means you condone everything in its history? Natureium (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No one should be expected to engage someone over a hateful comment "I am sorry but he only said Nigger! once, did you try to engage with him", "I am sorry he only said you should be raped ONCE, did you try to engage with him". This is bollocks, we have to have a zero tolerance approach to bullying (and that is what hate speech is even if "its only a joke"). We have a bad rep for inclusiveness, this kind of indulgence will not help that image.Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've moved this to it's own subsection. I have a feeling it's going to get pretty heated and only tangentially related to the original report. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not sure if most people are reacting to what was posted on the user's page, or what is in the edit summary. The edit summary is a racial slur and should be subject to a warning or something. It is absolutely inappropriate and hurtful. It makes me think of the recent incident on a subway train when a person of Asian descent was sprayed. And, it is so clear that I don't think that this is something that needs a lot of discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is (somewhat predictably) a lot of people here deciding to take offence on behalf of others. The Twitter fraction of Wikipedia, if you like. Can we all please try and grow up? COVID-19 started in Wuhan, the capital city of China’s Hubei province.  It is not a "racial slur" to point that fact out.  With regards to the "chink" expression, well it's no longer a word I would use, but people of a certain age would still say it and think it's ok to say as a term of endearment rather than anything more sinister. This, of course, introduces a new comparison: People who are British are frequently referred to as "Brits" by the press without a care in the world and two shits not being given. Why is that acceptable if we are no longer allowed to abbreviate nationalities? Nothing Martin has said has been remotely racist; it was his usual effort in trying to make this place a bit more happier and jovial, if that were possible.   Cassianto Talk  08:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The word chink is an ethnic slur and extraordinarily inappropriate. It’s not just an abbreviation for Chinese people nor anywhere remotely comparable to Brits.People of a certain age and disposition might use nigger to refer to people of African descent; does their age or their belief that it’s an acceptable word make it acceptable? No. — MarkH21talk 08:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In you're opinion. For the purposes of debate, I'm going to declare now that I find "Brit" offensive.  Does that now make me right and you wrong?   Cassianto Talk  09:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On this one specific point with no opinion on the broader issue, while "Brit" has completely lost its impact in recent years, to older generations it's an extremely derogatory term that would earn you a punch in the face if you used it in public. (Wiktionary's article on the word correctly notes this.) &#8209; Iridescent 10:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it is not just my opinion. Here are several dictionaries that define this usage as derogatory and offensive:
 * noun, offensive: used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a person of Chinese birth or descent – Merriam-Webster]
 * noun, informal offensive: an insulting word for a Chinese person – Cambridge Dictionary
 * noun, offensive: a Chinese person – Lexico (Oxford English Dictionary)
 * noun, taboo slang: a very offensive word for a Chinese person – Oxford Learner’s Dictionary
 * noun, offensive slang: a Chinese person – Collins English Dictionary
 * noun, slang, extremely disparaging and offensive: a contemptuous term used to refer to a Chinese person – Dictionary.com
 * I have yet to find a single dictionary that does not describe chink as offensive, pejorative, or derogatory. On the other hand, there isn’t such an overwhelming body of consensus that Brit is similarly offensive. If there was such an overwhelming consensus of Brit being an ethnic slur, then editors shouldn’t use it either. — MarkH21talk 10:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If that’s the case, then the former offensive connotation has vanished so completely that all of the dictionaries listed above don’t even mention it in their entries on Brit. Interesting fact though. — MarkH21talk 10:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The very first one I checked (OED) specifically gives 'Do you mean the Japs?’ ‘That word is most offensive to them. How would we like to be called Brits?’ as a usage example, and has no examples pre-1961 of it being used in a non-derogatory sense. &#8209; Iridescent 10:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This whole thread is a giant Whataboutism. Are you seriously defending his usage because other racial slurs exist? This is the Wikipedia equivalent of the American alt-rights "well the Irish were slaves too!" argument. Praxidicae (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed On this one specific point with no opinion on the broader issue.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the targets have said they find it offensive. Because the last time I checked I could walk down a British street (well as of last night, things might have changed) and not get beaten up because they "don’t want your coronavirus in my country.". Much as I hate the term due to its over use and (to my mind) misapplication (as it always impacts poor white people) in this case white privilege raises it ugly head.Slatersteven (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am so surprised that some people are not getting it, ethnic slurs are hurtful. As Coronavirus Spreads, So Does Xenophobia and Anti-Asian Racism.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Martin wasn't intending to cause offence, and I don't see anything that makes me think he's a racist; however, there are a few differences between the terms Brit and Chink. First, I've never heard Brit used as a term of abuse; limey, pom, rosbeef etc can all imply a bit of ribbing, but Brit is pretty neutral. Chink can be, and often is, used as a racist insult. Brit is also not really an ethnic term - one can be a black Brit, an Asian Brit etc - I'd liken chink to Paki in that regard, in that it's an abbreviation for the name of a country, but it's more likely to be used to describe someone's ethnicity, and not in a nice way. I think Martin would be well-advised to recognise that the world has changed, and to employ a bit of internal self-censorship when making jokes like that, even if all he's intending to do is to lighten the mood. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  08:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are we going to seriously entertain someone saying "chink" is just a way to "abbreviate nationalities"? It's not that it CAN be used as a slur, it IS a slur, for the love of god. What the absolute fuck. Parabolist (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * (Mostly in response to "certain age" thing, but also a general comment on this ANI thread.) The "racial" element of pointing out that COVID19 emerged in China appears to derive primarily from the fact that European and American media often don't talk about China unless something bad is (or probably isn't, but they say it is) happening, and have been paying a particularly large amount of attention to China in the last few months as a result of this disease outbreak; when I googled my home country's name + coronavirus + racism I quickly found that schoolchildren had apparently started calling it the "China disease" and started shunning and or slagging people of northeast Asian (not necessarily Chinese) ancestry. There is also an unfortunate history of the Californian and US federal governments engaging in unambiguous racial discrimination against "Asians" due to diseases like this.
 * And yes, my father (who was born in the 1950s) used a word resembling the slur in question (with "-ie" tagged onto the end, and with the definite article) a number of times when I was growing up to refer any of a number of local Chinese takeout restaurants. I don't for a second think that there was any racial malice on his part, not least because I'm pretty sure he has since stopped using the word, now that it is more widely known to be considered an offensive slur. I am sure there are some people of the generation before his who are so set in their ways (and probably consume less media in general) that they would continue to use it unwittingly even now, but those people almost certainly rarely if ever read, let alone edit, Wikipedia.
 * All that being said, I do think it was an off-colour joke, like much of the EEng's talk page, and should not be sanctioned. Opening an ANI thread was going way overboard. Comparing this to other editors who endure months and months of abuse and force themselves to overlook repeated and flagrant violations of our core policies before finally coming to ANI as an absolute last resort, only to get less attention because their thread isn't as "sexy" as this one... well, it's why so many people have left the project specifically because of ANI not working the way it is supposed to.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't fucking believe I'm reading half of this. This isn't an "abbreviation" of anything; it is and always has been a slur. Call a spade a spade or don't bother chiming in. This isn't "jovial", it isn't mere trout material. And as to it being "chronic and intractable", the fact that half of you seem to be defending it shows how chronic and intractable racist behaviour clearly is here. Catch a grip. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 10:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lets not leave out the reaction to the trout is to in effect make a joke about people being overly sensitive to racism, it shows he does not get it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Distractions
As can be expected with a report of this nature, there are people willing to defend this behavoir. However, despite all that has been written here, the community has not heard from the one person this report is about. Let's stay focused on the matter at hand instead of discussion theoretical arguments made by third parties. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 12:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll save you all the trouble of hearing me drone about how enwiki's culture is the real problem here.
 * We all know that Martin isn't going to come to WP:ANI come hell or high water.--WaltCip (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Weird attack
I don't know what this editor is doing or what they are on about, but it seems like it might be intended as an unhinged and pointless personal attack on myself and another editor from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Warrowen_massacre#Nyah Perhaps they are having a mental health issue? Or someone has hijacked their account? Either way it's wierd, especially from an experienced editor. I don't really know what to make of it. Bacondrum (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is weird but I don't think I'd call it an attack. It seems more like what I call "editing Wikipedia when one should be sleeping". It is sometimes revealing to consider what time zone the editor is working in...it could be the middle of the night. That's my polite interpretation from years of interacting with editors from all over the globe. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 06:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I recently contacted Doncram about other problematic AfD edits they made, including attacking other editors. They disagreed, but if they now start mocking people because an AfD ended with his prefered keep instead of delete, then it seems that the problems continue. Looking at e.g. this from today, containing gems like " If others support a good resolution of this AFD, please join into the edit war on the side of keeping some definition there! ", it seems like there really is a continuing problem with Doncram's comments at AfD and AfD talk. Fram (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * To 's suggestion, I am not seeing any indication that this matter needs to be handled with reference to Doncram's mental health, let along as a mental health emergency. Should I have missed something, I would ask users to immediately contact the Arbitration Committee which is a better vehicle for intervention than ANI.   AGK  &#9632;  08:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If I had a dollar for every time some keep !voter was gloaty and obnoxious I'd be able to host my own encyclopedia on my own servers. The higher your keep percentage at AfD, the more exempt you are from WP:CIVIL. This is a double standards issue, not a mental health one. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 09:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that I don't think this should be considered in the purview of mental health issue. But I would say that this is not a preferable or even necessarily acceptable level of decorum between editors. It's a mild WP:CIVIL breach but not a sanctionable one. Just something to make a note of and keep for later if another issue ever arises with this editor. WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I will note, regardless of whether or not we do anything about it, that this is not a new nor unexpected behavior for this user. A check of the blocklog going back almost a decade shows a clear pattern of tendentious, disruptive, incivil, and combative behavior.  Whether or not we, as a community, want to keep encouraging such behavior is perhaps up for discussion, but this is NOT out of character, and fits in exactly in with the kind of behavior this user has exhibited continuously and without remit for pretty much their entire history here at Wikipedia.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What Jayron32 said. Doncram's obsession with the idea that he's infallible, and consequently if other people disagree with him it's evidence that they're disruptive and consequently deserve to be punished, has gone on literally for years. (His current talkpage from this point onwards is a decent example of his typical "throw a tantrum until everyone else gives in just to shut him up" approach.) This is definitely not a compromised account or out of character; what would raise eyebrows would be if he being disruptive. &#8209; Iridescent 14:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like should be blocked. Those 24 and 48 hour jobs don't seem to have worked though.  ——  SN  54129  14:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Even a six-month block didn't have any effect; because he genuinely believes that he's perfect and all the rest of us are engaged in a conspiracy to bully him into submission, he just interprets any block or any other sanction as proof of the bullying. Since blocks don't have any effect (other than giving the rest of us a brief respite) and "civility parole" never works since civility is such a nebulous concept, only an indefinite block would have any effect, and although it could be reasonably justified given that Doncram is basically a one-man chilling effect, it would be extremely controversial and almost certainly end up at Arbcom. &#8209; Iridescent 14:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate to think that a Super Wario effect exists for repeat offenders, in that an offense has to rise to the grievous threshold indicative of an indef, before they can be blocked. But you're right, that's where we are; this seems to be something where the community simply cannot resolve the issue and this has to go to Arbcom. Blech. That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.--WaltCip (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary (and I've argued this for years!) because the cornerstone of the blocking policy is "blocks are preventative, not punitive", all blocks should be indefinite and contingent upon the blocked user giving proper recognition of the problem that got them blocked, and proper assurances to change their behavior. A time-limited block on a registered account is, at its core and without any distinction from, a pure punishment.  Since it self-expires, there is no motivation for the blocked user to self-correct or to learn how to be better, instead it is just putting someone in Wikijail for a short while.  That serves no preventative measure beyond punishing the user and hoping the punishment makes them learn their lesson.  Time-limited blocks should be reserved for IP addresses which may change after a time.  If a registered account does something worthy of being blocked, they should have to establish that they intend to fix the problems that led to the block, that would emphasize the preventative nature of the block. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree; there are plenty of occasions where "have an enforced few hours off to calm down/sober up/avoid saying something that would get you in more trouble" is a perfectly sensible move. The trouble with indefinite-until-appeal is that it then leads to a back and forth between supporters and opposers of the block, which ends up making what began as a straightforward dispute turn into a full-scale multi-party flareup. &#8209; Iridescent 19:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * is one of the hardest working, most experienced, and active editors on the project. In my opinion, it would be very problematic to indefinitely block him solely because he is sometimes intemperate and often long winded. I understand that many people find interacting with him to be annoying but no one can question his commitment to the project and the sheer breadth and depth of his contributions, including his yeoman's work at AFD, DYK, and other areas that are critical to the project. None of that makes him immune to rules, of course, but he should not be hounded off the project either. Michepman (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So, instead we should allow him to hound everyone else off the project? How many good editors have to wander off not wanting to deal with his crap before his "good contributions" become a net negative?  I'm not saying we should block him, but the "cut him some slack, he's produced a lot of good content" argument is a non-starter.  Other editors produce good content too, and they should not be bullied out of the project by this kind of intractable rudeness. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely understand where you are coming from. To be clear, I am not saying that nothing should be done to address the issues you laid out, I am just encouraging caution before going to the extreme step of an indefinite block. While I agree with you that the block policy should be reformed, from what i have seen indefinite blocks are not really better than time blocks; they just appear to. Before taking that heavy step I think more effort should be made to resolve the issue using less restrictive means than either time limited or indefinite blocks. Michepman (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What exactly did you have in mind that hasn't been tried before? To reiterate, we're not talking about a generally-good editor who's having a bad day; we're talking about a straightforward long term abuse case who intersperses his disruption with the occasional period of adequate editing (although in my experience, even his non-abusive edits tend to be a mess that end up needing to be cleaned up by someone else). If you think you can persuade him that "rules are only for the little people and don't apply to me" isn't actually true, feel free to give it a go, but this is the noticeboard not a general chatroom, and since the administrators are the ones who've spent the past decade+ trying to clean up after Doncram you'll I hope forgive us for not sharing your optimism. &#8209; Iridescent 19:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Given his last PA block was in 2011 IMHO a stern warning should given although others above know his behaviour better than I do, I'm lost on the dickish reply on the AFD considering it was closed in his favour..... – Davey 2010 Talk 20:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * He's had 5 blocks since 2011. His last block was two months ago for disruptive editing.  (post EC comment).  Since you've clarified, how is a warning useful?  Are we presuming he was never informed of the civility policy?  That he somehow had no way of knowing that he shouldn't behave this way?-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As he's not been blocked for anything PA related for 9 years I feel blocking would be overkill ..... if this was a repeated issue over and over again then I'd agree with blocking but I can't support blocking someone for a dickish comment or 2 when no blocks have been issued for 9 years, (When I say over and over again I mean on a weekly/montly/yearly basis). – Davey 2010 Talk 22:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @Davey2010, you may want to have a read of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram and Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139 before you go any further. It may technically be true that he hasn't been for PAs for nine years, but that's because he was hauled off to Arbcom instead and restricted from editing in any of the areas in which he'd been attacking people, not because he'd turned over a new leaf and stopped launching random attacks on anyone who happened to disagree with him. &#8209; Iridescent 07:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Interesting read, Given those I have to agree blocking would indeed be appropriate here. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Hey, this is a surprise and seems to me unwarranted as an ANI issue. This is about my making a silly comment at a Talk page, after a couple editors had completely dismissed me in an AFD. In my silly comment, i even self-identified it as being silly. In this AFD, it happens I was the first in the AFD to argue for "Keep", based at first on my instinct and sense of the matter as developed in the AFD, informed by my particular life experience. In many other AFDs that way, I have gone on to do heavy work and find sources and otherwise make a convincing argument that carried the day. For example, Articles for deletion/Aziz Bagh (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/List of caves of Maryland are two that I find in my history. In this AFD, it was others who did the work, but it happened my sense of the matter arguably was borne out, and the article was Kept. In many other AFDs my early or late arguments for Keep or otherwise have carried the day, and in many others they have not. Many times I have been convinced by others arguments and eventually reversed my !vote. I don't see anything wrong with any of this so far. I could confess that I don't like to be completely dismissed, either, whether in AFDs or in an ANI proceeding. In this AFD i was written off as having "bad reasoning" in a series of comments by the two editors; it wasn't especially insulting, either, but a bit randomly I happened to choose to say "nyah" this time, pushing back a wee bit that maybe my reasoning/judgment was not so bad. It is not usual for me to do anything like this; I don't recall ever commenting at an AFD talk page this way before. But I think most people probably don't like to be dismissed completely, or criticized as has gone on here.
 * thanks for the reply above also. So it seems that Arbcom is the way forward for ; it seesm to have helped them in the past. ——  SN  54129  13:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that from the long winded comment below, Domcram clearly doesn't see how this behavior is uncollegial (and obnoxious). Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Here in this ANI there are a lot of personal attacks ("Unhinged", "mental health", assertions that I was attacking other editors, "Doncram's obsession with the idea that he's infallible, and consequently if other people disagree with him it's evidence that they're disruptive and consequently deserve to be punished", and more) which I rather completely disagree with. It is absolutely not true that I think I am infallible; I often have made mistakes and I do not deny that, and I often make apologies. I do things like setting up notes sheets at wp:NRHPHELP and other places explicitly to help me and others remember how to do various things purely because I know that I am fallible, that I often don't remember how to do lots of things. I don't see how others who actually know me could think that I think that I am superior, or anything like that. There are perhaps a few technical things that I do know about, but I certainly did not and do not assert that I actually know more about 1800s Australian history (the subject of this AFD) than others.

I don't read my own recent comment as representing a personal attack (it would be a stretch to call it even a mild rebuke, certainly not containing anything amounting to a personal attack, certainly not on the level of comments against me here). Certainly it didn't count as an insult, or abusive, or in any way a legal threat, or derogatory, or comparing anyone to terrorists, or using "someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their view", or any of the other kinds of things listed as types of personal attacks at wp:NPA. The bottom line at wp:NPA is saying that even if something is not included in the list of examples there, that if it is nonetheless "insulting or disparaging an editor" it is a personal attack. I don't see how my comment was either insulting or disparaging, do you? About my mental health or 'hingedness', well, thank you for your concern? I don't know where the policy statement is, but aren't suggestions/accusations about mental health specifically regarded as horrible personal attacks or otherwise verboten?

Overall, what is the point here, do Bacondrum and Drovers' Wife seriously feel injured, or unable to personally handle a mild silly comment, which could hardly be construed as a serious rebuke or even a criticism at all? It was just a silly statement "Nyah nyah", which in expanded form would be a comment that "Gee, it turns out that my early sense of the merits of this AFD happened to be borne out", which I think would be a fair comment to make. It was on an obscure Talk page. If the two editors feel seriously injured by what was said there, surely they and others are making it far worse for themselves by raising this to a very public level. To those editors, if you do feel seriously hurt by me, or insulted or disparaged, please do let me know, perhaps by private emails, and if I can come to understand how or why you feel injured I surely would want to apologize or make amends privately or publicly (though I don't currently think that is happening, I rather do not believe they are feeling hurt at all). And sure, if others can explain better, perhaps privately, what I might have done that has rubbed some people the wrong way, I think I would like hear/learn about that. But this forum is probably not the right place for that, and I probably will not want to reply further here. If there is some big policy reason why the Talk page of an AFD cannot be used after the AFD is closed, or anything similar, please do let me know. --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with sanctions that will go toward better collaborative behavior from Doncram. I ran into my own issues with Doncram and their walls of texts and constant redirects of legitimate articles. A small sample would be the Bachelor Lake AfD and Doncram's subsequent redirects of every lake in Brown County Minnesota. The above wall of text is an example of how they respond to every entry from !voters at AfDs. I found their behavior maddening and tendentious. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your comment can reasonably be understood as taunting and was improper. If you ever do anything like this again, I will block you for a substantial length of time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I Nyoman Gede Anila reported by Migsmigss
– On Ayu Maulida: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account; account is being used only for promotional purposes.

Persistent inclusion of erroneous/false information using sources that do no include such information, such as the subject attending a Harvard-organized event in Singapore; when source is checked, there is no mention of such event or related information. Removing references and editing/changing subject's height details without valid explanation or accompanying new RS. Edits are leaning on non-neutral POV, seemingly describing the subject in promotional manner, "bloated" or unnecessarily "elevated" way beyond facts and references Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks. Migsmigss (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing references and editing/changing subject's height details without valid explanation or accompanying new RS >> about this one I'm just uploading the 4 legitimate sources (prior mentioned on National newspaper such as Jawa Pos on March 9, 2020), supporting the information of ayu Maulida height Here's the proof, don't make this as an unreasonable case. Second one, about this >>> the subject attending a Harvard-organized event in Singapore it's been mentioned on the bahasa indonesia article that has been found and mentioned that she has a model-exchange as a university of airlangga student to Korea for doing charity fund. The other things that based on my investigation about your account, You don't have to act selfishly by reverting and deleting all of the edits by wikipedian users on Ayu Maulida page (not only happened to my edits, but you also deleted and reverted other users edits and marking them as the vandalism perpetrators, as if you were "the only person" who could "only contribute" to the Ayu Maulida biopgraphy page, then the other users cannot contribute to Ayu Maulida page). You also need to know the policy on wikipedia that each user must contribute to one another instead of edit war as like you do, by deleting and reverting all user edits just because you DO NOT AGREE and DISAGREE with the legitimate information that based on legitimate sourced mentioned. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh ya the other things beside your "edit war habit", You look like you "ONLY JUST" left a mark [Please need help for more reliable sources (RS) on article] without giving any contribution such as completing the references. Then as you can check, I'm the one that contributing by providing legitimate sources on Ayu Maulida page, rather than you just only marking and left the page without any contributing meaningfully at all, Which is "Zero contribution" to the in the wikipedia encyclopedia. And your barbaric "edit war" habit.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just being wise, in wikipedia policy has been mentioned that "You should not accuse people of vandalism, when this is just simply a content dispute", thats very unwise of you Migsmigss.I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, ~ ToBeFree. I take what user I Nyoman Gede Anila said of me as personal attacks:

Calling me:
 * 1) Selfish - "You don't have to act selfishly"
 * 2) Barbaric - "your barbaric 'edit war' habit"

As I've shown previously, the said account did not include a valid source when it added that the subject attended a Harvard-organized event in Singapore; when source is inspected, there is no mention of such event or related information.

The account also removed references and edited/changed the subject's height details, without new references. It's only now that this has been brought up that the account supplemented needed references.

Since this account has attacked me personally, by saying those things above, please help me proceed: Should I make another report on this account engaging on personal attacks, or could we resolve it here? I am not taking these personal attacks lightly, and no editor should. I'm asking for admins' attention on this matter. CC ST47 and Materialscientist, hope you could help me on this. Thanks.

Thanks.

11:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Migsmigss (talk)


 * I have a feeling this discussion may have unnecessarily escalated. Regarding personal attacks, "vandal" isn't a nice one either. I'm really unsure what to do here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, ~ ToBeFree. First of all, I wont give any longer explaination above, if that user won't attack me first. He/She's being very rude and personal attacks me on my talkpage even more than once and acussing me doing something that I didnt. Then I should take what user Migsmigss said of me as personal attacks on the "FIRST HAND":

Calling me:
 * 1) "calling my account is vandalism-only account; account is being used only for promotional purposes" --- While the "ACTUAL FACT" is I'm the one that giving my hand to help Ayu Maulida page that appear with the [Request for Help mark], by providing the legitimate references, fixing wrong-linking page, dead link and wrong sentences.
 * 2) "attacked my talk page account with SPAM warning, threatened to block me from editing and accuse me of vandalism with very "UNREASONABLE" things"] --- while she/he is the one that begging for help by giving Request for Help mark on Ayu Maulida, so I give a hand to help, but she/he's ATTACKING me on barbaric way like NO GRATITUTE at all on [My Talkpage], just because she/he DOESN'T LIKE and DISAGREE with the legitimate information that based on legitimate references mentioned.

For ~ ToBeFree, isn't it sounds funny that she/he are the one who attacked me first hand on my talkpage and also here with very unreasonable fact, but here come she/he is acting like a victim now, and planning to reporting me again and again. I come with a very good intention to help Ayu Maulida page, to be calm and behave politely here, but how If she/he's keep on attacking me like that? Which I take this as a very rude action and very disturbing the peace between every Wikipedia contributor here. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 1:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry not sorry Migsmigss, in Wikipedia we learn and grow how to cooperate and discuss in a "GOOD WAY" between every user that contributing for such an important information, to give as the best encyclopedia pages as we can. "NOT by reporting and accuse someone with unreasonable proof and doing a edit war as you always do". As I mention above, in Wikipedia policy has been mentioned that "You should not accuse people of vandalism, when this is just simply a content dispute". I'm the one here that help providing a good legitimate references for the article, while you are attacking me on my talkpage with unreasonable. You shouldn't deleting and reverting all wikipedian users edits just because you DO NOT AGREE and DISAGREE with the legitimate information that based on legitimate references mentioned.

So I have a question back, if not because of the "contributor like me", then Who give a hand to help provides a legitimate references??? then Who cares with your [Request for Help, Please need help for more reliable sources (RS) on article]????? Please next time be wise before you clicked, coorporate in a good way, Stop reporting with nonsense reason and please calm-down your emotion, all want to give the best for Wikipedia but don't go around on your own, Wikipedia has their own regulation and policies. Once again "Be Wise with your account❣" discuss first behavely, instead of being a "Complaint Queen" by reporting and reporting with nonsense issues. I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 1:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ToBeFree, please read above.

I reported said account for vandalism, simply because it did vandalize: Again, As I've shown previously, the said account did not include a valid source when it added that the subject attended a Harvard-organized event in Singapore; when source is inspected, there is no mention of such event or related information. There were false information included, under the pretense that it came with a source, yet when checked, source did not contain any of the information included in content. Please check source and edit history. (You may use online translator, as I did, since the source is in Indonesian.)

I also stand by everything I have previously stated.

I rest my case.

Hope you guys could attend to this. Thanks.

Migsmigss (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Proposed resolution:
 * is reminded that even insistent introduction of incorrect information is not "vandalism", as long as the person who does so actually believes in its accuracy. Vandalism is intentional damage to the encyclopedia; there is no evidence of malice here.
 * is warned that further personal attacks like "Complaint Queen" will lead to a block, likely without further warning.
 * is warned that edit warring is prohibited, and that edit warring about the height of a person is completely unnecessary. If such irrelevant information in a biography of a living person is disputed, it should be removed. It should only be re-introduced if there is consensus for doing so. A discussion about this topic needs to be held on the talk page of the article, not at WP:AIV, not at WP:ANI, and not on user talk pages.
 * This section is closed by an uninvolved reader, as an unnecessary escalation of a content dispute. Ideas for dealing with content disputes properly, including disengaging from the topic, are described at Dispute resolution.
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ToBeFree. Everything is noted. :)

Migsmigss (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi ToBeFree. Finally it's all clear, main mistake revealed above. Thanks❣

I Nyoman Gede Anila (talk) 3:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Persistent incivility, personal attacks, edit warring and addition of unsourced/poorly sourced content by New York based IP
An editor with access to various NYC-based IP's persistently edit wars and abuses other editors over people's ethnicity on various biographical articles. When pressed they mention the user-generated source ethnicelebs which freely admits on its own page that it is unreliable. Editor appears to be obsessed with whether or not people are Jewish (or "jewish" as he types it). Main IP used by this editor is, but has also used , , and probably others. Multiple warnings have been left on main IP's talk page, all of which have been blanked. Editor is recognizable by abusive pattern of behaviour, refusal to capitalise the word "Jewish" and failure to sign talk page edits with tildes. I could give individual diffs but entire editing history really speaks for itself. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To give just one example, this alone is clearly blockable, especially coming as it does after previous warnings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Some notes:
 * seems pretty static, so I've blocked it for a year.
 * has some collateral, but none that wouldn't be blocked in its own right. Anonblocked for 2 weeks.
 * looks like a one-off, I'm leaving it alone for now.
 * The target users on all three IP ranges are technically . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It turns out the 172.58 range was blocked before and recently, so I made it a month instead. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)