Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016

Luisborromeo

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

---

• Luisborromeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Obvious sock is obvious, and still adding ISIS as perpetrator without a source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Blocked. There was also an SPI case open, which I closed. Thank you for reporting this sock puppet, but it'd probably be best to keep all future reports at SPI to prevent accidentally opening multiple reports like this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

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

MarcusBritish personal attacks

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

---

In this edit, User:MarcusBritish doubles down on his personal attacks on me that he started in an RM discussion here. I understand that he has some things to argue about, but this is not the way. His personal attacks should be stricken. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you quote the part that's a personal attack? I'm not really interested in reading someone's manifesto. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: At a guess, it's within these last sentences. The proposer is out of his depths here, trying to revise a topic in which there are editors far better suited to the job. Proposer's claim "most sources don't cap it" is a lie. His dating is selective, misleading and abuses the notions of editing in good faith. Finally, proposer is on a never-ending crusade to rename all "Campaign" articles, without waiting for discussions between other members to reach consensus. This is disruptive editing loaded with mishandled evidence and contempt for English standards. This is deviant attempt to Americanise historical articles. How does an RBMK reactor explode? Lies. I've applied bold to what I'm guessing may be the personal attack. Amaury • 05:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he accuses me of lies and bad faith, but the entire paragraphs are personal attacks. Instead of focusing on the issue, he is talking mostly about me, as he perceives me. He talks about my past, my country and state of origin, my career, etc., all as part of saying why I'm not fit to argue my point with him, a military historian. I agree it's a huge wall of text; it should all be stricken, rev-del'd, and then he can be invited to try again if he can do so without the attack. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

To quote the start from my second link (and there's more that came in earlier threads, easy enough to find since he has very few edits this year doing anything other than arguing to capitalize "Campaign"): N-grams produce spurious results that don't tell the whole truth. Neither does the proposer. He doesn't use genuine references, only cons the community with cherry-picked samples. Has no genuine interest in history, and probably doesn't own a single historical text. Editors should stick to what they know and not meddle in areas they have no clue about. This is too personal and accusatory of bad faith. He can make points about N-grams without attacking me. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like MarcusBritish was subject to an indefinite block from 2014 to 2017 for unspecified reasons, but it apparently involved "continued personal attacks" and a "harassing email". So, maybe MarcusBritish should tone down his rhetoric. If someone wants to strike a perceived personal attack, they can; however, policy forbids using revdel on personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The personal attack has been stricken from the RM discussion. Thanks. I care less about the bits on his talk page and the continuing untruths and attack below. Dicklyon (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hardly untruths when there are links to your own contradictory posts and made-up policies, a fine history of terminological inexactitudes. I will be making sure all your military history based RMs are notified on the MILHIST notice board, which to date you have avoided doing, be sure of that. No more lurking in the shadows with only ignorant "yes" men and no expert editors being advised who might challenge your controversial moves, and rightly so. You should be advising MILHIST yourself, instead of trying to go behind the backs of editors who worked on those articles and put in far more effort than you on sourcing material. And I'm still not 100% convinced that you're not operating on behalf of Google but are unwilling to disclose your conflict of interest. — Marcus^(talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand now why Dicklyon has tried to subvert my complaints about his moving Campaign articles. In 2015 he was blocked for several months and returned under a standard offer that requires him to not engage in controversial actions such as mass page moves. That is precisely what he is doing now. I would like for an admin to please review the comment and links I left below, as well as Dicklyon's latest history of moves, which are en masse and have caused concerns at MILHIST, concerns that he has chose to ignore and work against. Ergo, he is in direct breach of his unblock terms, which are very specific and state no date when past blockable behaviour can re-commence. Untruths, he says. Unburied truths, I say. He has committed to circumventing those terms to achieve his goal. Again, I repeat my claims that this editor is tendentious and bad faith is the case; this is not an attck it is a foregone conclusion based on observation and evidenced patterns of behaviour. Doing exactly what the unblock offer told him not to cannot be construed into anything other than disrespect for the community process which sought to reintegrate him in the first place; an offer was made and has since been ignored. Since admins are meant to remain impartial, my concerns should be given due consideration. — Marcus^(talk) 20:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• 12 July Marcus criticises use of N-grams with links to third-party sources identifying shortcomings
• Dicklyon ignores comment; states that "no-one has shown that moves are controversial"
• 13 July Marcus indicates criticism comment and emphasises point that N-grams data is not verifiable
• Dicklyon admits "n-grams tell only a tiny fraction of the story" then claims "nobody is relying on n-grams as a 'reliable source' nor as the only way to look at usage in sources"
• Dicklyon states "I generally do look beyond n-grams, especially if the result is not overwhelming"

Since this discussion, in which N-grams were addressed, Dicklyon has proceeded to ignore opposition from MilHist members to use of N-grams to move articles to lowercase titles. According to his edit history he has continued to move a lot of military Campaign articles, many without even using Requested Moves, but in the case of RMs only ever used N-grams as "evidence", despite admiting that they only tell a tiny fraction of the story that he doesn't rely on, and demanding other editors use books to challenge him, contrary to WP:BURDEN. All N-grams results show differences between usage of trivial sums, like 0.0000001% differences. Shortcomings of N-grams include: Google scans a limited number of sources, OCR is not reliable for scanning upper/lowercase accurately, N-grams does not identify sentences, indexes, titles, captions, etc. And most vitally, N-grams does not link to its sources, which violates WP:V - N-grams can be seen both as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH given the nature of how the results are gathered and interpreted. In the case of Waterloo Campaign, Dicklyon made a conscious choice to only search titles from 1970 - those exorcising a potentially vast number of titles from 1815. I consider this his most obvious bad faith act. He uses these results as "evidence" to to trick RMs into a false consensus. He ignored the concerns abour N-grams, by palming me off with I am well aware of the limitations of such stats, but you seem to be confused by the numbers. No further reasoning, just prenentious a put-down so he could move on and wilfully ignore the concerns. The entire discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign runs in the same format - someone makes a comment, Dicklyon puts it down with his own POV and no-one but me maintains their argument. This includes the fact that Dicklyon interprets policy in his own fashion, is selective when it comes to policy, and even invents policy that doesn't even exist, such as today, when I challenged him on only sourcing from 1970 - something he has never done before - he claimed We usually focus on recent decades when discussing usage in sources and has yet to respond to me request for the policy that states anything of the sort is to be practiced. Why? Because he made it up, after biasing his data to broaden the N-gram in his favour. Bad faith not only assumed, but evidenced.

To summarise, please go see the Milhist discussion, the Waterloo Campaign discussion, as well as the "evidence" he presents at past RMs related to military campaigns (only N-grams, before and still despite concerns from multiple editors); consider the claims he makes that contradict one another and the policy he raises but does not link because it does not exist. Then you'll understand the frustration. Dicklyon is engaged in long-term disruptions which he handles via WP:CIVPUSH when challenged, as well as WP:PLAYPOLICY. This is not typical good faith behaviour, and so I stand by my right to challenge it, since it is so widespread. I don't care about my attitude, this is a matter of tendentious editing, with spurious evidence, ignores the concerns of MilHist, continues to move "dozens" (exact count unknown) of articles with no verifiable evidence, only this controversially unverifiable N-gram nonsense. Moves made using a source which cannot be verified. Dicklyon can shout all day about NCCAP, AGF and whatever other policy cares to invent, the fact stands, WP:V is a core policy, a pillar, a major requirement of any wikipedia article. He knows his data fails that test, yet persists, manipulates N-grams further, undermines policy and now he's here, trying to silence his greatest detractor. Because he can't prove his Google-sourced data is strong enough, he has to force his POV in, and that can only be achieved by manipulating searches, ignoring other editors, citing fake policy, not letting a consensus be determined. All bad faith behaviours. If anyone is not convinced that this stream of behaviour is questionable, they either need to open their eyes, or explain to me where I'm wrong. And I don't mean for Dicklyon to do that himself, given his conflict of interest, though he can attepmt to defend himself, as necessary. Maybe another "Poppycock" is all a common peasant like me needs, to stand corrected? Even though my opinions were "noted", no attempt was made to correct behaviour or seek alternative sources for future moves. N-grams is clearly wiser than all of us at Milhist, put together, since our concerns have not been heeded. That's one man's pretentious ego for you and yes, it disgusts me.

You can argue between youselves about my uncivil nature all you like, I don't really care what anyone thinks of me... but this is a WP:BOOMERANG case if you actually review the widespread amount of evidence regarding Dicklyon's current behaviour and crusade, which I have seen unfolding for several weeks, challenged at MilHist, but remains unchecked. I have never reverted his edits, nor !voted in RMs until now, my concerns have been made in only two places and have been supported, to some degree. So his comment above about "He can make points about N-grams without attacking me." Yeah, we tried that, many times. He swept our concerns under a mat and trod all over it, to continue revising article titles to the way he wants, and everyone at MilHist be buggered. Screw us military historians, with all our books and knowledge, if all we need is Google and their limited inaccurate data, let's burn down all libraries and make Dicklyon master of digitised world history. Because all this behaviour amounts to is authorative, anti-consensual and loaded with POV pushing behaviour because of its use of manufactured evidence that is not really evidence because none of us can see it. — Marcus^(talk) 06:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It sure looks to me as if Dicklyon is engaging in a mass pagemove attempt, and thus it's time to revoke the unblock. That indefinite block came after it was shown that he was happy to ignore basic policy, so why should we be surprised that he's happy to ignore those unblock conditions? Moreover, WP:CIR; I don't have to be a specialist in military history to know that the solid military history sources use "Campaign" in such contexts. If you're not competent in an area, stay out (that's why I don't do significant editing in medicine or speculative philosophy) and definitely don't violate your unblock conditions in a fashion that's already disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What? If Dicklyon behaves disruptively, then he should be straightly blocked. Who cares about conflicts from 2015 now? Don’t—please—make this site into a sort of ru.Wikipedia where ancient blocks are broadly used as a pretext for discrimination. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The moves in question started with a discussion on the MihHist project page, and have been discussed there at length. I still have not been able to elicit a single allegation that any of the undiscussed moves was improper – just generalized whining like Marcus's. About a dozen proposed at RMTR were challenged and went to RM discussions, where the consensus to follow our usual policies and guidelines was reaffirmed. My move log shows about 75 "Campaign->campaign" moves in 40 days, a rate of less than 2 per day; not exactly "mass moves". Most "XXX campaign" articles were already at the correct lowercase title, as the original discussion pointed out. Nobody has pointed out any MilHist move that I got wrong; nobody has reverted one or opened a discussion about why it was wrong or even controversial. Marcus and a few have made generalized complaints, but can't point to a case where my move was not with consensus, or had some reason to be considered controversial; I have asked. The project talk page has been involved; a small move to rewrite the style rules for MilHist didn't get much traction there. In addition, I've moved over 6000 other articles since my 2015 unblock, and have stayed away from trouble by only moving where the consensus is clear. When people have objected to their favorite area being downcased, I have engaged in good-faith discussions, and in almost all cases the consensus re-affirmed the reason for the moves, following policy and guidelines. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign for details. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A whole debate took place at MilHist. Dicklyon characteristically boils it down to "whining", which is an attack on multiple editors at MilHist. Proving he has chosen to ignore editors with issues and step over them, set his own standards, invent policy, and to hell with anyone who disagrees. He sets his own terms for what he considers a "valid complaint", despite a number of editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Campaign_vs_campaign having concerns regarding his moves. It is not up to him to set the terms of discussion or consensus. When someone raises issues with your edits, you stop to discuss. He has chosen to ignore and proceed. In violation of his standard offer, since these are mass moves which have been deemed controversial; 75 moves are a mass number, the timeline is moot here. There is no good faith here, rather a load of disrespectful scheming per WP:PLAYPOLICY. I believe @Keith-264 raised the initial concern regarding all these Campaign movea, and will ping him, incase he'd like to comment further. — Marcus^(talk) 16:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

No Incnis Mrsi, it's not "ancient" or "ru" to uphold the terms of standard offers for unblocks indefinitely. I accepted an interaction ban in 2017, are you seriously suggesting that "when enough time passes" (subjective in itself) I can just throw that away and self-determine my own terms or ignore them altogether, go get up that other editor's nose and claim immunity based on "who cares anymore?" notions? If an unblock offer was set by the community via consensus, you respect the community, no matter how much time passes, you don't give them the two fingers when you feel you've had enough... I kind of find your claim that this would be "discrimination" hyperbolical/dog whistling/virtue signalling terminology. On what level is that even the case? It's more discriminatory to turn a blind eye to wilfully breaking standard offer terms, when we know for a fact that other editors are blocked for far less, mor often. An admin's duty is to maintain the integrity of the community, not overturn it! The whole point of offers by ANI/Arbcom is not to restrict editors, but to be lenient while also preventing further disruptions by giving unblocked editors a way of self-moderating the behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. This is effectively a breach of contract. The ru.wiki and en.wiki are two different cultures, no point comparing apples and oranges, that too could be seen as discrimination. All that said, I'm not saying I want to see Dicklyon indef, I'm just saying that I have gripes with his behaviour and having learned it got him blocked in the past, we can factually establish that he already knows it is considered disruptive, therefore he wilfully put himself back in this position. So it wouldn't be discrimination, it would be upholding the standard offer, which he has chosen to violate. So, to answer your "who cares?" - anyone who cares about the wiki community and genuinely respects consensus cares. — Marcus^(talk) 16:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m unable to find such person as Dicklyon anywhere in Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. His unblock log doesn’t mention any specific restriction either, only a decision to unblock despite some IP socking. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ANI: User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here. Prodego talk 04:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC and Accept reason: Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. Prodego talk 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) - there's the community decision and admin performing unblock terms stated. No duration/end date for those terms was specifically set. Tell me, if you accept a standard offer are you at liberty to determine when you are able to no longer work in accordance with those terms? Wouldn't that make the purpose of consensus obsolete? As far as I'm concerned, it's a bit like being on parole – maintain good behaviour per the terms of your unblock. He accepted. Why should he be at leisure to ignore those terms just because "some time" has passed? Is a standard offer only a binding agreement until you get bored of it or because it hampers your editing agenda? If you think so, that kind of undermines the whole point of standard offers, designed to help once-disruptive editors stay on track. The socking issue was another discussion, I gather, but the terms of his unblock stand now, because he is editing now contrary to those terms. I wonder if the unblocking admin Prodego would agree with you the "who cares?" philosophy. — Marcus^(talk) 20:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: The Ping: I was surprised by a number of page moves all from X Campaign to X campaign. It was replied that mooted changes had been notified on the talk pages and that there was an N-gram giving campaign majority usage, which seemed to me to be insufficient. I thought that this N-gram was a blunt instrument that lacked qualitative validity. I think that Marcus is more right than wrong in this and that the proposer of Campaign campaign moves should bear the onus of showing why, not burdening others with the work of refuting his claims. Regards 18:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith-264 (talk • contribs)

MarcusBritish, Incnis Mrsi, Nyttend: In response to some discussion here, I am of the opinion that since so much time has passed without escalating to a block, User:Dicklyon met any restrictions from my 2015 unblock and that they are no longer relevant. All users should avoid large scale, controversial actions. Prodego ^talk 23:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

In which case the solution is to block now, because Dicklyon has a history of large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, because he's recently engaged in large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves, and there's no reason to believe that he will stop making large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves when those actions have continued from at least four years ago to the present. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Very few of my moves have been challenged or reverted, and most of the ones challenged were subsequently upheld in move discussions. If I made a handful of mistakes among thousands of uncontroversial moves, can I ask for forgiveness? I will, if you'll point some out. You can read about the one most recently reverted (by Marcus, as it happens) at Talk:Gettysburg_Campaign#Reverting_move; I don't see why anyone would consider that controversial in light of all the recent discussions reaffirming following WP:NCCAPS and such, but in this case Marcus just made a mistake in trying to check the evidence for it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't the only incident since that block. Looking at Dicklyon's pagemove log, which is long, I can see the now he mass-moved articles on lighthouses, which all got reverted (see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lighthouses#Naming_convention), and he also mass-moved articles on World Heritage Sites, also reverted. He had many other mass moves that seem to have stuck, including changing dash styles and capitalization in titles of train station articles. I'm not sure if these changes were discussed, as he doesn't link to discussions in his mass moves. Though he will apparently complaint about other people making "undiscussed moves" [1]. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I made fewer than 100 lighthouse moves, based on usage in sources (was I wrong on any of those?). Sam Sailor subsequently (months later) moved about 300 lights and lighthouses to uppercase, without discussion. I had dropped out of that dispute pretty early when I saw that some controversy was developing; Sam jumped in after that settled down, and did them all his way, capitalized for no particularly good reason. I asked for some of Sam's capitalizations of longstanding lowercase titles to be reverted (see Someguy1221's link above), but Sam just did them again, so I stayed away after that. Those are the moves that should be challenged, since they violate naming policy and style guidelines. Sam hasn't been around recently, but if someone knows him maybe they can ask him what he was thinking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

On the World Heritage sites, those moves were subsequent to RM discussions at Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_15_May_2018 and Talk:World_Heritage_Site#Requested_move_27_August_2018 in light of which they had no reason to be considered controversial, if I read the history correctly. But Randy never gives up, and got it reversed later, so now all those titles violate WP:NCCAPS. Since then I stayed out of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I moved about 900 rivers and creeks, too. Nobody complained or tried to reverse the decision that we had discussed. Nobody thanked me for all the work, either. I just keep doing my bit to improve the encyclopedia, mostly without controversy or fanfare. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And I moved well over 1000 Jr and Sr bios per MOS:JR, and engaged in related discussions repeatedly reaffirming that conforming to that style provision was not controversial. Similarly thousands of other dash and comma and case and hyphen fixes subsequent to clear consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221, Nyttend – Perhaps as the responding admins, you might indulge me by determing whether these MOS:CAPS edits constitute a form of COI? Since Dicklyon is engaged in moving a ton of military campaign articles, subtly changing related MOS guidelines to support his own position more closely, without discussion (note also he reverted admin Amakuru who disputed him per lack of consensus) seems to cross the line in my mind. He's been engaged in lengthy discussions and disputes since May at MilHist regarding these moves, so making MOS edits seems highly inappropriate and reinforces everything I've been saying about his autocratic nature with regards to ignoring everyone else opinion and continuing to move articles regardless of opposition. Even the comments you both made here, relating to his history of controversial mass moves despite being under a Standard Offer does not appear to have slowed him down. I'm not directly seeking to get this guy blocked, that's your call, but every argument I raise, he rejects without consideration. I'm literally competing with a WP:CIVPUSH beast here, even when I break down my argument into point form he plays ignorant and spews out demands for example cases and evidence, never accepting that the WP:BURDEN is and has always been on him, as the contributing editor. Please just fucking shoot me! — Marcus^(talk) 21:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely very concerning to me that Dicklyon there is not only editing the MOSCAP guidelines, but edit warring at the MOSCAP guidelines, while also in a contentious dispute over moves related to those guidelines. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

My intention in reverting Amakuru with an explanation in the edit summary was to convince him, not to edit war. I'm sure he was notified; that was the end of it, it appears. That MilHist bit was clearly out of line with the rest of the MOS, and seemed to encourage over-capitalization; it needed to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish has engaged in discussions at MilHist here, here and at Waterloo campaign. I have found their posts repeatedly aggressive and uncivil, rising personal attacks. The effect upon me is much the same as what they ascribe to the actions of Dicklyon. I find it unacceptable. These moves are IAW WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and criteria established by these. While objections have been raised to these moves, there has been little or no evidence presented, addressing the criteria, to retain caps. I find that the most controversial aspect of these moves/discussion to be the posts and conduct by MB. This has now been moved to MOS:CAPS. Let us hope that the discussion there does not reach the same level and focuses on the issues rather than following what has preceded. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

And the Award for Best Hyperbole of ANI goes to Cinderella157 for playing the victim, whether direct or collateral, despite barely having conversed with me a month ago. I think he might be confusing my frankness and honesty for aggression, some of us don't beat about the bush, but the word "aggression" serves as a dog whistle when no examples are presented. Also, naming standards of articles are not likely to be determined here, so no point even discussing it. Although Cindy is wrong, core WP:V policy must be considered before invoking lesser MOS guidelines – N-grams cannot be verified so the moves fail to be IAW WP:V before they even reach MOS styling. Can't ignore WP:V just to turn a few C into c, that's beyond stupid – write the encyclopedia first, make it pretty later. I have to question your lack of integrity here Cindy, over-stating my behaviour simply because you support Dicklyon's position and don't want to see it undone. And yet one thing fails to escape me: you never lifted your finger once to help him move a single article, even though there are so many. You crop up in every RM he raises, giving you the image of a pandering "yes" man, and it appears that you also attack editors, such as PBS} for being "vexatious" when asking questions on separate RMs. Clearly you don't realise that two different RMs may not be seen by the same people, and therefore it becomes necessary to pose the same question at each. Your response was aggressive, perhaps because he sees the same flaws in your claims as I do... POV-pushing MOS standards over policy. Come back to me when you have clean hands. — Marcus^(talk) 19:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The afore post by MB makes the point regarding what I have perceived and that this should be considered as "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour per the purpose of this page. It is the repeated nature of the behaviour that I have sought to raise by my initial post. I have provided links to threads by way of examples where many (but not all) posts by MB in those threads demonstrate the repeated nature of what I have perceived. MB states (without diff or fuller context): it appears that you also attack editors, such as PBS for being "vexatious" when asking questions on separate RMs. I have stated that certain actions might appear vexatious. However, MB states here (in one of the threads at MilHist I have linked): "needs moving to small case because 'evidence' says otherwise" comes across as vexatious. By their own statement and standards above (not mine), the quoted text would constitute a personal attack on their part. From my perception, it is posts to the end of that particular thread (ie here) which start to get hostile. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

MarcusBritish has made this statement: Okay, enough with the trolling.[2] It is an unqualified accusation of trolling. I have struck the quoted sentence per WP:NPA. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:Trolling is a legitimate Wiki-meta document. Italicising words doesn't make them any more vaild, that's your emphasis. It reeks of a desperate attemt to defame and derail the discussion. The same thing you tried with PBS and probably with editors before your topic ban. I won't go there, I'll just note that you're not a reliable witness given your own history. — Marcus^(talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You'll be pretty busy if you try to remove all his personal attacks in that section, such as "Oh boy... you can't be that ignorant, surely!? ... you love saying how everyone else is wrong but you". And "your deluded interpretations of my posts amount to fiction"; and "You constantly dismiss core policy that describes how to write the encyclopedia, because you're so obsessed with reformatting or reengineering what other creators have written." I don't think he has any real insight into what I love or what I'm obsessed with, and his concept that I ignore WP:V by posting n-gram stats is really just nutty. I may inject a mild sarcasm now and then, but I'm doing my best to not just make up expletives about what might be going on in his brain. I can't actually come up with any cogent printable theory for that, so I hold my tongue. Oh, well, as he complains there, he's "not quite feeling 'backed' by MilHist on the matter despite what I've read in those May–July threads and my best attempts to find a solution." His best attempt has just taken a solution that had been found (that is, following WP:NCCAPS per evidence from book n-gram stats and per RM discussion consensus on a dozen articles) and turning it back to a bunch of unproductive ranting about me and WP:V. Thanks for your comments, C. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Look at your own words here. "nutty" and "unproductive" – indicators of a pretentious editor who has no interest in the opinion of detractors. You and Cinarella have been at it before. You also remarked on PBS right here, loving that Cinderella called him "vexatious". Quite the tag-team you two make. And now your "friend" is here, giving you his support, not by defending you, but by attacking me. Think admins are fool enough to fall for that? — Marcus^(talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, "unproductive ranting" was uncalled for, and I apologize; it snuck past by restraint filter. The "just nutty" bit I have to stand by as my assessment of your attempt to apply WP:V against my work on caps fixes. If anyone else thinks this is in any way sensible, I'd like to hear from them. It's OK that you don't trust n-gram stats, but WP:V has nothing to do with this whole issue. Dicklyon (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not projecting your own "chronic" and "intractable" behaviour which got you a WW2-related topic ban? Not sure what you're hoping to gain by linking comments made just over a month ago, which have probably been seen already, except to maintain your fidelity for Dicklyon's Crusade. Little to see here, since I told you before, frankness is not aggression. It's just plain talk which you are subjecting to your own fanciful ideals. Many Wiki editors are just as plain speaking as me, some moreso. Dicklyon knows now to man up and work round it, you should too. Wiki isn't here to change attitudes, it's a database dressed up for the interwebs, nothing more, certainly not a social club for you to be judgemental of others in. If you think anything in that linked comment can be infered as "hostile", well... plainly put: you need to go back to the dictionary and relearn some foul or offensive words. I don't see any there. Extreme hyperbole. FYI, regarding your snarky responses to PBS: diff 1diff 2, context not really required, I'll just sum it us as "aggressive and hostile" retorts to simple questions, shall I, kettle? Sincerely, frying pan aka — Marcus^(talk) 03:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Previously removed attack was replaced with this by MarcusBritish: Okay, enough with the WP:trolling. Perhaps Bishonen might explain why this is rarely ever acceptable? Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

This an excercise in WP:Canvassing admins now, Cindy? Is it normal for ANI to allow an uninvolved party to campaign the admins they feel will support them best? What's the term for that? Something appropriately Australian... kangaroo court! Your poison pen not enough to dramatise the conversation for your amusement? Also, it's begging the question why Wikipedia would create essays then disuade people from linking them. If you can't call a spade out, especially after 3 months of wilful ignorance and/or tendentious editing, he'll just continue arguing ad infinitum, as Dicklyon does to palm-off his detractors. You're not helping him, btw, just increasing the odds of his controversial edits being scrutinised; he isn't doing himself any favours. That move log of his..... *whistles* — Marcus^(talk) 04:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Marcus, this screed is highly inappropriate. I'd strongly suggest you refrain from replying until an admin weighs in, or the discussion gets archived. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I see a stream of unseemly, loud, and bloated attacks by Marcus, apparently based on pet peeves. Dicklyon, in my experience, is highly professional in his research and propositions for RMs. I don't always agree with him, and when I say so he is perfectly reasonable. He is sensitive to feedback, though rightly holds his ground when he comes up against unresearched and/or illogical counter-propositions. Tony (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tony1: thanks for your support. If you could place your Oppose A comment in the section #Proposal, it might get noticed better. Dicklyon (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Um, ok, I guess. Tony (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Propose immediate block of user:MarcusBritish

Capitalization Wars (Campaign Campaign)

-EEng

This work is hereby condemned as an eyesore and public nuisance. For the Wiki beautification committee, --Dlohcierekim

Your mother wears army boots, D.

-EEng

• Comment Why are we allowing these pithy personal attacks? He's full of commenting on the editor rather than the content. Accusing others of acting in bad faith? Really? I mean right here on this page? Why are we not blocking him right now? Let's nip this grandiloquence now.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Because the other grown ups here don't treat accusing someone of bad faith as cynically as you do, perhaps? Or because accusing someone of "bad faith" is not considered a personal attack, given that it has no mention at WP:NPA as being one. They also looked at the counter claims I posted, examined the OPs behaviour and raised concerns about his behaviour. Did you? No, I didn't think so. Just marched in here without taking the time to review the situation fully and made a call off the bat, it seems. And what do you mean "right here on this page?" son? There are no limits to free, honest speech on this page, are there? No policy that says you can't uphold an argument or defend a position at ANI? You didn't even comment on what "bad faith" behaviour I questioned, which means you did not consider the cause of the matter. What good is a block going to do anyone if you're sweeping the underlying problem under the mat with it and allowing that editor to resume his "bad faith"? You realise the underlying concerns I have with the OPs editing are so difficult to resolve, that I've been preparing evidence for ArbCom, incase I need Conduct resolution, right? — Marcus^(talk) 12:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Unless you are the editor's parent or step-parent, please do not call any other editor "son", as you did in the comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? — Marcus^(talk) 01:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

And what do you mean "right here on this page?" son? The seventh sentence in the comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of where I used it, Ken. Perhaps you are unaware, as an American (I think?), that the use of "son" is a commonly used term in some parts of Britain. It is used between people, towards other males, regardless of age or relationship. Probably better that you refrain from getting triggered by a 3-letter word and attempt to blow it out of proportion, since that could be seen as objecting to a virtually cultural practise that you may not understand or appreciate, and that you have no place to criticise on wiki except from a personal pov, and I'm not interested in an op-ed on my regional vocabulary or dialect from a foreign speaker. To put it into context for you, however, consider the way Aussies say "mate" or you Americans still use "sir" a lot. Just a word, which depending on the situation can be informal, formal, disrespectful, respectful or endearing. Don't apply context where none belongs, it isn't worth your time and effort. Thanks muchly for your intelligent understanding! — Marcus^(talk) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of its usage, Americans use "friend" in the same manner. Regardless, please don't continue to use that construction here, since in the absence of a informal familiar relationship in which the expression can be taken as just a bit of fun between friends, it implies superiority on your part. I have friends who I can call an "ass" or tell to "fuck off", because we are friends and we both know that there's continuing love and respect underneath the remark, but I don't walk up to strangers and tell them to "fuck off", for obvious reasons -- the same ones that should stop you from using "son", especially during a discussion in which your behavior is a prime element. Don't assume you have an informal friend-to-friend relationship with other editors, assume you have a formal peer-to-peer relationship until shown otherwise, and don't say anything you wouldn't say to a completely unknown stranger, your boss, the head of your school, or the mayor of your town. Simply put don't assume you have license to treat other editors as if they were your friends or inferiors, dude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The assumption is entirely on you, Ken. It neither implies friend nor foe. Only you inferred that. Regardless, it's your opinion not wiki policy here and I don't take orders from strangers online anymore than you should be issuing them. Would you have posted the same protest on Twitter or Reddit or YouTube? I say what I please. I didn't give offence, you took it. That makes it your problem, not mine. Haven't got time to listen to your stance on political correctness. If you find "son" hurtful or offensive you need a thicker skin. But since it was not even directed at you, I don't see why you're making it your business. It isn't even on-topic. Please move along, censorship in this day and age really annoys me. BTW I don't have a school, my schooling formally ended over 20 years ago... I have almost 40 years of experience in the usage of my local dialect, I don't need lecturing on its usage from someone who never lived here. I mean, who do you think you are to dictate etymology? And FYI, we do use it to strangers and acquaintances, "Alright, son!" is a very common greeting here, regardless of familiarity. Go figure. Just be glad I'm not from Manchester, they call each other "cock" (#20) there in the same manner as "mate" or "dear", and it's not the phallic term. American brain would go "boom" hearing that? ;) — Marcus^(talk) 04:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Having read the above discussion, that was pretty much the kind of answer I was expecting. It appears that you never do anything wrong, and anyone you see as an opponent can never do anything right -- and you consider anyone who disagrees with or criticizes you for the smallest thing to be an opponent. You appear to have no real sense of scale about disagreements, it's all or nothing at all with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the amateur pyschological analysis, friend! Wasn't at all pretentious of you to trouble yourself with such a thoughtful gift. Ta-ta now! — Marcus^(talk) 14:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Can someone just close this and let us move on? Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

MB seems to be somebody who might benefit from a short, gentle reminder of WP:CIV. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I also support the call for a block. This is totally absurd. No one should get away with this level of incivility.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, Marcus, as far as you're concerned, you can just say whatever you like to anyone and if they "choose to take offence", that's their problem? That sounds remarkably like another editor, that folks might remember, who found he eventually had to change his account name in order to continue editing at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No, Martin, that's a Strawman argument. My reference was to the singular use of "son" and not the blanket statement you just misconstrued it into. If I was calling someone a "twat", it'd be to give offense. And FYI, I've never had or needed a fresh start. Isn't comparing people to someone of ill-repute much like posting a "you're a fascist/Nazi!" remark? Certainly has that tone to it. — Marcus^(talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It's just as if I had called you a Nazi? Please don't address me by first name. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

There's two things about people blessed with a sense of smug superiority: they're always right, and they're perfectly comfortable with that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Kenneth, your repeated commentary here is borderlining on harassment now. Suggest you do one, mate. I'm sure Arbcom don't need another Fram-like character causing aggro while they're still neck deep in shit with that case as it is. Besides the fact, all this talk of "superiority" is nonsense – you're projecting your own self worth and engaging in personal attacks. You're also grandstanding, in your vain attempt to appear influential over others here with non-factual rhetorical remarks. — Marcus^(talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

If you think you are being harassed feel free to open a thread a separate ANI thread. Make sure that you can provide concrete examples of the harassment though. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

(A) The indefinite block of Dicklyon is re-imposed for multiple incidents of violating his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles. Dicklyon admits, in the discussion above, to making mass moves which have since been reverted, meaning that they were controversial.

(B) For multiple incidents of incivility, rudeness and personal attacks, some in this very discussion, MarcusBritish is blocked, the length of the block to be determined by the admin applying the sanction.

Addendum: Concerning Dicklyon, to be absolutely crystal clear about it, their unblock conditions were

Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. Prodego talk 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) [3]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I restored the comment above after it was deleted by @Dicklyon: with this edit. Dicklyon: if you do that again, you will immediately be reported to admins for inappropriately messing with another editor's comment in violation of WP:TPO. Everyone can see that my comment was added later as a clarificatiion, the time stamp shows it was 5 days after the proposal, and if anyone wanted to change their !votes because if it, they are free to do that. If you objected to it, you could have added a comment of your own pointing that out, or you could have gone to an admin and asked for relief. The one thing you could not do, is delete it - but then you don't appear to have any great regard for what you're not allowed to do, hence the proposal in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You did it again. I warned you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The thread close on WP:AN said "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here." In the talk page comment, the "controversial" was meant to apply to both "actions" and "mass page moves"; or so it has been interpreted for the last four years as I contributed thousands of non-controversial moves. BMK's novel interpretation that all my moves are evidence of disregarding my unblock condition for the last four years and somehow getting away with it is ridiculous in the extreme. He has declined to say that any of my moves are controversial (other than vaguely, not saying which ones). He had it right in the proposal, "his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles", but changed to the sillier interpretation when no controversial ones could be identified. Dicklyon (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I restored this comment twice already after BMK deleted it twice. Contrary to his "You did it again" claim above, I only deleted his inserted comment once; the other time I used hat/hab to delimit it, but did not delete it; he really wants people to see his half of the story! Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Your comments were deleted accidentally, as all I was trying to do was revert the inappropriate changes you made and restiore the status quo ante. If you hadn't fucked around with my comments, your comments would never have been touched.

As for your unblock conditions, they were not the closing statement in the ANI disucssion, they were what Prodego told you on your talk page. In a perfect world the closing statement and the notification on your talk page would be precisely the same, but it's not a perfect world, so how you were notified is what controls. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Thank you BMK. There are ways to address the problematic behavior of anyone in any setting without creating a toxic work environment, which MarcusBritish needs to become aware of. I noted earlier his response to concerns about his toxic behavior was more toxic behavior. Recommend that the block duration be until he recognizes his rudeness and find ways to deal with disagreements without said rudeness. This is behavior that would not be accepted in any real-world work environment I've worked in and see no reason for it to be tolerated here. The Community has too long turned a blind eye to such behavior.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  per Lugnuts change to TBAN on page moves. (on proposal A)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  Annnd-- per Dicklyon's apparent not "getting it" later on in this discussion back to an indefinite block, the sooner the better.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Switch to neutral on A per the many fine "oppose" arguments, but mainly per Incnis Mrsi .-- Dlohcierekim 15:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support per above.--WaltCip (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Elsewhere [4], WaltCip clarified that he was supporting (B), and had no opinion on (A). Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A and B – rudeness is subjective and since Asperger's are known for their inability to handle social interaction, Dlohcierekim is not the best judge of character. Suggest C: take note of BMK's personal attacks and Dlohcierekim's willingness to turn a blind eye and thank his friend for such remarks. Seems some admins have a buddy system, yet transparent favouritism is not impartial which admins are required to be. — Marcus^(talk) 19:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Blocked 1 week for the Asperger comment. Discussion here may result in a longer block, at your discretion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  @MarcusBritish: Good grief! This is the very sort of toxicity I've been talking about. And I'm an excellent judge of character. My inability to respond with alacrity in all social settings (I'm getting better) and discomfort in social settings does not prevent me from recognizing rudeness. Seems I'm not the only person here who tends to emotional tone deafness and social awkwardness.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  Further commentary Henceforth, I can no longer be considered neutral or |uninvolved regarding this user. I have never been so infuriated by a comment by another user before (started here in ~2006). I'm used to taking abuse from vandals and LTA's, and people angry over my admin actions. I take it as the price I pay for the job I chose. Never before has a member of the community stooped so low as this in responding to me. If you look through Marcus's removed talk page comments, you will see this has been an ongoing problem to which concerns he has responded with flippancy, personal attacks, and dismissal as irrelevant. Of course, I think he needs indeffed. (furious) But uninvolved members of the community may wish to consider a long-term solution to a long-term problem. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Some find asperger's delicious

Asp

Bergers

-EEng

One more thing before I stop chewing on this. My asperger's impedes my ability to recognize non verbal social cues in face-to-face interactions. In so far as I can tell, I do fine in this sort of setting. And, I might add, am better at adhering to behavioral norms/etiquette than someone I shan't name.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support B, Neutral on A While there may be context I'm not aware of, I don't really see Dicklyon as having been all that disruptive. However I'll admit that I may be missing context and will not provide an opinion on whether they should be indeffed. However the behaviour shown by MarcusBritish here, up to and including since Asperger's are known for their inability to handle social interactions regarding another editor here is uncalled for. And what's more, when people have cautioned MarcusBritish that their comportment was insufficiently civil they doubled down. I think they need a time out to consider whether it's appropriate to insult an editor for commenting on your past insults to editors in a thread about the same. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support both A and B: I will admit to a passing knowledge of military history; referring to large-scale, long-term strategic military plans as campaigns is not incorrect. Both persons here have been disruptive: one to the integrity of the project, one to the atmosphere of the project. On the basis of the actor realizing his error, however, I would like to request, if possible, that the blocking administrator be favorably disposed toward a standard offer for DickLyon in six months' time. Having said that, and noting that MarcusBritish has been blocked by SarekOfVulcan for a week, I cannot see MarcusBritish's particular manner of discussion as being rather helpful; his comportment, even in this very discussion, if I may argue, is and has been wholly antithetical to a collegial atmosphere. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am also willing to support an indefinite moratorium on page movement for Dicklyon, as suggested below, in lieu of an indefinite block. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Support for lesser ban withdrawn, as a consequence of Dicklyon's statement in the next section. It is not his prerogative to declare my vote null and void. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I've been convinced by the eloquent arguments. Neutral on Proposal A, so long as Dicklyon knows that, here on out, mass page moves will count against him (just as a warning). Sorry, Dicklyon: I've been unfair to you, and, for that, I apologize; the offending statement above has been struck. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if we could move forward in a collaborative manner, and stop foolish proposals like removing capitalization from the office of Vice President of the United States. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks! Nobody's ever called me eloquent before – oh, or maybe that wasn't about me. And I hope you know I opposed that downcasing at Talk:Vice President of the United States#Requested move 6 August 2019. Dicklyon (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B, Neutral on A. As per Simonm223. I've rarely seen a more sarcastic, demeaning and provocative tone than the one adopted by MarcusBritish here. It looks like it's just one big game to him. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also support Lugnuts proposal on A making a Tban on page moves. Considering the context available, that seems reasonable. And with regard to B, I'm leaning toward supporting an indef based on comportment here and evidence of past blocks.Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B as in, an indefinite block, not just a week. I told arbcom when they unblocked him that they were making a mistake. For those that don't know, the last indef block was for, among other things, insulting the ethnicity of a user he was in conflict with. And he was more than willing to take it off wiki, including email harassment, a campaign on youtube, and a death threat against me personally. He's not someone we should have here. I've had occasional issues with Dicklyon as well but he's never tried to incite people to kill me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Marcus is rather upset about my above remarks, which he claims are lies. The only part of it that is not 100% certain is whether he was in fact the person running the youtube channel in question. There is no doubt about the rest of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support A & B; both parties are clearly way over the line at which even the loosest assumption of good faith can possibly apply. Neither of them are new users and they're both well aware that what they're doing is both unacceptable and disruptive; if they're not willing to abide by our policies, they're not welcome here. Both cases are, for different reasons, absolutely textbook cases of situations where "indefinite not infinite" should apply, as in "unless and until you undertake to follow our rules regardless of whether or not you agree with them, we don't want you here". ‑ Iridescent 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support both Proposal A for violation of unblock conditions. Proposal B for all the ups and downs of how WP:CIVILITY has been handled over the years it is still one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars and MB's actions indicate that there is no intention of understanding that. MarnetteD|Talk 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support both per MarnetteD. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Notice: Per WP:CBAN, Editors who are . . . indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B - Dunno what Dicklyons unblock conditions are so shan't !vote on that, Reading Marcus's replies here I get the distinct impression they simply don't care about the way they talk to people or our policies here, IMHO they should never have been unblocked. –Davey2010^Talk 21:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A, Support B. Paul August ☎ 00:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral on A, Support B. The sort of aggressive hostility displayed by MarcusBritish shouldn't have any place here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support A, Support B Maybe Dicklyon could have a topic-ban on page moves instead of an indef? I've not paid too much attention to their edits, so they may have already ran out of WP:ROPE. For MarcusBritish, support an indef, seeing as they've already been indef'd once, per their blocklog for personal attacks/harrasment, and their ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in this thread and their talkpage post the 1-week block. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Neutral on A, Support Indefinite on B, the latter just for their comments here. --Calton | Talk 10:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B, Opppose A as I agree with the suggestion above that a topic ban is the more reasonable next step., DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am immediately blocking MarcusBritish indefinitely per this thread, but discussion on part A needs to continue to reach consensus. Courcelles (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Neutral on A, Support B - I was already taken aback by Marcus' commentary earlier, but his Asperger's comment is well over the line. I'm indifferent on whether Dicklyon gets a block or a topic ban for the violation of his unblock, but something should be done there as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Given Dicklyon's repeated commentary below, we either have a case of WP:IDHT or he really doesn't get that "mass page moves" are inherently controversial, which brings us into WP:CIR territory. Either way, I now Support A, indef block until he understands what his restrictions mean, and a flat TBAN on mass moves in addition to his other unblock conditions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Right, I really don't get that. If mass page moves are inherently controversial, then we'll need a strategy to split up the work such that nobody's part is big enough to be called "mass". How are we going to get a bunch of editors signed up to such jobs under such condition? Are you suggesting that it's better to just not fix problems that are widespread, when fixing them has been shown to be uncontroversial? Or are you like some of these other AN/I drama mongers and just don't like it when someone defends themself here? If I ask what's wrong with my work, and people say nothing, just too much of it, and I ask again, then I'm so disruptive I have to be indeffed. That's a fine how-do-you-do. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support A (B already has consensus, but I support it, too, FWIW). The discussion above documents at least three examples of Dicklyon performing mass page moves (ranging from scores of pages to over a thousand) on the basis of MOS guidelines that were later reverted. This is clear, repeated violation of his unblock conditions over a lengthy period. There is also evidence above that he was edit-warring on the MOS in support of his position while making one of those controversial mass-moves. The attempted handwaving doesn't really help; "engaged in related discussions repeatedly reaffirming that conforming to that style provision was not controversial" looks good but when you think about it, the only thing it can mean is, "Lots of people objected and I repeatedly told them it's not controversial." In other words, it was controversial, just not in Dicklyon's mind. We don't need this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks for providing more detail, GR. Support an indef on this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support A. If anything, Dick has gotten more aggressive with his page moves since this discussion started. Calidum 18:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Since he asked, here is the complete list of moves he's made [5]. By my estimate, he's moved 199 articles that include the word "campaign" in their title in recent weeks, which was the locus of this dispute. Calidum 05:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Most of those came after the 5 RM discussions that all closed in favor of following WP:NCCAPS for such things, and were only for cases where sources were clearly dominantly lowercase. Only a few were "since this discussion started", which is what I asked you about. The list is easy to find, but I asked what you meant by "aggressive" and whether any of them look like they were either incorrect or controversial. Marcus's ranting does not make them controversial; I asked Wikiproject Military History to review recent moves and got no responses. So please clarify your complaint, or retract it. Dicklyon (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on page moves. The indef of MarcusBritish was overdue, his behaviour/language was completely unacceptable. Dicklyon raised this issue at Milhist, but frankly, as a general rule we tend to be pretty drama-averse (MarcusBritish aside), and most members just want to get on and create content in their area of interest rather than get involved in a running battle with someone wielding ngram results like a sword in areas outside one's area. Dicklyon appears to be uninterested in what the specialist reliable sources used in each article say about capitalisation of the word "campaign". He has decided they should all be lower-cased, and just goes on with doing it regardless. If not controversial, this behaviour is tendentious, and given he was indeffed for page move-related behaviour in the past, the obvious next step is a TBAN on page moves. I don't support an indef at this time, as I am not sure that the case for them being "controversial" has been made out. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Peacemaker67: Thanks for your support against Marcus in the project and RM discussions. If I recall correctly we were in complete agreement that campaign article capping is to be decided on a case-by-case basis based on sources. Take a look at Talk:Waterloo Campaign for instance (which is still open last I looked) – it's all about looking at sources. Please tell me if you think I moved some pages in error. It's true I tend to put more weight on general sources than on specialist sources, but would there have been a different outsome some place if it were the opposite? Not at Waterloo campaign, as far as I can tell, which is where the point has been pushed hardest (and I haven't moved that one yet since it was contested). Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose A, neutral on B. An indef is overkill and goes to the extreme solution without taking Dicklyon's good faith actions and explanations into account. The editor's continuing contributions to the project greatly outweigh any incidental page moves, and all of those seem to have been done in good faith (WP:Assume good faith) with logic backed by evidence. The Jr. and Sr. moves were done in good faith and per the results of RMs (I was involved in the comma wars, and when Dicklyon moved the pages it was as a result of the RMs). And the World Heritage Site moves, for instance, which are also used as an example for Dicklyon to be indeffed, were originally moved to lower-case per an RM close before being correctly brought back to their proper name status, and when Dicklyon moved them it was totally within understandable behavior and Wikipedia policy. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Randy, I really appreciate your response here, since you were my main opponent in quite a few RM discussions on commas and caps. Now it's fun that you say "before being correctly brought back to their proper name status", knowing how much sources and I disagree with you on that! Anyway, the RM decided, so that's where we left it. Thanks again. Dicklyon (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks. I had read this discussion for a couple days at its start, but missed until now when it suddenly evolved into an indef discussion (talk about leaps of ungoodfaith). You certainly, from any of the discussions I was involved in, acted within Wikipedia good faith limits and presented evidence which you and others thought backed up your choices. That you were wrong on some is neither here nor there (mostly there), but you didn't act outside of normal page moves within the situations. I'm surprised this has even gotten this far. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A and oppose page-move topic ban against Dicklyon pretty much per Randy. I won't pretend I always agree with Dick when it comes to matters of titles and styling - he comes from the school-of-thought that we don't have to follow the sources when it comes to matters of styling and capitalisation, unless it is close to 100% of the sources, while I prefer to follow sources if they form anything upwards of a supermajority for a particular style. On the issue of page moves, I'll agree that occasionally Dick pushes through moves that I would regard as controversial and in need of discussion. But crucially, he respects consensus and he doesn't edit war or redo moves that have been reversed. As noted by Randy, his mass-page-moves are almost always following patterns that are already decided in enough community venues to make them uncontroversial, such as the aforementioned Jr. / Sr. comma debate. Dick's site-ban was lifted four years ago, and I think his behaviour in the four years since is good enough that we don't need to re-invoke that old sanction at this time. Similarly, banning him from the RM and titling space would not be helpful as that's one of the areas he contributes to a lot. In summary, Dick has come here in good faith to seek a remedy against an editor who was abusing him and justifiably so, as that has resulted in that user being banned. I don't think we should be using that as the opportunity to WP:BOOMERANG Dick, when ultimately his only crime is to want the best for the encyclopedia and to have his own strong opinions about how to achieve that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  True, I'm not a fan of "follow the sources" as letting sources vote on our styling questions, when we have our own well specified style. But in my mass moves I don't think I've crossed the line that separates us. Thanks for your supportive comments. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  While I have absolutely no doubt that the opinion expressed by Amakuru above is their own and not influenced by anyone else, I do note that Dicklyon WP:CANVASSed their participation here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Nyttend failed to ping him when he claimed that I was edit warring with him; his perspective was needed for me defense. Is that not OK? Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A, Support B. Dicklyon is a net positive to the project. MarcusBritish is not. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 17:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  Many thanks. I don't believe we've met. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A. I too think the contributions by Dicklyon to the project are a huge "positive", currently and over a number of years. The moves by Dicklyon are not damaging for the content or naming of the pages by any reasonable account. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am glad that there are editors who evaluate Dicklyon's value to the project as a "net positive", but that is really not the issue here. Did he or did he not violate the clear language of the restriction that was placed on him when the community granted his standard offer request, as expressed by Prodego: "Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." The evidence is crystal clear that he did. Those that wish to keep Dicklyon editing ought to concentrate their efforts on getting a community consensus for a lesser sanction, since whether he is a "net positive" or a "net negative" is irrelevant to the question of whether he violated the clear and explicit language of his unblock conditions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon, can you please do not make large scale, potentially controversial actions? If for no other reason, do not you want to minimize disruption? I must say however that "large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves" is not a clear and unequivocal language. What is "large scale" A hundred? A thousand? More important, I checked their recent moves, and they are fine. WP:IAR please. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"Large scale", "mass pass moves" - Is there any doubt that -- in Dicklyon's words from the discussion in the first section -- "1000 Jr and Sr bios", "900 rivers and creeks", "fewer than 100 lighthouse moves" (by which I assume he doesn't mean "a handful, or "22", but something close to 100), as well as 199 "campaign" moves as counted by Calidum, are all "large scale" or "mass" page moves? Alright, some people might throw out the lighthouse moves, but nonetheless there are 3 examples, two of them by Dicklyon's own admission, which easily qualify as violations of his unblock conditions. It's completely irrelevant which of these moves were justified, or "controversial", or were or weren't reverted, he simply was not supposed to be doing mass page moves in the first place. If the moves were necessary, Dicklyon did not need to be the editor who made them, another editor, one who wasn't forbidden to make "mass page moves", could have done them. Dicklyon could even have pointed out the need for those moves on the appropriate WikiProject talk page, but he was disallowed from doing them. I don;t know how the facts could be any clearer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As I was involved in the Jr. comma wars I'd like to state some obvious points. Our side lost. Dicklyon gladly moved the titles that he was entitled to move. Who else was going to do it? That job alone proves Dicklyon's long time worth to the project - he did a job that few if anyone else would have been willing to do with the zeal and interest that he put into it. To the victor go the spoils...and the work. And at the time he moved the World Heritage Site pages he was entitled to do so, per RM. Who else was going to move each and every page (and then guess who had to go-back and return every page). So the justification that he is breaking his ban-return-vow seems like old history. Dicklyon was paroled in late-2015, had served his time, came off parole at some point, and since then has often assisted the project by taking the time and the tedium to do the very same good faith page moves that are now being used against him to try to kick him off the project. Not cool. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

To anyone thinking of adding a !vote: The numbers of moves is not in dispute (except where Calidum must have counted talk pages, too, inflating my 97 campaign moves to 199). About 7000 moves since my unblock, as I have stipulated several times. Nobody has previously complained about my numbers of moves, since the 2015 unblock. There was nothing controversial in them (or the vast majority of them; someone might still step up and answer where were any of these controversial). There is no restriction on me for how much I can contribute to Wikipedia, as long as I'm not disruptive and don't engage in controversial mass moves. It doesn't matter that Prodego worded it wrong on my talk page (when he close the unblock thread on WP:AN he wrote "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here"; his rephrasing on my talk page was ambiguous, but certainly nobody suggested that uncontroversial moves were going to be a problem). Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Prodego: I hate to keep pinging you, but if you could help me out here with a clarification of your unblock condition, that might help. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• (To those reading this, I sincerely apologize for sounding like a broken record, but Dicklyon continues to misinterpret many facets of this situation.) Again, Prodego did not unblock you, the commmunity unblocked you, and Prodego was the instruments of the community's will. So while Prodego can certain give their opinion on the matter, it is not controlling - what is controlling is whether the community thinks you violated your unblock conditions to avoid any "large scale actions, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves," which you, of course, did not avoid at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Dicklyon: - as Beyond My Ken says, the 2015 block was a community block, and the unblock was enacting a community consensus. I'd reaffirm that I don't think unblock conditions from 2015 are relevant at this point, and that it would be improper for an admin to block based on them. Forming a community consensus that a block is needed again is the appropriate way forward if one believes it is needed. I haven't reviewed all the material here sufficiently to participate in the discussion of those details. Prodego ^talk 00:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose B A—That's ridiculous. And just a minor issue: we all have a lot to thank Dicklyon for in his tireless efforts to improve consistency and logic in many areas of en.WP. Occasionally an action is ill-judged, so admins should use the skill they're supposed to have to convey this to him.

  As for B, is the editor prepared to show contrition and self-insight, and to give an undertaking to avoid such behaviour? Has s/he been asked such? If there's contrition, understanding, and an undertaking, I suggest the project would be better off without imposing draconian measures against her/him. Tony (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• If you meant to oppose the sanction against Dicklyon, you should have voted "Oppose A". Proposal B is at this pointa a non-inssue, as MarcusBritish has been indef blocked already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for correcting. But BMK, you could cool off your style here. It's over the top. AN/I is toxic at the moment. Tony (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Surely the two feuding users are primarily at fault, but now we see one of them harshly punished and another under thunderstorm, but this noticeboard with its abominable culture greatly contributed to escalation of the conflict. The third actor of this quarrel, who provoked both MarcusBritish and Dicklyon, has now good chances to escape unharmed. Burn AN/I. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a great slogan. Tony (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's generally not the case that the editor who proposed sanctions is sanctioned for doing so, if there are reasonable grounds for the sanction proposal, which numerous editors agreed there were. However, if some admin should decide that I transgressed, I'm willing to take whatever punishment sanction they propose to deal out, although I can't see at the moment what the grounds for that would be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• This is not about elimination of one Beyond_My_Ken from Wikipedia. Indeed this resonator cavity for all Wikipedian noise signals should be destroyed; Beyond_My_Ken may go to do any helpful thing instead of feeding crapfests. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well, if it's anything to you, I can assure you that an insignificantly small percentage of my 240,000-some edits have been related to this discussion, while about 70% of those edits have been to improve articles. Whether or not this discussion is, as you call it, a "crapfest" is somewhat a matter of opinion, don't you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A and oppose topic ban per Amakuru. Most of Dicklyon's page moves have been entirely uncontroversial and gnomish, and I haven't seen evidence that he move-warred when challenged. His ban was lifted quite some time ago. I see the proposal as a typical ANI "plague on both your houses" over-reaction. No such user (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks, No such, for your kind words. Isn't it funny how BMK brags about his quantity work ("my 240,000-some edits") while trying to punish me for mine? This seems like more of the "Wiki-Douchebaggery" that he is known for in off-wiki comments. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose A and oppose t-ban - why on earth should we impose ill-will on one of our most proficient editors? It only harms the project. In the event no one has noticed, we're running out of admins and editors as a result. Surely there are other things editors can be doing to improve and expand the project. I'm on a coffee break so I'll use this op to shout-out that we need help over at NPP and AfC. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A and oppose topic ban. The mass moves with which I assisted had consensus carefully obtained in advance through formal channels such as RfC and BRFA. I see no evidence that other mass moves were controversial. We shouldn't punish an editor for making changes approved by the community, even if a minority opposed them. Certes (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose A, oppose TBAN: The proposal seems uncharacteristically harsh to me. I don't usually comment but I've been following the discussions including this one; and this one in particular stood out to me as one with the potential to rid ourselves of an editor who's a net positive by a great margin, for nothing serious. Whatever warnings they deserve, to foster an understanding that making mass moves isn't entirely their divine right on Wikipedia, I think they've gotten already, and I can see that they are seriously concerned here, from how thoroughly they're making sure people who oppose this proposal cast a clear !vote in exactly this section. The only concern I have is, they seem to be very sure of themself (probably somewhat warranted/understandable from what I've just learned of them). I hope that, if this proposal fails (which I sincerely hope it does), they don't take it as an affirmation that they've earned community endorsement to do what they please regarding what they personally believe is best for Wikipedia. They seem quite civil and very competent but they should probably step back occasionally (more than they seem to be doing currently) and try and see things from other people's perspectives. No one can fault anyone for being mostly right but such a person should particularly take care to make sure that they don't end up their own worst enemy in rare occasions that they're not. This I find as the most likely reason for concerns raised here by supporters, including IDHT. (I am not very experienced but am an eager learner, if any of my words/phrasings are inappropriate, feel free to strike them quickly, and explain it to me kindly. Thanks!) Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 19:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support B. I watched the unblock with concern but held out hope that MarcusBritish would not return to his old, vile ways. Alas. Lagrange613 12:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support A (I doubt this will be any surprise) Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised – that you took so long! Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

2950 more moves I did

Besides the 7000 article moves in my move log since the end of 2015, I also arranged to have 1650 moves done by bot (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 14) and then 1300 more Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 15, with the help and advice of @Certes. If I'm to be punished for the quantity of my non-controversial work on article titles, please count those, too, and add some that were moved on my behalf by WP:RMTR and WP:RM discussions, for an even 10,000 article moves. That should be enough to get anybody blocked forever. Dicklyon (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

These 2950 pages were moved not by Dicklyon but by bot as the result of consensus which both Dicklyon and I supported. I assisted by preparing lists of pages to consider moving, by making minor edits to reflect new titles after the moves, and by creating missing redirects. Jr/Sr moves found consensus at a significant discussion and follow MOS:JR. Station moves were approved by RfC, follow naming conventions and match guidelines for countries which have them such as UK and US. Both sets of moves passed BRFA. I consider that the operations were successful and I don't see them as a reason to block anyone. Certes (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

So you guys were using bots to move the Jr. page names, no wonder some of the fictional names got caught up in that. It's good there are some of us participant witnesses around when something like this indef ban is going down. I've explained a couple of times above how some of the core language being used by the nominator regarding the wrongness of the Jr. moves, the World Heritage Sites moves, and other moves, is incorrect. Yet as far as I know none of it has been stricken, and it probably should be. Thanks for "therewitness" testimony backing up some of Dicklyon's correct claims. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, no those lists were carefully vetted and pruned; no fictional character articles were included. Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Randy, going through and striking falsehoods in this mess would be too huge a job to ask anyone to take on. And BMK made it clear that I can't touch his comments. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Preparation for Jr/Sr moves included compiling this list of fictional names. One of those titles later had its comma removed by another editor following a RM; the rest still have their commas. Certes (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Bot knows best, thanks. No, I don't mean someone else should strike the comments, but that the nominator might consider striking them. They simply aren't accurate. As for the rest, the only complaints against Dicklyon I'm unfamiliar with are the lighthouse moves (done under dead of night and rough seas I reckon) which he seems to adequately explain above. Looking at it, there really isn't much left in the complaint except a probable good faith misunderstanding about the terms of the 2015 unblock, which seem to have been adequately explained as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Certes, you might consider adding your "Oppose A" in the section above so it doesn't get lost. Thanks for showing up. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

More "large scale, potentially controversial actions" of mine since 2015

If I'm prohibited from "large scale, potentially controversial actions", then these 800 or so, including 4 since this discussion started, should be enough to get me blocked. Quite a few were not just "potentially controversial", but might be seen as "actually controversial" since they got reverted from articles. So block me for that if it makes sense. Dicklyon (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hold on here

I just noticed that Marcus was indeffed based on a proposal here, and that it's been proposed that I be indeffed, too, in this discussion that I thought we were done with. Was nobody thinking I might want to be notified, so I could inquire about the "charges" and defend myself? BMK's evidence that my moves were controverial is that some of them were reverted 8 months later by a guy who over-capitalized a whole bunch of articles, including many that were always lowercase, and that included some of the ones I had moved in Oct/Nov 2018 – and thus I am retroactively so disruptive that I have to be blocked?

And why did BMK (not even an admin, iiuc) jump in with such a draconian proposal when things had already settled down between me and Marcus?

I have particular disdain for all those who supported a block before anybody has bothered to say specifically which moves or groups of moves might be considered controversial, and why. There's a lot of hearsay there, but no actually evidence that I can even discuss. Come on people, be sensible please. If someone thinks that some of my moves were controversial, they need to say which ones, so we can look at them, before jumping to these conclusions and a disproportionate reaction. I repeatedly ask Marcus and the Wikiproject Military History to tell me if any of my moves looked wrong or controversial, or to just revert them if so. Did anyone do so? Pretty much not. Similarly in other projects; discussion has generally preceded "mass" moves, so that we wouldn't get into situations where there was any significant disagreement. If you think Marcus's disagreement was "significant", please point out where he said one sensible thing that would make you think that.

Until people point out what I did wrong, with a couple of links, instead of just reading wrong inferences into the discussion above, there is no reason to be treating me as a disruptive editor. If you think I am, show us.

All !votes before now should be considered null and void. Let's see what the case is first, if anyone will present one, and let me respond, then we can talk about whether a sanction is in order. Dicklyon (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that only admins can make proposals on AN/I? That is not the case. Also, there was no requirement to notify you about a discussion which was ongoing, which you had participated in, and which had not been closed. If you failed to continue to track it, there's nobody to blame for that except yourself.

What you did wrong was to violate the terms of your unblock condition, which was to "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." Above you wrote that you made 75 "campaign" moves, "fewer than 100" lighthouse moves, 900 moves to rivers and creeks, and 1000 jr and sr moves; maybe I missed some as well. Some of those moves may well be non-controversial, but others were reverted in full, which means that you judged wrongly, and that they were controversial. In any case, my interpretation is that you have not "avoided large scale, potentially controversial actions, such as page moves", but have continued doing them as if you had never been indef blocked in the first place. Others may interpret your actions differently, or may see the best solution to be a topic ban rather than a re-imposition of your indef block, and that's fine, but you can hardly be surprised that after being indef blocked for making mass moves, and then being unblocked with the proviso that you avoid mass moves, that there should be the suggestion that you be sanctioned for basically ignoring your unblock conditions. I suggest that you return your indignation to your pocket and start explaining why you shouldn't be re-indeffed or topic banned.

Your suggestion that the !votes already cast be "null and void" is ridiculous on its face, assuming as it does that the !voters are unable to read the clear words in the discussion above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your interpretation is of no interest to me; I am fully aware of what I wrote above and how you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting what happened. I'm wondering whether someone has an actual case, or will say which moves they think I made were controversial, and why. I realize you reverted a move of mine once, and reverted a few of my edits without comment, but I don't know what you have against me. Did I wrong you at some point? Dicklyon (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Sorry, no. It's pretty clear you should stop with the page moves. Whether that happens as the result of voluntary action on your part, a TBAN or an indefinite block remains to be seen. Someone has said you have been moving pages since the start of this. That suggest the need for an immediate indefinite block to stop the disruption. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm stopping all moves now that I know there's a proposal to sanction me; a notification would have been nice. That "somebody" is who I already pinged below. And if you think there is "disruption" anywhere here, please give at least one diff, don't just go by "somebody said". Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Calidum: Since you voted to sanction me after I started this section asking for evidence, I'll respond to your remarks. You wrote "Dick has gotten more aggressive with his page moves since this discussion started." I don't know what you mean by "aggressive" here, since each of my moves is made with care and precision, where there is no reason to suspect controversy, in an aim to improve the encyclopedia. So could you point out what recent moves you think were in some way wrong or controversial, and why (and keep the conclusion of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history#Proper nouns in MilHist articles at MOS in mind if you're buying Marcus's argument that his complaints involved anyone but him in that project). That would give us something to look at and discuss, as opposed to all this nonspecific stuff that was provoked by Marcus. Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So, you're just going to ignore the 8 other editors (9 with Calidum) who !voted to re-impose the indef block (vs. the 3 who opposed it and the 5 who were neutral), and pretend that those !votes never happened because they occurred while you were ignoring this discussion? I doubt very much that the closer is going to take the same position. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes, since they are just reacting to your misrepresentation of things. I'd be happy if any of them would say why they think I have been disruptive or made controversial moves, or whatever. I can ping them if you think that would help. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So you think that this:

(A) The indefinite block of Dicklyon is re-imposed for multiple incidents of violating his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles. Dicklyon admits, in the discussion above, to making mass moves which have since been reverted, meaning that they were controversial.

is a "misrepresentation of things"? You yourself outlined in the discussion above the mass moves you had made, and you yourself said that some of them had been reverted entirely. What, then, did I "misrepresent"?

A number of editors, including admins, have said -- before I floated the proposal! -- that your actions were violations of your unblock conditions. Are you going to ignore them too? You were taking part in the discussion at that point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

You quoted my words in support of your unsupported inference. You're saying that if someone comes along and reverts some of my moves, then those must have been controversial when I made them. You ignored the context that this was a guy doing a large batch of moves contrary to guidelines – a much larger batch than mine, many months later, with much more reason to be regarded as controversial; and I stayed out of it after that. Look at cases instead of applying poor broad-brush logic, and see if you can say which ones were controversial and why, and then we'll have something to discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably among my 7000 moves since being unblocked there are a few that are controverial; but controversial mass moves? I don't think so. I've done my honest best to engage in discussions to remove controversy before doing anything you might call "mass". If I messed up a few times, show me and we can talk. Stop paying attention to the complaints of Marcus who was an outlier in the Military History project and objected after we had the 4 or 5 RM discussions that made such moves uncontroversial. Nobody in the project supported him (a few remarked "looks better capped" and "it's a proper name" and stuff like that without reference to guidelines or sources, in some of those discussions, but when asked to point out which ones I got wrong, addressed to the project on their talk page, no answer). None were reverted; none were overturned in discussion; most of the moves were after these discussions, when no real controversy remained; just Marcus. So WTF are you accusing me of (pardon my French)? Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

And review what those "previous editors" said. Nyttend said "It sure looks to me as if Dicklyon is engaging in a mass pagemove attempt" and "he's recently engaged in large scale, controversial actions regarding pagemoves". Well it "sure looks to me" like Nyttend is just repeating what Marcus claimed; he certainly didn't represent any evidence or reason to believe that large number of my moves were controversial. Where is he getting this stuff? Someguy1221 complained about the lighthouse moves (whih were reverted any months later as we reviewed), and the World Heritage sites, which were following the consensus of a big RM discussion when I did them. The fact that that consensus later changed doesn't mean my moves were controversial when I did them. Did any other editor make either specific or vague accusations? Please show me if so. Dicklyon (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So, just to recap, you're going to ignore all editors who !voted to re-impose your indef block because you made multiple violations of your unblock conditions, simply because they !voted before you were aware of the sanctions discussion, and it's your opinion that @Nyttend: is incapable of making his own evaluation of your actions and is merely mindlessly repeating what MarcusBritish said. You're sticking to your story that you did nothing wrong, that you never violated your unblock conditions, and that the editors who have suggested that you be sanctioned -- either with a re-imposition of the indef block or a topic ban (actually, the two editors who suggested that in the "Proposal" discussion changed their minds and are now in favor of an indef) -- are generally incompetent to independently evaluate your history because they were misled by my "misrepresentation" of the things you actually said in the above discussion. And you're completely closing your eyss to the argument that you made changes to MOS in order that your page moves would be MOS-compliant, and then edit-warred to keep those changes in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, yes, you're right, they may not be watching, so now I've pinged them all to see if I can learn what I'm accused of, since you won't say. Please give them time to respond, if you would. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So you're edit-warring at [6], several reverts in favor of your own position. This should be the last straw: Dicklyon pretends to be so fervently committed to MOS that he'll edit-war on articles to maintain it, yet in reality deceives others by making it look like his preferred ideas are consensus. You broke the community's trust with socking, you got back to editing with a promise to avoid a certain type of contentious edits, you've broken that promise, and now you've broken the community's trust here. Lock the door and throw away the key: this is a project for collaboration, and someone who repeatedly ignores community standards in a prominent fashion mustn't be permitted to continue editing. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. My last edit there was over 3 weeks ago, when I reverted one revert with a comment that seemed to satisfy the guy I reverted. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing and Lugnuts: Please help me understand what I'm being accused on here. Lugnuts, you said "I've not paid too much attention" to my edits, and then later thanks GoldenRing for the added detail and voted to indef block me. GoldenRing, you came closer than anyone to saying what you think I did wrong, when you wrote "discussion above documents at least three examples of Dicklyon performing mass page moves (ranging from scores of pages to over a thousand) on the basis of MOS guidelines that were later reverted." If you review that discussion, I'm sure you'll see that you were mistaken. The only batches (as far as I know) that were reverted were the 75 lighthouses (in Oct/Nov 2018) and 101 World Heritage sites (in Oct 2018). Was there something else? Did you look into those batches to try to understand whether or how they could have been considered to be "controversial" when I did them? Is this what you want to indef block me for, moves I did last year that amount to less than 3% of the moves I've made since being unblocked, and less than 1% of my editing contributions? Am I retroactively so disruptive that I'm not fit to contribute? Please clarify the basis of your vote to block me (both of you); or change your vote. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD and PhilKnight: Please help me understand the basis for your vote to block me. MarnetteD, you mention "violation of unblock conditions", but give no clue what that was inferred from; what is it that you think I did? Is there more than hearsay operating here, or was there some evidence that you looked at? And PhilKnight, you only say "per MarnetteD"; what's that about? Dicklyon (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@WaltCip: I don't see that you made any comments about me, yet you supported an indef block. As you can imagine, that might be something that I would care about, so can you do me the favor of saying what you think I did that makes me so disruptive that I need to be indef blocked? Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Javert2113: You say "Both persons here have been disruptive: one to the integrity of the project..." Can you say what you think I did that was disruptive to the integrity of the project? And how my opinion that your vote should be treated as null and vote rises to the level of offense that needs an indef block? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: What are you thinking? You didn't say much about me other than support an indef block. And what the heck is this about? You guys have a little blood-thirsty shark pack going at AN/I? Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We serve tasty chum and punch at the meetings. Beyond My Ken ("not even an admin, iiuc") (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, don't you think that "You guys have a little blood-thirsty shark pack going at AN/I?" is a little, you know, WP:NPA-violatingish? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A little. Dicklyon (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Dicklyon: I don't know what's difficult to understand here. You were unblocked on the condition that you "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." You made mass page moves. You don't seem to see the problem with that. You should be reblocked.
  You were not unblocked on the condition that the mass page moves you made were uncontroversial; you were unblocked on the condition that you don't make mass page moves and other potentially controversial actions. GoldenRing (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dicklyon: It is about your dismissal of the community's concerns about your actions. It is about your nonsense of trying to say the !votes for sanctions somehow should not count. It's for your utter unwillingness to accept the need to remedy the disruption your editing has caused. Shark pack my hind foot. You've been counseled about your behavior before and have continued this episode (escapade?) while the matter was at ANI. You have left the community with no other recourse but to block you until you can convince the community that the disruption is at an end. I had thought the TBAN would be a suitable and sufficient remedy; your response convinced me otherwise.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Where have I dismissed community concerns, and how does that become a blockable offense? And why were people voting on non-specific charges against me, without notifying me or letting me response and ask for clarification? Obviously those votes should be dismissed while concerns are clarified. As for the "potentially" thing, I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up that silliness. Surely nobody can abide by a restriction of avoiding "potentially " controversial actions. You're being absurd. And the admin who wrote that already said a that I had amply fulfilled his condition with multiple years of good work. Now you're complaining about the "quantity" of my work, but won't point out any specific problems. Can you not see the aburdity here? Dicklyon (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • You were banned from doing something. You did that thing repeatedly. You dismiss that as "silliness". You wonder where you've dismissed the community's concerns. You wonder why people would rather indef you than have to put up with this. GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Dicklyon, the condition was "avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves." This is pretty clear. "Mass page moves" is provided as an example of the sort of "large scale, potentially controversial actions" you were to avoid. In other words, ALL mass page moves are by definition in the category of actions you were required to avoid as a condition of the unblock. You seem to be reading this condition as "avoid large scale, potentially controversial...mass page moves," but that's certainly not how it was written. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Dicklyon: To clarify, at the time, I was supporting an indef of MarcusBritish. I've no opinion on indeffing you.--WaltCip (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• @WaltCip: Thanks, that's what I suspected. If you'd be kind enough to clarify above where you said "Support per above", that be nice. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've already made that clarification, with a link to WaltCip's comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Dicklyon: Why did you WP:CANVASS Amakuru here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I asked Amakuru to comment because I was accused here of edit warring with him, and wanted his reaction. Is that a problem? Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• So, you also WP:CANVASSed your talk page stalkers here. You just shamelessly violate Wikipedia policies left and right, don't you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a problem. You did not simply asked him to comment on the edit warring, you wrote:

  Amakuru, I am being retrospectively accused of edit warring with you when I reverted your revert here, on July 13, and I'm also being accused of unspecified large-scale controversial moves, in an attempt to indef block me. I don't understand why, but a bunch of editors have piled on, while I can't get them to tell me which large-scale moves were controversial. Your perspective might be useful since they accuse me of edit warring with you. Top section in WP:AN/I. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC) (emphasis added)

  directing him to the "attempt to indef block me." That's an outright blatant violation of WP:Canvassing, which you should know.
  Furthermore, in regard to your protestation that no one will tell you which of your large scale moves are the problem, they are all a problem. Your unblock conditions read:

  Per consensus at ANI I have unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves. Prodego talk 04:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC) [7]

  That's clear and explicit. You were not told to stay away from "controversial" mass moves, you were told to stay away from all mass moves, because they are "potentially controversial". No one has to prove that your moves were controversial, only that you made mass moves, and you yourself have admitted that you have done that.
  Please stop being disingenuous. People in the section above have said that you are a "net positive" to the project. Perahps instead of pretending you don;t know what you're being accused of, you should work toward convincing enough editors that you really are good for the project, so that the community simply topic ban you from page moves instead of re-instating the indef block the unblock conditions of which you have undoubtedly violated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Dicklyon: If you blatantly CANVASSed one editor in public on their talk page, how do we know that you didn;'t canvass anyone else via e-mail? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• I that some kind of riddle? I don't get it. Dicklyon (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• The only riddle here is why you are denying doing what you admitted to doing in the discussion in the first section: making mass page moves, something that you were forbidden to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Prodego: I don't think I was ever forbidden from doing non-controversial moves. And Prodego already said of his unblock conditions that he thinks "User:Dicklyon met any restrictions from my 2015 unblock and that they are no longer relevant." BMK, I will no longer reply to you, as most things I can think of to say to you at this point would not be viewed as civil. Dicklyon (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• The unblocking admin's opinion is, of course, of interest, but it is not dispositive, since @Prodego: was not undoing his own personal block of you, they were enforcing this community decision. It was the community which decided to grant you the standard offer you requested, and it is up to the community to decide if you have violated your unblock conditions or not, it is not up to Prodego to do so, although they can certainly offer their personal opinion on the matter, which would be welcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Prodego has again clarified above: "I'd reaffirm that I don't think unblock conditions from 2015 are relevant at this point, and that it would be improper for an admin to block based on them." Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223, Martinevans123, BubbaJoe123456, Calton, HandThatFeeds, and WaltCip: Since you all had read part of the discussion and expressed an opinion on blocking Marcus, but had not (yet) expressed an opinion on BMK's proposal to block me, and since I've now actually heard about the proposal and responded, I thought it would make sense to ask you to take another look and see if you can form an opinion with respect to me. Obviously, I'm seeking an "Oppose A" in the #Proposal section above, but will take whatever comes. Please read this section #Hold on here and check out the Oppose votes at the bottom of the #Proposal section to get the side of the story that was previously missing. Also note that still nobody has been able to say which moves of mine they found to be controversial or wrong, or why; or to point out any other disruptive behavior. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223, BubbaJoe123456, Calton, HandThatFeeds, and WaltCip: Dicklyon is incorrect. Multiple editors (including BubbaJoe123456, who even pinged him) have told him that all of his mass page moves are violations of his unlock condition, which was that "you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves" [8]. Under those conditions, mass page moves do not have to be "controversial" to be a violation, instead, he was to avoid all mass page moves because they are "potentially controversial". Dicklyon may have been laboring under a misapprehension these past 4 years since he was unblocked, but the language of the unblock conditions is clear and explicit and not really subject to easy misinterpretation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow. And I thought it was only the Boy Scouts who were unnaturally fond of canvas. Count me out on this one, sorry. Neutral is the best you're gonna get from me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Since I was pinged I will note that GoldenRing says it all. Dicklyon was banned from making page moves - Dicklyon repeatedly made page moves. Thus my support for proposal A - which has only grown with all the wikilawyering going on. Please do not ping me to this thread again. I have ANI on my watchlistMarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Absurd! I was not banned from making page moves. If I had been, someone would have said so before I got 4 years and 7000 moves down the road. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The proposal was based on the accusation of "violating his unblock condition, which was not to make controversial mass moves of articles". He has now changed it to "many moves, controversial or not" (that is complaining about the quantity of my work instead of the quality), and now you've changed it to "any moves". Of course, I have no defense against these absurdities. Still, no controversial mass moves have been identified – correct me if I'm wrong, anybody. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD neglected to say "mass page moves" or "large scale page moves", that was the only thing wrong with their statement. And, again, your unblock conditions were, and continue to be to that "you avoid large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves" [9]. You made large scale page moves, therefore you have violated your unblock conditions. I can't put it any plainer than that. How long are you going to keep up this absurd WP:IDHT charade? This is Wikilawyering for the completely credulous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Good God almighty. I don't even want to sift through this. Just like Martinevans123, I'm going to make like a Switzerland and be firmly neutral. I don't want to be involved in this. But the more I'm pinged, the more favorable I may become to an IBAN.--WaltCip (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

IBAN for whom? MarcusBritish is indeffed; the crapfest is currently fed by certain other actors. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I remain, as I was previously, neutral regarding the proposed t-ban, though I feel an indef would be unwarranted per at this juncture. However attempts to WP:CANVAS are not likely to make me more favorably inclined toward you. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That kind of "neutrality" cowardice puts me in mind of First they came .... I realize it's asking a lot of people to read this shitfest full of mostly MarcusBritish's diatribe and falsehoods, and BMK's history of such prosecutions, and speak up for me. But how else can we start to push back on BMK's aggressive drama-mongering at AN/I? And why does he want me indeffed? As punishment for a large body of work is all I can figure. Dicklyon (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Support t-ban on Dicklyon per their previous comment. I wouldn't want to be showing cowardice. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I have changed my !vote to Support an indef until Dicklyon states understanding of why this entire discussion happened in the first place. Mass page moves are inherently controversial, thus why they were mentioned in his unblock restrictions. I'm not sure if he just somehow did not put two and two together there or what, but it's definitely a violation of his unblock conditions. Maybe it needs to be spelled out in a formal TBAN going forward, I'll leave that up to admins. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Dicklyon: - how can we ensure that you not repeat mass page moves? starship.paint (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  Can you give me an example of what sort of mass moves you want to avoid, and why? So far nobody has said which of my mass moves might have been controversial or disruptive. I know it's easy to miss that point when reading this mess. Thanks for looking into it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: - [10] unblocked your account, under the provision that you avoid ... mass page moves. - seems like the unblock provision is “no mass page moves at all”. Seems like you think you still can do non-controversial mass page moves, and seems like many other users disagree. Perhaps other editors believe that all mass moves are inherently controversial. I think a clear solution is to simply have you stop performing mass moves altogether. starship.paint (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

  I've pinged @Prodego: to come back again and clarify again re those terms, but he hasn't been on WP yet this month, so we'll have to wait. See his comments above. I have no intention of avoiding non-conrtroverisal non-disruptive work as a result of this sham. Show me where I have done wrong and we can talk about it. So far, none of my accusers will point out what I did wrong in the last four years among my huge quantity of contributions to WP. Please don't jump on their bandwagon. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Prodego has already said they consider the conditions of the unblock were abided to and aren't relevant anymore, and that they think all users should refrain from large scale controversial actions (without specifying whether Dicklyon's actions qualify as that). I think that's clear enough. Usedtobecool ^✉ ✨ 20:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Concur, and I'd point out that my opinion holds no more weight than anyone else's. It is clear that 'reinstating' a several year old block is not a reasonable action to take, but a new block is the type of action which should be discussed here on ANI. Prodego ^talk 00:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You also noted above that "I don't think unblock conditions from 2015 are relevant at this point". And there is nothing else left; the only argument BMK has left was that I was bound to not make any mass moves, even if uncontroversial. How anyone could be criticized for uncontroversial work is still a mystery to me, but that's all he has. Dicklyon (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is the opinion of one editor, Prodego, an admin, which should carry exactly as much weight as the opinion of everyone else who commented here, as his role was solely to close the AN/I discussion and enact the community's decision to unblock Dicklyon. I respect their opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that Dicklyon's unblock conditions -- which were never lifted, and therefore, despite Prodegos opinion, are still in effect -- call for Dicklyon to avoid mass page moves, on the grounds that they are "potentially controversial", not "mass page moves that are controversial" -- that language does not appear. Dicklyon's apparently deliberate misreading of their unblock conditions -- which have been explained to him numerous times, by numerous editors -- is an example of gross WP:IDHT behavior and the Big Lie, by which incessantly repeating a falsehood gives it greater credibility.

Further, I would request that the closer of this discussion, when determining consensus, note that arguments made for re-instating the indef block on Dicklyon are based on normal accepted Wikipedia processes, while the majority of the "oppose" !votes are based on opinions of Dicklyon's value to the project, which is not relevant at this time. They would be relevant were Dicklyon be re-indeffed or sanctioned with a topic ban, as an argument that the project would be better off with him free to edit, but bringing them up now is putting the cart before the horse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, there were no special conditions since 2016 and Dicklyon is not under restrictions currently. Did he disrupt Wikipedia with page moves? It may warrant a block, but as a measure of prevention whereas the AN/I sharks apparently are more interested in punishment. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Dicklyon's uunblock conditions from 2015 were never rescinded, and therefore are still in effect today. If Dicklyon want them to be lifted, they would need to make a request to the community to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Ah, could I use this case as an example of how ANI has become destructive to community health and productivity? Tony (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Likely. Prodego ^talk 00:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose A - unblock conditions were slightly vague and it is now up to the community to decide if all mass moves are inherently controversial such that Dicklyon cannot make them. Even if the answer is yes, there should not be any punishment based on that. He should not be indefinitely blocked for this vagueness. starship.paint (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• If the unblock conditions were at all vague then, they should not be now. The number of mass page moves Dicklyon should perform is zero. Jonathunder (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Then let's impose that from this moment on, and let Dicklyon off for the past 'violation'. starship.paint (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Why would you impose a mass move ban, in this situation where nobody has any specific allegations of my past ones being wrong or disruptive or even controversial? I keep asking for people to show me a specific block of moves that was in some way problematic, but have they responded? Do people still think the ones that were reverted were controversial when I did them? And what is mass anyway? When I was doing the 900 rivers, I was a machine, doing 30 or more per day. But usually I'm more like 15 per week. Does that count as "mass"? Who is going to do things like the river disambiguation fixes if I don't (approved unanimously at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 139#RfC about river disambiguation conventions)? Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (MJL)

Comment. Has anyone indicated a problem with Dicklyon's moves besides that it was potentially against their unblock conditions? I really haven't actively reviewed their record, but for the few places I have seen them, I rather liked their contributions. I'd honestly hate to lose their input due to a misunderstanding on how their sanctions would be applied. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This thread has become a mess and is hard to follow, but the root issue I'm aware of is that Dicklyon has performed numerous large-scale page moves since his unblock, and while most of these were left the way he moved them, many (most?) were not discussed in advance, and some were mass-reverted. Dicklyon has also made undiscussed changes to MOS during debates over page moves, and then cites MOS in the debate. Finally, Dicklyon has chastised others for making undiscussed page moves, but his are okay due to his superior understanding of MOS or something. Anyway, so far as I can tell that's the root of it; then there is all the other alleged behavioral issues that sprang forth from that, such as allegations of IDHT behavior and etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

So why not just T-BAN Dicklyon from directly editing MOS-related pages, moving articles without discussion, and performing more than 5 moves a day, then call it a day? You're right that this thread is hard to follow, but the little bit I skimmed seemed to just indicate the user was frustrated that none of the move restrictions were clearly spelled out in advance (then getting told not having known about these restrictions is part of their problem). Indef seems pretty severe giving the extenuating circumstances of why this user's contributions have been assessed in the first place (ie. reporting a user who just got indef community banned for making egregious personal insults to an administrator). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Re: this, yeah you can say that again lol. Now that Dicklyon has agreed to step back a little, mind sharing your thoughts further? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Oh, sure. Certainly the underlying actions that triggered this dispute would be prevented by Dicklyon voluntarily accepting a ban on undiscussed and controversial page moves as well as any mass-moves (though I'd have no problem with him proposing them). I'm actually not sure there will be a consensus for any involuntary topic ban, though I suspect we'll be here again if nothing changes. I think the real driving force is not so much the page moves as it how Dicklyon and Marcus approached the dispute. Marcus thought that Dicklyon was running roughshod over Milhist, and then Marcus made it personal. Dicklyon feels a need to defend himself, and he does that by trying to refute every single point that's raised in discussion, from anyone, repeatedly and at length. I think that this litigiousness has really gotten under a lot of skins. I would not propose any editing restriction to try and "solve" Dicklyon's behavior, but I do think he needs to work on it, even if it's just learning to step away when his blood pressure starts rising. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

So, for Dicklyon, I'll just summarize my intended response to you as, it was not my intention to accuse you of anything, though I see now my response can look like that. I was just trying to let MJL know what you were being accused of, in general. I suspect a lot of people see a mess like this and wonder if it's worth reading. I was hoping to give a short explanation so people could decide whether this is the type of accusation they want to look into at all. As for your behavior, basically, you repeat yourself way more than you need to, and dominating a thread looks a lot like the digital equivalent of shouting over people in real life. Even if you're right, you are likely to irritate people. The person who closes a discussion, whether it's to move a page or topic ban a user, is going to read your statements. You'll either convince that person or you won't. You don't need to make the same points over and over. And I almost forgot, if you move a page as a result of a discussion, you should link to it in the summary. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hatted on advice from MJL, since Someguy1221 was just answering their questions, not accusing me
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wait, why not say which ones were controversial before jumping on generalities like "many (most?) were not discussed in advance, and some were mass-reverted"? The few that were "mass reverted" have been addressed; nobody has given a reason to think they would have been controversial when I did them. As for "many (most?) were not discussed in advance", that's the first I've heard of that allegation. @Someguy1221: Did I miss something? All the big mass moves, and the great majority of the total, were very seriously discussed and thoroughly resolved in advance and resulted in no pushback. Please don't continue in this trend of ambiguous general accusations based on hearsay. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC) And what do you mean by "all the other alleged behavioral issues that sprang forth from that, such as allegations of IDHT behavior and etc." That's just me being frustrated, trying to find out what I'm accused of. If you're accusing me of some disruption, or actual behavior problem, please say so. As for allegations of "I Don't Hear That", what? Tell me what you think said allegation is about, or who alleges and why. Don't just repeat the attacks on me. I need to know what I'm accused of if I'm to defend myself. BMK has changed his charges to "mass moves" since he gave up on "controversial". Can you imagine why I might be a little testy? Throw me a friggin' bone, people. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC) @Dicklyon: You make it harder and harder to defend your actions when you begin posts with And WTF do you mean. If you know you are frustrated take a break and come back with a cooler head. Striking all your latest comments right now would be a good show of maturity in my opinion. I hope I am being clear here. You are shooting yourself in the foot for no good reason and need to stop this instant. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Yes, of course; I have replaced "WTF" by "what". I had to stop responding to BMK for a similar reason. When my blood gets to boiling, some of the heat leaks out though my fingers. Thanks for understanding. But I don't want to strike all my comments because I want to continue to challenge my accusers to put up some details about what they're complaining about. I'm mostly staying calm enough. If no answers are forthcoming, what do I do? Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Well... considering that I was in the middle of a discussion with this "accuser" it would've been nice to have it finished and not get sidetracked with this. I was in the middle of almost defending you in a simple conversation, but you rushed in here guns ablazing. The right thing for you to do is apologize to Someguy1221 for this response using {{hat}} since he wasn't accusing you rather answering my questions. You shouldn't be here to defend yourself anymore than absolutely necessary (and even then, user talk pages work WONDERS if used correctly). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC) I actually ec'd with Dicklyon 4 times trying to answer his questions. Each time I saw he posted even more, and tried to answer that as well, only to find more again. I gave up. This is part of why the page is a mess. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Oops, sorry, and I didn't even notice this when I hatted the section. I suppose I don't really need a response, as I've been advised to drop trying to defend myself. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC) And if you think I did something wrong in trying to patch the inconsistent MOS MilHist bit, that's really pretty orthogonal to the mass moves question. I discovered a discrepancy that encouraged capitalization in a way inconsistent with the main MOS page, and worked on a fix for it; the fix we ended up with, via several other editors contributing, was not exactly mine, but basically resolved the problem in the way I suggested. Did anyone indicate that we got that wrong? Did I ever cite that provision in a move discussion? I don't think so; if I did, or if I had, it would have been to say that it was wrong before and I fixed it. If you're suggesting that I changed the guidance and then cited it, please show. I can't defend against vague hearsay. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC) As for "chastised others for making undiscussed page moves", I don't know why you use the verb "chastised", but yes, I have now and then objected to undiscussed page moves, when they seemed wrong, and had them reverted (e.g. the one you linked where I asked for a move revert based on the longstanding titles having changed contrary to the MOS by Sam Sailor without discussion; they got fixed and he capped them again months later and I stayed away after that as I didn't want to fight about it and haven't had time to go back and run the multi-RMs needed to fix them again). I have also asked, e.g. at the MilHist project, for people to revert any undiscussed moves that I have made that they think are wrong. This is normal WP:BRD kind of process. Discussion is not required where there's no controversy, but when a move is objected to it becomes controversial and needs to be reverted or discussed or both. Only after such discussions resolve the controversy can the issue be taken as settled. When an issue is thoroughly settled by enough discussions, only then can mass moves to implement the clear consensus be considered. I know all that. If I've messed up, please point it out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Right, so Dicklyon has repeatedly questioned which of his moves were controversial and/or disruptive. Could someone provide the evidence? Do editors here consider all mass moves as controversial? He's also questioned what a mass move is. starship.paint (talk) 06:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, this started over a request to move "_____ Campaign" to "_____ campaign". I looked back through Dicklyon's moves over the last year or two, it's hard because he has many thousands of them. The mass moves that have been reverted were his moves of almost two hundred articles on lighthouses and about a hundred articles on world heritage sites. Dicklyon responded above somewhere to my questions about those, so I think you can just ctrl-F. As someone unfamiliar with these moves, it is hard to research after the fact because Dicklyon did not link any discussion in his move summaries, for these or the mass moves that were not reverted. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for something specific. I provide relevant links to the chronology of that here.

• Yes, the "Campaign" moves were what got MarcusBritish all riled (attacking me over that was practically his only contribution to Wikipedia this year). These have been done one-by-one with careful research, starting from a discussion in the MilHist project that suggested there was some unexplainable inconsistency in caps style, May 30: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 151#Campaign article titles.
• The 6 RM discussions about that (all closed with consensus to lowercase campaign) are listed at the start of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 152#Campaign vs campaign, where an editor started off asking me, on 8 July, "Have we reached consensus about lower casing the word Campaign? Several articles have been moved again." Several; not mass. So we talked about the consensus to follow WP:NCCAPS and to proceed case-by-case consulting sources. There was a small move there to try to form a consensus for MilHist to have their own style fork, recommending capitalization where currrent policy and guidelines do not; only 5 members (of this huge active wikiproject) supported; Marcus was one of them. The proposal was actually made as a strawman by Peacemaker67, who opposed it. So as Marcus laments, the discussion fizzled, with no real support to buck current policy and guideilnes.
• I made two mistakes. Brady Campaign on June 24, which I had lowercased as not the name of a specific thing, is most often capped in sources, so that was correctly reverted (it's not related to the MilHist moves except that I came upon it in a search for intitle:Campaign). And Admirable Campaign on July 11 I immediately self-reverted when I realized that I had misinterpreted my source stats. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Moves continued carefully, case-by-case, a few per day. Nothing mass. One technical request was challenged and went to discussion, which is still open after more than 3 weeks mostly due to Marcus's noise: Talk:Waterloo Campaign#Requested move 18 July 2019. Please review that for the current state of thinking.
• When Marcus brought it up again on 29 July at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Proper nouns in MilHist articles at MOS, there was no support for his position in the project. That's where his attacks got so bad that I came here, and where on Aug. 4 in talk:WikiProject Military history&diff=909317156&oldid=909314761 this diff, I asked project members to review my recent moves and say if any were problematic (before BMK's attempt to get me blocked). Still no response to that. Dicklyon (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Actually, Marcus did revert one move, based on his incompetent attempt to find one where I was wrong, on July 29; see Talk:Gettysburg campaign#Reverting move. We discussed, and I fixed it back on August 4. Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Though the numbers come to nearly 100 over the last 2 months, these are not mass moves (my move log shows about 14 per week pretty consistently over 7 weeks, with the great majority after the 6 RM discussions). Marcus didn't like the results of the discussions that showed that there is a consensus to follow WP:NCCAPS even for MilHist articles. The MilHist project did not support him either in his wanting to change policy or in his approach to challenging the research on usage in sources using n-grams. Yes, there was grumbling at things changing, but no "mass" moves and relatively little controversy other than Marcus. I don't think any of these roughly 100 can be credibly contested, but as I pointed out in the project discussion, I'm always ready to be reverted and discuss. I also downcased a bunch of "Order of Battle" titles, without discussion; no pushback on that, as it's not controversial, though overcapitalization in MilHist articles is pretty much still the norm there. Dicklyon (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Someguy1221 and Dicklyon: Thank you both for this response. Someguy put it better than I ever could: editors will see a huge thread like this and won't know if it's worth looking into. I only generally comment on AN/I threads when I have an active report I'm waiting to get resolved, so I didn't know the backstory here.
That being said, Dicklyon, you should really provide links to the discussions in your moves. Separately, I hope you'll walk away from this thread with valuable feedback on how you approach these sorts of discussions.
I'd say more, but I'm on mobile waiting for the internet to come back on. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose A (or similar)Yes, it is a mess. For a good part, it stems from how the allegations have been presented. They should be supported by diffs or links otherwise they are unsubstantiated. It is reasonable to expect a proposal to present and summaraise the evidence to support it, particularly given how this proposal had evolved.

• Critically, is the inconsistency in wording between the unblock close and the notification of that close. This inconsistency was not transparently disclosed from the start. Those commenting here need to be given all of the facts so that they can make an informed comment. There are fundamental issues of fairness, which are compromised by not doing so.
• In either case, the wording of the close/notice is subjective. What is "controversial"? There is always someone that will disagree with the actions of another (either here or in the RW) and WP is about discussing differences to build a consensus. At WP:BOLD: Also, changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. From that, we might glean that "controversial" is likely linked to previous disputes. There is a requirement to "avoid". To do so would require prior knowledge that such actions are going to be controversial. And what defines a "mass move"? Is it by quantity or rate and are they intrinsically controversial? BMK, at this ANI archive thread observed: Any normal Wikipedia action will generally be considered to be run the risk of being considered disruptive if done en masse, unless there is a clear and widespread prior agreement that the mass action is acceptable. So, to the second part, the answer appears to be, no. Also, BMK has referred to "en masse", which would be a large number at a high rate.
• Given the ambiguity in the close/notification, we should look to the principle it is trying to express - a principle which centres on "controversial". Dicklyon has offered a statement (corroborated by others involved, such as Randy Kryn) that moves en masse were made following discussion and were therefore, not inherently controversial.
• The next question is, why are we only now considering this? The assertion is that this is not a recent issue but nor has it been concealed from scrutiny. The matter was originally raised here by MarcusBritish to weaponise their attacks against Dicklyon. This, of itself, appears inappropriate.
• Of the "campaign moves" that initiated the OP here, the moves were initiated with what appeared to be an affirmation of the guidelines per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS per this discussion as of 2 June (noting that subsequent posts were made, I believe, after Dicklyon commenced moves).
• I previously observed near the opening of this discussion that the most controversial thing about these moves has been the behaviour of MB. It is disappointing that this was permitted to continue both here and at MilHist for so long without intervention, where an appropriate intervention may have caused them to modify their behaviour (I said may), without the ultimate result we now have. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Correction "en masse" has nothing to do with rate, only with quantity. An editor could take a year to move 1000 pages for the same reason, and it would qualify as "large scale" or "mass" operation. 12:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Move to close

As I don't think a consensus to sanction Dicklyon will emerge as it's past time to move on.-- Dlohcierekim 15:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with that so long as it's noted that Marcus is C-BANNED per his block log. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Banned? Do threatening Emails result in a “community ban”? I see him only losing the known account. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: A consensus emerged on this page for indeffing Marcus for his incivility. He continued the incivility on his talk page and lost talk page access. He harassed users via email and lost that access as well. As you are an admin, I'm surprised you are not aware that the community consensus to indef does constitute a community ban.-- Dlohcierekim 20:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

What? Firstly, Dlohcierekim mistakes about me and I’m essentially nobody here. But

“ If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator closes the discussion, notifies the subject accordingly, and enacts any blocks called for. ” — WP:CBAN

Where do we see a (sub)section on the community ban for MarcusBritish from the site and the closure thereof? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, if I'm not mistaken, a CBAN is for the person behind the accounts- however many they have.-- Dlohcierekim 20:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• I certainly agree that this has been open long enough, and has attracted sufficient community involvement (some of it CANVASSed by Dicklyon), to be closed. And I also agree with Dlohcierekim that (caveat: I haven't actually run the numbers) it doesn't appear as if my Proposal (A) has attracted sufficient support to be enacted. However, I would like to point out to the closer that, taken together, support for that proposal (which called for a re-instatement of Dicklyon's previous indef block) and support for a topic ban means that there is probably sufficient support (again, I haven't counted) for some kind of sanction against Dicklyon for one to be imposed. My view is that a topic ban is sort of a "lesser included" sanction, and that the !votes for indeffing should count as support for (at least) a topic ban. Perhaps the closer will see it differently, but that's my view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Altered as a result of my count of votes listed below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Also a reminder to the closer about my comment here, concerning the quality of arguments presented being taken in to account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• OK, I have now done a raw count of the votes. Here are my results:

• Support Proposal (A) [indef block] - 10 (1 weak)
• Support topic ban - 2
• Oppose - 14 (2 strong, 5 opposing both proposal and TBan)
• Neutral/no opinion - 6

Given these results (and please note that I did not double check them), I have altered my original comment, as it's apparent that there is no numerical support for a sanction against Dicklyon. The only factor remaining is the strength of arguments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, and yes, the indef block of MarcusBritish should count as being community-approved, meaning the MB has been CBANned from the site. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Having just re-read WP:CBAN, I am not certain of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well, someone could go ahead and propose a community ban of the user. I would, but I've bowed out of that for the near future. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 06:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

So I guess I'm supposed to choose a bit to remind the closer of, too? I choose my first remark on BMK's proposal. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I remember that one, it's a classic. It's the one where you were amazed that a non-admin would dare make a proposal to sanction you. You'd be surprised, we've come a long way - why non-admins can even smoke cigarettes and wear pants these days! Soon, we hope to get the right to vote! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. It seems like pointless bureaucracy to say Marcus needs a separate proposal to be CBANned. The only point of a CBAN is that an admin can't overturn the block without community consent, and I'm pretty sure a savvy admin will realize they'll need that anyways. Let's just make that official and not waste anymore time debating it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• I mean, honestly, leaving him not community-banned might be the better way to go, if only because it denies recognition to him. On the other hand, it is helpful to be able to go to his userpage and see that he's banned for whatever reason. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• My reading of WP:CBAN, and my understanding of how things have worked in the past on AN, is that you basically need three things in order to have a CBAN:

• (1) An indef block
• (2) Either a review of the block requested by the blocking admin, or an appeal of the block requested by the indeffed editor
• (3) A community discussion which endorses the indef block or rejects the appeal

After all three of those things happens, then the editor is Community Banned. In the case of MarcusBritish, all we have at this point is #1, the indef block. Yes, Courcelles made the block on the basis of the community's input, but the block still needs to be "tested" by being reviewed or appealed and then endorsed. Without thsat, you really don't have a CBan, you simply have a run-of-the-mill indef block. Recall that community site bans are supposed to be more serious than mere blocks; a simple indef block imposed by an admin -- even if it's on the basis of community input -- can still be overturned by any single admin. It takes the re-consideration of the block by the community, and subsequent endorsement, to make it into a CBan that only the community can lift.

At least that's the way it's always worked from my experience, and my understanding from reading WP:CBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

The following text was inadvertently added coincidental with the close as a response to the correction by Beyond My Ken. It has been removed from the closed thread but is recorded here.

"en masse":In a single body or group; as one, together.If a group of people do something en masse, they do it together and at the same time.in a body: as a whole.In a group, body, or mass; as a whole; all together. And my Macquarie Dictionary: in a mass or body; all together. The common element of these definitions is "all together" - ie, at the same time. Rate is a function of time. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

So... you quoted my words to make a point you wanted to make, and when I corrected you as to my understanding of what the meaning of my words was, you "corrected" me with a dictionary definition (and from Wikitionary, for that matter, an unreliable source), as if the dictionary knows better than I do what I intended the words that I wrote to mean. Do you not see the problem with that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Possible legal threat

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

---

on User talk:MarcusBritish‎. @SarekOfVulcan:-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

permalink to dif-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It's essentially a call for suppression of a comment and sanctions on the commenting user. He does say that the comment is "libellous", but I don't see any threat of going to an outside authority. I wouldn't interpret it as a legal threat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

They danced right up to the line, but I don't they crossed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:However, in their second comment, here, they doubled-down on their comment re: Dlohcierekim and Asperger's, writing that D is: "only proving that he can't handle himself socially and resorts to attacks of his own." An admin might like to take a look at that in terms of extending Sarek's block of MB, and perhaps removing TPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Considering the gaslighting nature of MB's edits since the block I would suggest that removal of talk page access would be a benefit to the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with BMK and MarnetteD. It's one thing being annoyed post-block, and saying something in the heat of the moment, but this is on another level. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Rjrya395

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

---

• Rjrya395 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I try to avoid coming to ANI if I can, but I'm WP:INVOLVED here and I'm not sure what else to do.

User:Rjrya395 has been blocked by me for edit warring twice in regards to the contentious inclusion of Sgt Pepper at List of music considered the worst, back in April. This included me having two make 2-3 IP blocks for evasion as well. This is not about the content dispute itself, which is slowly slowly headed to a resolution (waiting on an RFC to be opened on an inclusion criteria for the article). Back in July, it was discovered that some of the editors involved in supporting the inclusion of Sgt Pepper on the list were socks of The abominable Wiki troll. Rjrya395 took this as validation that the entire thing was ultimately trolling and began harassing admins and other editors who were trying to work through the content issue. This resulting in Drmies (talk · contribs) blocking them for NPAs and disruption against Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) and myself as well as others (I'm going to skip linking the diffs for these, but simply review July 25th-ish contribs to talk pages), which I increased the length of and revoked TPA for after the user continued on their talk page to ping others and taunt them about the subject, particularly SummerPhDv2.0.

That block ended today, where Rjrya395 immediately resumes their behaviors on this topic. This includes going to Sro23 (talk · contribs) to continue asking about the entry's addition by TAWT (This in particular is not a big deal though other than showing the laser focus), going to multiple other users to canvass them about TAWT ([11][12][13][14]), hijacking a section about inclusion of an unrelated song on the article's talk page (Collapsed section here), further personal attacks against SummerPhDv2.0 (talk · contribs) on their talk page ([15]).

I am not sure what remedy here would be appropriate, but at minimum the user needs to leave alone the topic of Sgt. Pepper and the list of music considered the worst, and likely stop interacting with Sergecross73 and Summer entirely. -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support any action against - As the difs and his block log suggests, he’s largely disruptive and inflammatory to anyone in these discussions Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• I just blocked for 31h for [16], but I am happy for that to be increased, decreased, lifted, or replaced or augmented with a topic ban. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you Ferret for posting this, and thank you JzG for the block. I think that this, combined with all the rest, warrants an indef, which I will apply right now. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. He’s been quick to restart directly after every previous block. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Drmies' action as above. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for this. I saw the notification on my talk page this morning (by then already diligently removed by Drmies) and was like... [17]. I weighed in on one of the original RfCs because it seemed like a challenging problem, but I've barely been involved since then. I wouldn't necessarily have been opposed to more straightforward/neutrally worded canvassing, something to the effect of, "you were involved in a discussion, there have been some developments in the discussion since then, and since you've shown past interest in the topic your perspective would be appreciated, if you'd like." But Rjrya395's message was bewildering, it reads like an implied accusation, a "ha ha, told ya so" taunt, and a bad-faith effort to get me to either change my mind or feel discredited due to some other user's actions I have no control over. Obviously it's an inherently controversial topic, but keep some perspective. As the wise Dot Wiggin of the Shaggs once sang: "There will always be/ One who wants things the opposite way/ It doesn't matter where you go/ It doesn't matter who you see/ There will always be/ Someone who disagrees." —BLZ · talk 17:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • BLZ, that tone you signaled was indeed why I removed a couple of those taunts. For the life of me, I cannot fathom what the user is trying to accomplish here. I'll throw in some Mamaleek for you, hot off the Bandcamp press:

But now remains only deadly serpents and prickly thicket,
whose backs are beaten by a boiling star,
that keeps this circus in town.
I tell ya, the clowns are crying along with the children they terrorize.

Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• The user has an unblock request up, but characteristically, it includes a little bad faith shade thrown at "if the people in charge of it had some sense". The appeal doesn't signify to me the user understands the issue or why they were blocked, just an offhanded "fine I'll stay away from that topic". -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'm very confused by the introduction. How is SgtPepper related to this, especially as he last edited in February 2018 and has made fewer than 50 edits in the last three years? Random vandalism against specific users generally happens in userspace (no edits to either one since last year), not with someone edit-warring to put that user on a kind of wall-of-shame in mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nyttend: The article; he was involved in a heated discussion about the article. Please see his talk page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Special:Diff/893496665 is a clue. Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Oh, okay, so this is totally unrelated to User:SgtPepper. Sorry. Nyttend (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Second unblock request

I was almost on board with an unblock until I read the last bullet of the second unblock request, which is an unsubstantiated allegation against MarnetteD. That seems... unwise. Guy (Help!) 10:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Continued disruptive edits by Elsotomenor

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

---

User continues to add unsourced info to music related articles (here and here for example) despite several warnings on their talk page as well as a recent block for the very same thing. Please could an admin cast an eye, thanks. Robvanvee 06:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking into this but it looks like they've been warned (and blocked) over this. Mark Ironie (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Elsotomenor for 1 week. This is longer than usual but given the number of warnings about this specific issue on their user talk and persistence even after being blocked before, this seems appropriate. Maybe the message will get through this time. Mark Ironie (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

"MMK21", WPK21, T2Bean, "the new army", and "KAGfan2018"

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

---

• WPK21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• T2Bean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (oddly similar to T2Be (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))
• Teahouse discussion
• Category talk:Wikipedians in The New Army

WPK21 has added an initially undescribed Category:Wikipedians in The New Army with themselves only has a member. It was quickly marked for CSD. Some discussion has gotten them to add a short description: The new army is a group of Wikipedia accounts who serve under the name of MMK21. It is separate to The Kagfans, and New Army. A wikisearch for "MMK21" yields only three hits: the category page and two users (HoleFallPlop and KAGfan2018) blocked for vandalism and multiple accounts. Whatever is going on here, it doesn't seem to be what we're about. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

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

User:I B C C I A - French language trademark claims at business intelligence

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

---

I B C C I A (talk · contribs) a combination of self-promotion with a side-order of WP:NLT. Someone with better French than mine ought to have a word. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

They must be a seriously massive business conglomerate. They have a @wannadoo.fr email address. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• My French is a bit rusty but I'm pretty confident this edit summary is a blockable legal threat. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I had to use Google Translate but I find it extremely unlikely it did such a bad job as for this to not be a legal threat. Blocked. Sam Walton (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • My French is meh, but good enough to know this is a clear legal threat. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• The account's talkpage is an example of Wikipedia in action. ″Welcome and thank you for your contribution. You have been blocked for making a legal threat.″ ☺

  Note that the same account is performing the same malarkey over on the French Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Kee1992

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

---

Kee1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be related to another recently blocked user, Bxxxxxb92, based on the similarity of their name and article contributions. Reasons for the report here, as they were for the previous block, are that the user never includes edit summaries, has not responded to multiple attempts to reach out concerning their edits, and has had multiple photos deleted for being improperly sourced or licensed. Hate to propose admin action, but do not know how to proceed when the user appears to be unwilling to communicate. Would appreciate any feedback. Thanks, — aegreen (talk • email) 14:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Darien43chars addition of unsourced content

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

---

This user continues to add unsourced info (specifically sample credits) to music related articles (here, here & here as recent examples) despite repeated warnings on their talk page asking for them to stop. To date, no attempt has been made to discuss their disruption. I would be grateful if an admin could take a look please. Robvanvee 07:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

While the additions were certainly unsourced, the edits seem likely to add accurate info to the articles. So, these don't seem like vandalism to me, and I don't see any blockable offense here. Perhaps a more constructive approach would be to find sources to verify the added content. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 20:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a reason that we have a uw-unsor series of user warnings, a reason that {{uw-unsor4}} says "you'll be blocked next time", and a reason that the prefilled list of reasons for blocking includes an option for "Persistent addition of unsourced content". I'll check into this momentarily, and if the user's actions are as described, a block is definitely appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Sandstein and Eric Corbett at WP:AE

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

---

User:Sandstein has just blocked User:Eric Corbett for 3 months (and fully protected his talk page) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett. However, one of the main diffs that was claimed to be problematic (and indeed, the main one that was being discussed as problematic) was an alleged personal attack against Sandstein themselves. This is almost certainly in violation of WP:INVOLVED, especially given their previous disputes ("... involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.)

• Sandstein has claimed a novel reason for doing this - "If I had to recuse myself because of being mentioned, all editors could immunize themselves against enforcement actions by preemptively insulting or otherwise attempting to incite conflicts with all admins active at AE and all arbitrators. This would render the enforcement process ineffective."
• He has then shut down discussion on that page with - "any discussion about this case elsewhere is inappropriate, and I do not intend to comment further about it outside of an appeal by Eric Corbett at WP:AE. For the same reasons, I am hatting your comment and my response to it." In other words, only an appeal by Eric Corbett at AE is valid - but Eric is blocked and his talkpage is locked.
• I'm bringing this to ANI because this can't be the way we do things. Most comments at the page were not in agreement with his view of the infraction, yet he swoops in, almost certainly ignores WP:INVOLVED, blocks for 3 months, and then refuses to discuss it except in relation to an appeal that can't happen. This is simply wrong. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I noted at AE, the remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF#Eric Corbett prohibited instructs: "Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard." Accordingly, any discussion about this case here or anywhere other than in an appeal at AE is inappropriate. For these reasons, I do not intend to comment further about the block, outside of an appeal by Eric Corbett at WP:AE. Such an appeal discussion can occur despite the talk page protection if Eric Corbett e-mails the appeal to somebody, who then copies it to AE. Sandstein 14:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a discussion about your violation of INVOLVED and premature shutdown of the case, so is valid here. By the way, your close has been reverted already on the 24-hour rule. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein, you have violated the clause by ArbCom that states all AE stuff about Eric shall be kept open for at-least 24 hours; I have reverted your close and ask you to unblock him and un-protect his t/p. ∯WBG^converse 14:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I am re-opening the AE thread and undoing the enforcement action (for now) because I was made aware that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement_2#Enforcement_of_Eric_Corbett's_sanctions_(alternative) instructs a minimum discussion time of 24 hours. It is regrettable that this is not mentioned in the original decision. My view remains otherwise unchanged. Sandstein 14:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It was mentioned twice in the discussion you closed, including in the admin discussion section, which just goes to show that you didn't actually read any of it, just decided to block Eric Corbett. It's not a good look, that. Not good at all. Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please don’t pretend you weren’t aware of the 24-hour minimum. You were part of the last AE which was kept open for 24 hours, and Galobtter himself said he’d have blocked on his own if not for the 24-hour rule in this very AE thread. This is a clear indication, in fact, that you failed to read the thread before acting. How often do you do this? For an AE regular I cannot believe this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Sandstein, It would appear that your negligence is the reason for your incompetence in this episode, maybe you shouldn't be blocking if you can't be expected to READ the discussion. Maybe the thrill of the block and ensuing attention you receive is the guiding principle here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Further

• AE discussions regarding GGTF etc. are supposed to be open for 24 hours. This was closed after 7. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Well put. Sandstein has violated the very arbitration remedy he is purporting to enforce. Should an AE case be opened on Sandstein for this violation? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Sandstein is a disgrace and is acting like a coward, no suprise there he's been acting like AE is is personal fiefdom for years and the admin there have allowed it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Bad block but I anticipate Sandstein will close this pointing to the claim that reviews of Eric’s AE blocks can only be reviewed at AE. I will note however that there is nothing prohibiting a review of Sandstein’s misconduct as an involved admin. His response, in ignoring every single comment at that AE, was to assert that his recusal creates a perverse incentive for Eric to just involve every admin. This slippery slope argument fails for two reasons: (1) There is no indication Eric was trying to force Sandstein to recuse in future AE cases (or cases just reviewing that one comment), and (2) Were Eric to just name every admin and collectively insult them, it would be transparent what he was doing and no admin would be involved for the purposes of reviewing that comment. I am greatly disturbed by Sandstein’s behavior in this case and recommend that arbitration be considered to determine whether he still retains the trust required to retain administrative rights. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sandstein has doubled down on his misconduct by indicating that he’ll probably wait until 24 hours is up and reimpose the block: Special:Diff/910362549 —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• I agree that Sandstein has violated arbitration enforcement with his premature close; since it should not have been closed, and the block was concomitant to it, the block needs to be overturned by an arbcommer, if there is one in the room. I do, however, assume this error wasn't made through eagerness to be the one to apply the sanction in case, god forbid, another admin took a slightly more nuanced approach?
  Now, someone may remind; has Sandstein on a previous occasion blocked Corbett for a length of time against a clear consensus of this fellow admins? Answers on a postcard, please. ——SerialNumber54129 14:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe Sandstein’s previous one-month block of Eric was in the absence of consensus for that specific length. I think there was administrative consensus for a block but I do not think there was consensus as to length. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Mendaliv I've <ins></ins>erted your correction, and I agree, I think that is what I'm thinking of. ——SerialNumber54129 14:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

No need for the insertion. —Cryptic 14:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah...thanks Cryptic, is that the one I'm thinking of? Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

That being the case, if the topic ban is to have any meaning, it must be enforced as it is written. A warning is not necessary because the topic ban itself served as a warning, and a warning is not possible as a sanction because the enforcement provision envisions only blocks and not warnings as sanctions. Emphasis mine. Not even kafkaesque is adequate to describe this sort of thinking. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sandstein ought to be banned from closing Eric-related AE threads and certainly ought to be banned from blocking them too, Every single time Eric is taken there it's always him that blocks and closes, Ought to be left to someone less-involved with him. –Davey2010^Talk 14:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• I 100% agree with everything that has been said. Sandstein, you are an utter disgrace. And while we're on the subject of rogue admins, why does Galobtter consider themselves outside of the AE rules by posting in a section that forbids INVOLVED admins to post there? Galobtter , was the filing party, so they are very much INVOLVED. Cassianto^Talk 15:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• This block by Sandstein was truly embarrasing. It is clearly there in the admin chat, remedies relating to Corbett have to be filed at AE for 24 hours before they can be enforced - Sandstein did not even read the chat comments. He clearly has some issue with Eric and should not be allowed to take any actions against him. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• I'm afraid Sandstein has a track record of this involved behaviour when dealing with me too. He has been warned multiple times by multiple editors yet refuses to acknowledge his contributions are highly inappropriate in such cases. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 15:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Sandstein has stated over AE that he might re-close the thread in the same manner, once 24 hours pass. If he does that, I am inclined to file a case request before committee; he has continued his unilateral assault against consensus and common sense, under the technicalities of the policy, for way too long. ∯WBG^converse 15:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m of a mind to file a case request anyway once I’ve seen more evidence of misconduct, including blatant wikilawyering. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Agreed. This is the kind of advanced user contributions that en wiki editors alone seem unable to deal with that imo that is causing the Foundation to have to become involved in our dispute resolutions. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein should have read the AE rules more closely, but his action is understandable as the case is so cut-and-dry. Eric undoubtably violated the sanctions that he agreed to. While some editors, as per usual, are quick to excuse his conduct, his AE sanctions specifically note he is to withdraw and disengage. There is no “but he was mean first” or “I don’t like him” exception - Eric is expected to be civil and not belittle or insult anyone, period, and he is a person with agency and in complete control of his actions. If he chooses to violate his sanction, that’s his choice, but it has consequences.Toa Nidhiki05 16:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Toa Nidhiki05, I don't think a small block is a problem but scorched earth by an involved admin is pretty bad too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• I sense a lot of animosity towards Sandstein with a lot of the same petty bickering that lead to EricCorbett even being blocked in the first place. It is really sad to see this kind of behaviour escalating all over Wikipedia. Here Toa is right, Sandstein made a correct decision to block Eric. He made the decision to violate his sanction, three months are correct .BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  Let’s be clear, this is a discussion of Sandstein’s misconduct, and not so much a discussion of Eric’s merits or demerits (I am told there are many of both). While you are entitled to your opinion on whether Eric should be blocked, or that we should treat him as poorly as we treat everyone else (as I have said elsewhere we should be asking why we aren’t treating others better), I would respectfully suggest these comments aren’t relevant to whether Sandstein’s conduct in interacting with Eric was proper. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  It is relevant whether Eric violated the sanction because that deals with a major part of this. Sandstein should have waited the 24 hours required but the case is so cut and dry on policy that I can understand making that mistake if he didn’t know you have to wait 24 hours. Toa Nidhiki05 16:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: If he didn't "know" he had to wait 24 hours, then either he hadn't read what others had said or he deliberately ignored them; which would you prefer? ——SerialNumber54129 16:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can understand making that mistake if he didn’t know you have to wait 24 hours. It’s simply not credible that he didn’t know. He’s been involved in several Eric Corbett AE cases where that rule was discussed, expressly brought up, etc. And on top of that it’s explicitly stated in a big bold box on the relevant decision page, and was mentioned multiple times in the discussion Sandstein closed. And on top of that to call Sandstein an AE regular is a dramatic understatement. He is practically a resident there. For Sandstein to not know in good faith that he was required to leave the discussion open 24 hours means that he acted with gross negligence in implementing the block. It means he didn’t read the arbitration decision, and didn’t read anyone else’s comments either in this AE case or the previous one (and probably more), and wasn’t aware of ongoing arbitration decisions relevant to AE, where he is one of the most prolific contributors. That alone is sanctionable for purely protective reasons. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I was in fact unaware of this 24-hour discussion requirement, having not been involved (to my recollection) in previous ArbCom cases about Eric Corbett. I also overlooked the brief mention of it by the AE filer. I apologize for this oversight. But the "big bold box on the relevant decision page" was in fact added today, out of process, by a non-admin. It was not there when I made the block. I am amending the box to include a date of its addition to make this clear. Sandstein 16:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I have completely removed the modification to the remedy and your subsequent edit. The user had absolutely no right to modify a remedy in an arb decision. They also changed the enforcement section, which they also shouldn't have done, but it's not as egregious--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Yes, they annonced the remedy if not amending it. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, go, write an article, if you can write one. ∯WBG^converse 17:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• The remedy, unusually, doesn't allow for a small block; it mandates the length: it's three months or nothin'. Or at least, three months with all the rules baggage of WP:AE to defend the blocking admin, or a shorter block solely on their own authority. That, historically, hasn't worked out well.
  By my count, though, Eric's had at least three blocks for this remedy at the one-month length. Shouldn't the ARCA provision have kicked in by now? —Cryptic 16:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m not convinced there’s no discretion to impose a lesser block. I think it’s just bad drafting on the part of the Committee. If there were no discretion it would be a phenomenally bad ruling and not at all consistent with the administrative community’s role in making rulings on actual behavior rather than imposing punishments. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    Mendaliv, what is not convincing you about The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. (emphasis mine) – Levivich 16:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

    First, the fact that whether to block in the first place (despite a finding of a violation) is discretionary. Thus a reviewing admin can decide that a block of any particular length would be excessive or insufficient, the only choice is to not block at all, which is perverse. Second, I do not believe the Committee has the discretion to mandate specific blocks for future misconduct and completely remove what would otherwise be ordinary administrative discretion to choose a particular sanction length. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Either there is a violation here or not. If a violation has been made then a block is warranted. If not then, no.BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually no, an admin finding that there is a violation can impose no block. See the arbitration decision. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
      • So basically sanctions can not be met with any action. According to you. That is comforting. BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
        • According to you. Well no, according to the Committee itself: If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. It’s right there in black and white if anyone cared to read it. Also be wary about the inevitable counterargument that this wording shouldn’t be taken as authoritative or indicative of the spirit of the Committee decision: the exact same counterargument applies to the claim that the block lengths are mandatory. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• If arbcom is doing their job, to reduce disruption and to support users faith in the dispute workings of the project they will already have emailed Sandstein telling him he has no authority to use his advanced tools to block in this case. Note, this thread is about Sandsteins actions not Erics. What users with advanced permissions and all editors here that want self control need to understand is that while they are all good here, getting away with elements of disruption using those advanced permissions, Fram and Richie for current examples, is, if this project doesn't deal with them the Foundation will step in and do it for us and out of the blue, but not really, you will find an office action on Sandsteins talkpage that he is restricted from making any AE actions for twelve months. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Failing to wait 24 hours is a simple mistake to fix, and no big deal. It's a clear-cut violation of the sanction, well within an admin's discretion to enforce. A 3-month block (with mandatory report to ARCA) is the proscribed next step under the plain language of the sanction. An admin doing what they were elected to do, by enforcing an arbitration decision written by arbitrators who were doing what they were elected to do, is no cause for concern. – Levivich 17:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• This actually isn't about Eric. If there's consensus to block him (for three months) after 24 hours, someone will do it. If there isn't, they won't. However, what won't be happening is Sandstein, someone who has previous issues with Eric, swooping in and blocking for three months without even reading the bloody discussion and when there's quite a few people opining that it's not blockable. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Alberto279 genre warring

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

---

• Alberto279 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continues genre warring after numerous warnings and block. Dan56 (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Past warnings and block

• First series of warnings in March, including genre warring and harassment of users (later blanked by editor)
• Second series of warnings in April and May (also blanked by user)
• Last warning on May 21, leading to block for genre warring (since blanked by the user)

Genre warring since warnings and block

• May 22
• May 26
• May 26 [18]
• May 26
• August 3, [19], [20], [21]
• August 5, [22]
• August 6
• August 7
• August 8
• August 9
• August 11, [23]

---

• No comment on the complaint here, but I wanted to note that Alberto279 removed this discussion without an edit summary and without any evident reason. I have reverted that removal and warned Alberto279 not to remove discussions about himself. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• I blocked this editor for a week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Enforcement log

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

---

Hi - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Enforcement_log is there any reason that Sandsteins out of process actions should be allowed to stand here without and clarification or removal? I post a request here because it seems User:Bbb23 removed a clarification from a non admin. Here is diff were he removed it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF&diff=910373617&oldid=910372982 the edit summary is ok and I agree with that part of it but he also removed the clarification at the same time and failed to do anything to replace or amend that part of the edit. That block has not been enforced and as such should not be left in the enforcement actions, any admin getting invoilved to remove the clarification should have taken responsibilty to correct the issue.Govindaharihari (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The removal of the non-admin comment in the enforcement actions section was accidental, but that section should be used only by admins. It was Sandstein's block and his later unblock. He should be the one to correct the log as he believes appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23. I have now properly logged the undoing of the enforcement actions. Sandstein 20:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Great. Thanks to both of you. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Editing, 3RR Self-Report

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

---

Just checking in to let you know the I've violated the 3RR to fix disruptive editing/vandalism to List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Philadelphia. There is an ongoing pattern (see here) of vandalism despite ongoing bans the vandalism continues from new addresses here. I'll continue to revert the edits for now but I would understand if you end up banning me for violating the rule. Thanks 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546: Reverting vandalism is explicitly an exception to 3RR, however, I'm unclear how changing the image to a nighttime image constitutes vandalism. I do agree that there were some vandal edits in there (the angry man picture), but as someone unfamiliar with the history here, I'm seeing a content dispute or block evasion rather than vandalism. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Understood, it seems that others are on the case anyway, and will determine what's best for the article; still figured a self-report is always best, cheers. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The subject has been blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing. I think we can now close this thread. CLCStudent (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Can you do me a solid and tell User:Nblund and User:Simonm223 to sod off?

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

---

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

---

I got the message the first time and I don't feel like wasting further time fielding commentary from the next typewriter-monkey who's fee-fee's I've hurt. HalfShadow 20:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I declined to take this to the drama boards, but since were here: @EvergreenFir: politely asked you to stop misgendering people, and you gave this completely over the line response. You continued on your user page. The fact that you've now opened an ANI case against editors for trying to explain the problem on your talk page suggests that you have too much time on your hands. Nblund ^talk 20:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Just going to let this one go then? After the continued incivility? With a block log that long I was expecting something. 2001:4898:80E8:2:71AE:17D9:D505:2912 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Me too. I've blocked the reporter for 31 hours for violations of WP:NPA. The block log you refer to is almost a decade old, or else it would have been longer, however their conduct and their unapologetic replies do need to be addressed. ST47 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Article Ban Consideration For Disruptive Editing by User:Jartansmom

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

---

This user has made repeated spam posts over the past 60 days on the David H. Huntoon article without any citations whatsoever. Now, similar content has appeared on the article under an IP address which may be sock puppetry. At a minimum, an article ban on this user for this particular article should be strongly considered.Tsmith47 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like they merely forgot to login, right when they tried (but failed) to add a source. You, on the other hand, keep reverting them without even as much as an edit summary. That is sub-par behaviour on your part. There seem to exist sources for their edit, so to qualify it as spam doesn't fly anyway. You furthermore failed to respond to their question om the article talk page, and you forgot to alert the IP. By the way, sign your posts. Almond Plate (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

• I disagree. I too would like to see edit summaries when reverting that sort of material, so that it can be distinguished from just plain random blanking. The editing of that article, without edit summaries, is inexplicable. Why write a biography and then blank it all again? No edit summaries tell us, and this is functionally indistinguishable from vandalism. Special:Diff/910298712 was how to handle this, and that was not Tsmith47, who hasn't use an edit summary … well, ever. (They're all the auto-generated text, notice.) When there are concerns, communicate them. Uncle G (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

How to change my user name to Buddhist

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

---

Please inform the process — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisukoo (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

You've already been informed that you can't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

And the editor attained enlightenment. EEng 06:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

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

SpoonLuv

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

DS alert on 17:34, 10 July 2019.

Edit warring alert on 18:56, 10 July 2019.

SpoonLuv is continuing to edit war without establishing a consensus for new content again. For previous AN/I report see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#SpoonLuv

On 13:45, 8 August 2019, SpoonLuv added a citation needed tag to "only water vapor".[24]

On 14:02, 8 August 2019, SpoonLuv added "...but no proof of this correlation has been observed."[25]

After the problematic content and tag was removed, on 18:23, 8 August 2019 SpoonLuv restored the content[26] and on 18:27, 8 August 2019 restored the tag.[27]

After the problematic content and tag was removed again, on 19:38, 8 August 2019 SpoonLuv yet again restored the disputed content and tag.[28]

On 20:00, 8 August 2019 SpoonLuv removed the SYN tag.[29]

Cloudjpk restored the SYN tag and subsequently deleted the disputed content on 20:43, 9 August 2019.[30]

There is no consensus for the content on the e-cigarette article and it was explained on the talk page the reason it was SYN violation. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Renormalization I added the full quote to the subarticle where there is similar content from the same source.

The citation needed tag is inappropriate because the content is sourced. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Verification_provided.

SpoonLuv stated in part: "He's been accused of disruptive editing multiple times. It's incredibly clear what's really going on here with only a cursory look at the page itself and the abundance of other peoples valid work that's been removed en mass. All information that disagrees with his viewpoint is instantly removed. I honestly find it sad that Wikipedia is clearly a game where those with the most time on their hands will get to push their own personal narrative by wearing down anyone that disagrees with them. It's also sad that yet another editor who wants to help improve the quality of information on Wikipedia, is leaving after discovering that NPOV, one of the FIVE PILLARS of Wikipedia, appears to be of little to no importance to its editors."[31]

It looks like SpoonLuv is hear to right great wrongs. QuackGuru (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This reads like a content dispute. Have you tried any alternative dispute resolution since the last ANI? And to clarify: what great wrongs is SpoonLuv trying to right here? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no benefit for an alternative dispute resolution for failed verification content and edit warring without establishing consensus.

SpoonLuv stated "Renormalization of smoking appears to be speculative. Either the section should be removed, or information pointing to the fact that it's unproven needs to be provided." SpoonLuv added "...but no proof of this correlation has been observed."[32], but that was a SYN violation. What SpoonLuv is trying to add is speculative or a minority opinion because a 2018 source indicates "some publications from Great Britain have downplayed the use of electronic cigarettes and their link to combustible cigarette use in adolescents...".[33][34]. The article says, "Studies indicate vaping serves as a gateway to traditional cigarettes and cannabis use.[134]" This is the consensus among sources. QuackGuru (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that the definition of a content dispute? He thinks the article should contain one thing, you think it should contain another. I think that you are correct, by the way, and that he is inappropriately synthesizing information to push a POV that strays into the realm of fringe theory. But it still seems like a content dispute that has evolved into a conduct issue due to his edit warring, and I think that it merits administrator involvement specifically due to the edit warring behavior, without wading into the merits of what he is actually adding. Michepman (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I did add the quote without the SYN violation to the subarticle where there are other position statements. More than one editor thinks the content is a problem. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It's subtle, but it's not actually debatable, and this is a very straightforward SYN violation to the point that Spoon's IDHT behavior is a problem. There is a claim about nicotine-free E-cigarettes that cites one source. And then it is followed by "there is no proof of this" citing a different source that is actually about ordinary E-cigarettes. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

SpoonLuv also added and restored a citation needed tag. I'm still puzzled about the citation needed tag being restored when I previously explained the content is verifiable. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Verification_provided. QuackGuru (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Moors murders

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

Can an administrator please look in on the Moors murders talk page. There is some arsehole trying to troll the participants of that discussion in a thread that has nothing to do with the article: [35]. What's more, they are now warring to keep it in place [36] [37]. Thanks. Cassianto^Talk 10:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• That will be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn. Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • See, that's why we needed you back :-) It was obviously a siock, and I was trying to remember who the likely master is. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Why do you suspect Billy Hathorn? I don't remember him ever paying attention to British crimes; he was focused on southern US geography, as I remember it. Not questioning the block; I was going to indef the account when I found that JzG had done it. Nyttend (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I personally don't care, it's a throwaway troll sock (clue: signs as "Ian brady Bunch"). But trolling is a Billy Hathorn thing, so I see no need to dispute Uncle G's assessment. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Credit goes to Gerda Arendt for spotting it. Uncle G (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
        • better not --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked by JzG at 10:28. Nyttend (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Cassianto^Talk 10:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The odd thing is that he said to me get bent fortuna; now, I've not used that handle for a couple of years, and don't in any case remember running into BH when i did. Thoughts? ——SerialNumber54129 10:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn was editing using this IPV6 range in July: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1700:290:FC50:0:0:0:3B/55 - and the style of ReeMiXx does not match him at all. No offence intended but I'd suggest someone remove the suspected sockpuppet of Billy Hathorn tag from ReeMiXx's userpage as it doesn't appear he's a sockpuppet of Billy Hathorn. 92.1.192.39 (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Dayton shooting

A few more eyes at 2019 Dayton shooting and Talk:2019 Dayton shooting would be welcome. A discussion over the appropriate way to deal with the gender identity of the shooter's sibling has been heated at times, and I've had to post a couple of warnings about personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply for most of the topics under discussion, including WP:BLPDS – recently dead people are still covered by that policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassment by Blackened0

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

---

User:Blackened0 is engaging in personal attacks and harassment against me.
Made malicious accusation (1) in a BLP/N discussion (01:48, 11 August 2019), and malicious accusation (2) in article talk page (02:18, 13 August 2019).
Made personal attack (1) in BLP/N discussion (01:35, 11 August 2019), and personal attack (2) in article talk page (03:05, 13 August 2019) (edited at 03:08).
Left a harassing message on my talk page (03:25, 13 August 2019).

This editor is dead set on pursuing this type of behavior against me, and I doubt that he will stop even if a 36-hour block is placed on his account. [By the way, this behavior is in line with the attacks and harassment by IP 104.232.202.112 (1 {summary}, 2, 3, 4, 5) that resulted in a 36-hour block on the IP account.] Pyxis Solitary yak 04:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• I was just about to post here. Folks, this user harassed Pyxis Solitary as an anon.[38][39] This user is now harassing Pyxis Solitary under a registered name, belaboring on about how Fæ was supposedly unjustly topic banned, and continuing to call Pyxis Solitary a TERF.[40][41][42]. The TERF accusation comes as the discussion at BLPN[43] consists of most folks saying that it's contentious/pejorative enough to merit in-text attribution. In the anon's mind, all the folks who say that "TERF" is contentious/pejorative and voted to topic ban Fæ have been canvassed by me and others.[44][45] Something else to think about is that even in the consensus discussion to topic ban Fæ, Sitush and Ryk72 pointed to this[46] as the last straw from Fæ. Blackened0 is dishing out the same unpersuasive rhetoric, including demanding that Pyxis Solitary apologize and redact some statements regarding Fæ. This user ain't being productive at all. This user is just harassing and trolling. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

TERF isn't a slur, the phrase was literally invented as a self-description. It's only a "slur" these days because most of us recognize that transphobia is bad. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

And here we go again. Reliable sources disagree with you. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, and that TERF page is a travesty. Using that to claim, as Blackened0 did, that the term is a neutral self-description? Erm, as goddamn mentioned by Viv Smythe, who is credited with popularizing the term,

I do find the renewed interest over the last few years in writing of mine from a decade ago disconcerting. The Terf acronym has long since left that particular discussion (and me) behind, and been weaponised at times by both those who advocate trans-inclusion in feminist/female spaces, and those who push for trans-exclusion from female-only spaces. I have no control over how others use a word (as it has now become) that came about simply to save typing a longer phrase out over and over again - a shorthand to describe one cohort of feminists who self-identify as radical and are unwilling to recognise trans women as sisters, unlike those of us who do.

[47] The TERF page is such a travesty that it's "transphobic" lingo helped folks vote for in-text attribution at BLPN. It's still the damn case that the "Opposition to the word" section[48] has stronger sourcing than the "Responses to opposition" section.[49]. And we mustn't forget that the term is used against lesbians for their same-sex attraction (not because they are exclusionary feminists).[50]. The Daily Nous and the New Statesman ain't lying![51][52] Jesus H. Christ! Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks a clear case of a disruption only account. All edits by this user have been to talk pages/noticeboards, for the purpose of hounding other editors. Shows no intention they are here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. Jevansen (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Block per wp:NOTHERE The account was opened on July 26th then didn't post for 2 weeks.[[53]] During that 2 weeks the editor was avoiding scrutiny by using an IP address. All their edits are clearly to jab at another editor which means it's very unlikely they are new to wikipedia or they followed PS over from some other part of the web. Either way, I would move to block the editor and remove their comments (as appropriate) Springee (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that my comments got under your skin, Pyxis Solitary. Only some of my comments have been directed at other editors. I initially created my account to improve the Meghan Murphy article because I noticed it was poorly written. It's a little early to say that I won't contribute to other articles or subjects as well; my account is very new. I had never made an account before because I hadn't seen an article so egregiously one-sided.

Pyxis Solitary is good at playing the victim and has friends like Halo Jerk1 who back them up. They tend to post together and dog pile single editors, including new ones like myself, which is an unwelcoming experience. They've done a good job of abusing the rules to silence editors and take control over articles like the one mentioned above. In this incident itself, you can see they disagree with the consensus on the TERF page and will probably try and change it to suit their agenda.

It's worth mentioning that, despite Pyxis Solitary complaining about me editing a single subject over a week, they've been doing the same. But what they're doing is defending hate speech on very questionable grounds, because they share the subject's views. Both Pyxis Solitary and Halo Jerk1 have a long history of posting anti-LGBT, especially anti-trans, comments on Wikipedia. I'm also aware of similar comments Pyxis Solitary has posted on other wikis. (edit from the author: this was incorrect, their comments on Wikipedia were mirrored on other sites.) These comments go back several years and demonstrate a pattern of behaviour.

When confronted, they made up lies about me calling them a slur, and they made up lies about another editor being homophobic. They've refused to acknowledge that or apologize. They refuse to engage on a basic level with arguments made by other editors. To be honest, it's surprising that somebody with so many skeletons in their closet would decide to bring attention to them on this noticeboard. I'm happy to go into more detail, because I agree with comments posted by other editors, before my account was created, that Pyxis Solitary should be blocked from editing these topics, and perhaps Wikipedia as a whole. There's an even better case to be made about Halo Jerk1 because they did all the same things, but were more of a, to use their words, jerk about it. Blackened0 (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Blackened0, are you willing to let checkusers disclose your IP information? I have you making an inappropriate edit on an IP (proxy) that hasn't been disclosed. If you allow me to reveal it then other admins may use the evidence to consider deciding in this thread what to do. If you don't, I will take it as a sign that you are avoiding scrutiny and will continue to do so and indef your account as sock. Your choice.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm unclear if you're saying I've been posting from too many IPs from my own name, or if you mean the IP I use has been leaving other comments. I exclusively use the Internet from public WiFi hotspots. I don't edit from a single IP, and I don't have ownership of any IP I use. If I need to disclose that fact, I'm happy to do so. I decline to release any IP information, however. Blackened0 (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

To be explicit: I do not and have never edited from a proxy. However, I have posted from a wide range of IPs, and I imagine these IPs have posted a wide range of comments. One of the networks I edited from the other day was used by tens of thousands of people at that time. Blackened0 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

This is an edit that you made as an IP. You can either link to it here so admins may make an informed decision or I'll be indeffing you as a checkuser block. You stand a chance linking it here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a strong claim and I'm afraid I disagree with it. If you blocked me on spurious grounds, I would feel justified in contesting it. Your choice. Blackened0 (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I choose block. I've indeffed this user as avoiding scrutiny and likely to do so in the future based on how they have behaved.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• I gotta jump in and respond here before this thread is archived with that one-clicker thing. The accusation that I "have a long history of posting anti-LGBT, especially anti-trans, comments on Wikipedia" is pure shit. Blackened0's claims are pure shit. That is all. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at Coco Chanel

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

---

I was working on this article and removing mainly material not supported by quoted sources and unhelpful student additions, each edit summed up in my edit summary. I also removed some material that I consider UNDUE-too much detail that is not needed, but that is maybe 10-15% of removed material. User User:Viewmont Viking comes and accuses me of bad faith editing, NPOV whitewashing. He is persistently restoring his preferred version and is ignoring reasons I gave for removal. He even said he had no interest in Coco Chanel on Talk:Coco Chanel. When his hypocrisy and bad faith assumption was pointed out because he didn't even review my edits and their merit, he waited for a day and again said I was whitewashing article after he reviewed my edits, he claims. I don't think he reviewed my edits at all. Sartorialaficionado (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

One and only response. I have engage the editor on the talk page. This is a content dispute that escalated very quickly. I explained why I made the changes and that the editor was not following BRD. I believe this editor quickly escalated, for a new editor they seem to know Wikipedia very well, this will be my one bad faith assumption. To know to go to ANI on day two and quoting policy on day one seems suspicious. Beyond that I think my use of the talk page and my edit history speaks for itself. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, your use of Coco Chanel talk page speaks for itself, just not favorably. Sartorialaficionado (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sartorialaficionado, Well, on the talk page, you claim "failed verification", and the edit summary "page 101 makes no mention of Soviet Union and is quite short" - OK, but it mentions Bolsheviks. Remove the "Soviet Union" bit if necessary. A good section of what you removed is explictly backed up by the source. That looks like whitewashing. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Good section? Please point out what, wording that was in article was not supported. I cleaned it up first, later additions that are supported are not out of question. Where is 4000 workers in that citation for example? I triple checked there is no mention of Bolsheviks either.Sartorialaficionado (talk) 14:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Seemingly persistent disruptive user

Billiekhalidfan (talk · contribs · count)

I have no current issues with this user (I have in the past}. I just saw (on my watchlist) another warning given, didn't even read it. I just thought it's time to bring this to the community. All the evidence is listed on their talk, there's been many users trying to help and guide this "new comer" (including myself and a very good Admin). Anyway, here it is lets see where it goes, Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 18:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm one of the users who's given quite a few warnings and sent messages to BKF. I have tried explaining, which Ad Orientem also did, to slow down their rate of editing. They seem to be an editor who thinks that once somebody explains something to them about one article/example, that this must mean every example they can think of has to be changed to be the same. I know most folks at ANi don't care about content, so I'll spare most of what it was regarding, but for example, they claimed that because a remixed version of a song is on an album and a different version of this song was released separately as a single at the same time, that this single could not have been released in promotion of the album because a different version of the song is on the album. They were reverted and told to go to the talk page, which I and others have advised countless times. They then went to several other articles of similar cases where a song was not in the same version it was on the album and changed those too.

A lot of their edits seem to be made this way, regarding which single is from which album. They have commented on talk pages, but honestly not enough. I also believe this editor "competes" to have either the current or most edits on an article based on how many articles they make repeated incremental edits to and I really don't know why. I have not linked to diffs here because as FlightTime said, it's all on their talk page and I am not the only editor to raise this "competing for the current edit" concern with them. Also, their penchant for adding hatnotes often leads into bizarre territory like this, where they think someone would come to Wikipedia looking to buy diamonds and be typing in "buy me diamonds" to do it, and this hatnote on Norman Rockwell, where they think the title of Lana Del Rey's upcoming Norman Fucking Rockwell album may be confused with it when nobody has referred to Del Rey's album as just "Norman Rockwell". My patience with explaining things to this user and the fact that what goes for one example is not the same for all like it wears thinner by the day. Ad Orientem tried explaining things to this user (I believe via email), but they have chosen to disregard most, if not all, of that. Ss112 00:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• For context, I've had several interactions with BKF due to similar topics of interest. They definitely aren't a vandal, know how to use article talk pages and also provide well-written edit summaries. They are also patient and able to take 70% of the advice I have given them. The main issue is their need to change everything to what they think it is, without looking up what reliable sources have to say about it, along with WP:POINT-making behaviour. Another issue is adding useless hatnotes to articles, which would only make sense to them. BKF definitely does also have a problem regarding making bogus edits just to become the current last editor on pages they like. Which can be annoying regardless of not being a blatant policy violation. To sum it up, they're not all bad, but definitely not a net positive. I have a little sympathy for them as they joined WP a mere 4 months ago. I suggest WP:AAU as a solution, and oppose a block or penalty of any length as of now. If the disruption is still ongoing a month later, then this can be revisited. This AN discussion will probably make it clear that they need to calm down, and if not then the WP:ROPE scenario will play out.--NØ 07:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan - Can you respond to the statements made by MaranoFan above? I understand that you're still becoming established with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but we can't have repeated disruption occurring and at such a high rate if this is happening... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: This user has received two more warnings from two separate users since this thread was created, including one where they were told by another editor to slow down yet again. They haven't, as they are still making uninformed edits in the same vein as the previous talked about above and at this point I'm just thinking it's disruptive because my patience is frayed. I'm quite sure they're not going to respond here. Ss112 14:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

As one of the users who warned BKF yesterday, I can vouch for their contentious editing, frequent edit warring, and WP:POINT making behavior. Similarly to MaranoFan and Ss112, I have encountered BKF before as we both edit several of the same articles regarding similar topics of interest. Since the user is new, I initially tried to assume good faith and not to take too much issue with their edits (I figured they were just learning the ins and outs of WP). However, this disruptive behavior previously mentioned has continued on several pages. Regarding the warning given yesterday, I wrote to them about not changing information to support their own personal opinion after an edit war they had on Tempo (Lizzo song), in which they proceeded to remove a specific part of the opening description that disagreed with their own lyrical interpretation of the song. I have since noticed similar disruptive behavior on other music-related articles that I have edited. At this point, I think a block of some kind would be necessary considering their track record of disruptive editing and frequent edit warring. Gemsweater1 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• I must add that I’ve had a slight change of opinion too. BKF has completely ghosted this discussion and their spamming and point-making behaviour has gotten worse over the last few days. They’re now resorting to edit warring and continue changing things to what they think it is. Recent disruption also involves personal attacking some users who tried to help them. So with all that in mind, there is no point in letting the disruption continue any longer. I endorse indefinitely blocking BKF, with a chance to appeal it when they are ready to learn from their mistakes.—NØ 10:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

DOI bot without WEBSITE and URL: bug or feature?

The bot that's been taking out URLs and replacing them with DOIs is creating a situation whereby a person who "hovers" over the citation's DOI gets no clue as to the citation source. In an article I had previously worked on, the bot left an empty URL= which resulted in: "Missing or empty |url= (help)"(in red). Am I the only one who sees this as someone who takes one's car keys to prevent them from losing the keys (and deposits them in a central lost-and-found). Pi314m (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

DOI bot hasn't edited since 2008. What bot are you having trouble with, and have you reported it to the bot operator? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm echoing Mendaliv's question above. Are you perhaps talking about another user? Which one? Can you link us to it so that we can take a look? Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, I think I found it. Pi314m is concerned about this edit by Citation bot. Specifically, a {{cite journal}} template in the "Further reading" section of Tymnet had both the DOI parameter filled, and the URL parameter just linked to the DOI (though through doi.acm.org rather than doi.org). That is pretty duplicative. Anyway, I don't think this requires administrative intervention. Best would be to discuss it with the operator of Citation bot first. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Pi314m - Can you confirm that this edit is what you're trying to tell us about here? Thanks! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Funny: I guessed differently. I thought it might have been this edit to Business continuity planning by a user (Nemo bis) whose username might, at first glance, have been mistaken for a bot. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

actually it's with Tellagraf, edited (as noted above) by Nemo Bis; yes I was wrong about it being a BOT. Pi314m (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• The removal of redundant links is being discussed at User_talk:Citation_bot#"Removed_URL_that_duplicated_unique_identifier". As for the page which ended up on Category:Pages using web citations with no URL, it was just a typo (I missed one "web" to be changed into "journal"). Nemo 07:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Also mentioned at Template_talk:Citation#Where_should_links_to_url_or_doi_params_appear_in_the_citation?. Using DOI rather than URL doesn't give an obvious link over the title, so I see this change as a reader usability problem, requiring a template change to recover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

OR rationale given for edits

This is about an unregistered editor, who made what by themselves are good-faith edits, but gave this long edit summary for one of the 4 they made:

Genocide is the systematic murder of an ethnic group. Whites cannot be murdered by people of color, because murder is prejudice plus power. They can be killed in self defence, but not murdered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.144.183.107

I do not see a talk page for this unregistered editor.

--Beneficii (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, what is odd about these edits in the 1804 Haiti massacre article is that in each of the 2 edits the unregistered editor made to the article, is that they only removed one instance of the word "genocide" in each edit; the use of the word "genocide" is what they objected to. But even with the changes made in their last edit of the article (before it was reverted by an administrator), the word "genocide" still appeared several times in the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1804_Haiti_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=910245137

This strikes me as odd, and I question whether this unregistered editor is acting in good faith.--Beneficii (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Please engage the IP editor in discussion at User talk:78.144.183.107 before asking for help from an administrator. I do not see any edit warring or disruption. Try talking first. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not consider it odd at all that an inexperienced editor would change one instance of a word, and not take the time and trouble to scour the whole article for every instance of the word. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I find it intriguing that anyone would say it is not genocide if it happens to X, Y, or Z people. -- Dlohcierekim 05:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure a block is necessary, purely as a technical matter of will it prevent further disruption, but there is no need to entertain an editor who writes things like, "Whites cannot be murdered by people of color", or "not genocide, it happened to whites". Someguy1221 (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you implying you want to go for a community ban of this editor? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I was suggesting that his behavior was already so far beyond community standards that any admin could block him at any time, but I didn't know how stable that IP was. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I see some petty vandalism on the /16, but so far the trolling has not continued since the block.-- Dlohcierekim 04:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Propose block per WP:ZT

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

This edit makes it clear that there is a problem with this IP editor: "[Genocide is what whites do to people, not something people do to whites."

Critical race theory has stuff to say about "reverse racism" and such, but to say that genocide cannot affect white people would require a twisted definition of "white". EvergreenFir (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't require any specific definition of "white", all it requires is the same ideas found in critical race theory. Whites can't be the victims of racism and genocide is the ultimate form of racism so whites can't be the victims of genocide. Genocide is the worst thing that can happen to a group of people, it can't happen to whites so whites aren't people. I'm surprised these white supremacist edits of yours haven't been noticed. 78.144.183.107 (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. RBI seems like the appropriate answer here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_Nazis where does this provide protection for whites? Point out a specific instance. 78.144.183.107 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC) The link to genocide is the wrong evidence, this link appears first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory 78.144.183.107 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE of massively adding CCP linkage accusation to infobox of newspaper

• Amigao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• China Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ming Pao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sing Tao Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sing Tao Daily (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Standard (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For my understanding, infobox was meant for undisputed fact, not accusation or so called controversy. Same logic was discussed in other infobox such as Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove "suspected perpetrator" field in Template:Infobox civilian attack.

Such edit even don't fact check themselves, which the user has mistaken the article China Press as The China Press, which adding no sense to the Malaysian newspaper that is not mention in his single citation. Such accusation of CCP linkage should need lots of source to fulfil WP:DUE condition .

See also his Special:Diff/910442795 "Undid revision 910377447 by Matthew hk (talk) Nothing undue about something perfectly factual and documented". How only one citation is WP:DUE????

Matthew hk (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

User Vaze50 - persistent removal of ordinals

I first noticed Vaze50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when they recently removed information (the ordinal of officeholder, e.g., changing "5th President" to "President") in over a dozen Irish politician BLPs. I reverted. They have reverted again without explanation (and another editor reverted them). I've just had a look at their contributions, and they seem to be doing this everywhere (also removing dates of offices being held), without explanation or edit summary. (There is an occasional edit summary of "Why?" when just ordinals are removed). There are approximately 200 such edits since 1st August. Can this be addressed, please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not just the Irish - Canada too. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

If you both want to keep the current situation where there's no consistency on this whatsoever (some jobs/countries having them, most not) then that's your problem. I'll leave them as they are - inconsistent, cluttered, pointless - if it bothers the pair of you so much. Vaze50 (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Great to see you reply to the concerns raised as you can see the edits are in dispute. Would be best to stop the edits of this nature till we figure out what your concerns are about a format that has been here for over a decade. Can you explain the problem with the current system? --Moxy 🍁 14:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Another editor @Discospinster: appears to have taken up Vaze50 sword, at least concerning the Canadian prime ministers bios. Hoping this isn't a meat/sock puppetry situation. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Some (not all) of Vaze50's edits are actually substantively correct. As per the documentation for {{infobox officeholder}} |order= should "only be used when there is a well established use of such numbering in reliable sources", which is definitely not the case for some of the specific instances they've removed - for example, Canadian Ministers of Finance. These should be reverted only on a case-by-case basis, where that sourcing requirement is met. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I've no objections to his removal of numberings from cabinet ministers' bios. The numberings should remain on bios of governors general, prime ministers & deputy prime ministers. Likewise with the provincial level - numberings should remain in the bios of lieutenant governors, premiers & deputy premiers. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that's excessive, but the specifics of what should and shouldn't be numbered are best discussed somewhere other than here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

• See also Project:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Numbering British Prime Ministers. Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed for vandalism on various Ohio state routes

• 2600:1006:B14E:103E:6158:1F76:F548:A75A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1006:B14E:103E:ED6D:BE66:A4B8:70D8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1006:B14E:103E:1475:4245:6FF1:E30F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1006:B108:5ABF:43A:2A00:6913:2EBC (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1006:B108:5ABF:3C7F:58EC:91F4:589B (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:1006:B108:5ABF:8045:11AF:BB48:6A3F (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Various date changes, address changes after 1 or 2 edits. Cards84664 (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 he is currently using, but it seems to change every day or so. This is Verizon wireless, which has users briefly on /64 subnets, and a little more stably on /44s. He was also previously on ‎2600:1006:b129::0/44. Completely excluding him would require a block on Special:Contributions/2600:1006:B100::0/40, which is a fairly busy range. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User: Artinpl1 also using IP 212.180.254.29 also known (as per self) as Marcin Latka

The user repeatedly has tried to add an otherwise unknown image uploaded, identified and sourced only by h-self as "Artinpl1" or "Marcin Latka" (same person as per self) to a number of Wikipedia articles in various languages (most reversed by me today). Here help offered by a a WP:3O volunteer was ignored, our reliable source requirement has been summarily disregarded and the talk culminated (just now) in more aggressiveness & ridicule plus the statement "I am signing my own research with my name, this should be sufficient, no matter where published.".

Further such activity this year (adding info with no source or h-self only as source) can be found here [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. It is hard to find good faith in this work. I have not looked through all the input by IP 212.180,254.29 but must assume that the rest of that too mainly is to promote the personal POV of "Artinpl1" a.k.a. "Marcin Latka" sourced only to Facebook or Flickr or Pinterest pages etc all created by that person. I've found no other kind of editing from the registered user or that IP.

Because of what looks to me like a deliberate hoax, or at least a very doggedly clung-to error, in the case of the Anna Vasa image, I believe all of this person's image identifications must be questioned, and that an administrator or two should try to curb this activity asap. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now also had reason to notify Commons administrators of this problem. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't this rationally be assumed to be the same person? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Artinpl is individual, independent, educational project. All this is clear stalking, such people and those who blocked me earlier are doing more harm to wikipedia, than I ever done with any of my edits. Artinpl1 (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

1. We are all supposed to only add content which is reliably sourced. Nothing else is allowed. Content is not reliably sourced if we always use only ourselves as the sources for all the content we add. In other words, even content that is educational, interesting and valubale must be left out of Wikipedia if it is not reliably sourced to others than ourselves.
2. We are not supposed to use Wikipedia to exhibit or promote our own businesses or private projects, whether or not they are individual or independent, especially not when sourcing such entries only to ourselves.
3. We are not supposed to publish images elsewhere under our own clear copyright, then upload them to Wikimedia Commons (which does not allow copyrighted images) and then spread them ourselves from Commons to Wikipedia articles in several different languages. Thousands more wonderful and valuable images could be added to Commons and Wikipedia articles if copyright laws, and our consequent rules here, were not in the way.
4. We are not supposed to evade blocking by creating new account names and then continuing to do the same things we were blocked for.
5. We are not supposed change the heading of an ANI report about ourselves.
6. We are not supposed to make arbitrary accusations against other users (such as the stalking allegations now made here & at Commons & at German Wikipedia), which are personal attacks.

Reporting someone, for refusing to respect some of the most fundamental of Wikipedia's guidelines, is not stalking. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• This looks like reference spamming, even if it's done in good faith. Artinpl1, rather than referencing yourself or your website, instead propose additions on the article Talk pages and let others decide whether or not to include. Citing yourself or your website will invite assessment of whether you meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable independent source. You'd need to show credentials and peer-review, for example. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Are we ignoring the block evasion? I always thought that was quite serious. As far as I can see the user is doing the same thing that h/s was blocked for. Am I wrong? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I just saw the block. Sad, but necessary. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Seesaw

Hello could someone take a look at the Seesaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. Two anons keep adding non-English text to the page, and I don't want to risk a block for edit warring. Thanks. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 22:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Sakura Cartelet: I just requested temporary semi-protection at WP:RPP, which is always an option in this case. I think the IP edits are pretty clearly vandalism, the reverting of which shouldn't cause any concern. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the page was protected for a few days, so I guess there's nothing else that needs to be done? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 00:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, nothing more needs doing, Sakura Cartelet. If you wish, you could consider adding the page to your watchlist. The IPs have now stopped vandalising the articles, so there's no need to report them to WP:AIV (which is quick and simple to do using Twinkle), and which you could easily have done when they were actively vandalising, and adding offensive content, as they had reached the appropriate level of prior warnings. But there's no need to do now that unless they resume. Each IP looks to have been given an 'only warning' notice, too. Just for information: providing it's clear WP:VANDALISM (as this was) you can revert bad edits as many times as you wish without fear of ever being accused of edit warring. I often sit on vandalised pages (even after warning and then reporting an editor) so as to instantly revert their repeated bad edits until an admin pops along and blocks them. Equally, if you see repeated vandalism from multiple new IPs or brand new editors, you can also use Twinkle to Request Page Protection for that page for a temporary period, rather than coming here. Thank you for taking the trouble to report this problem. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

IP posting offensive messages pertaining to be me

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

---

Block needed for this, please. Cassianto^Talk 14:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Harassment by Andy Dingley

I renominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular beat combo (2nd nomination) for deletion as suggested by the admin who closed the DRV a few months ago. I would not have renominated without this explicit green light from a trusted administrator.
But Since then, Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) has relentlessly trolled the page:

• Voting speedy keep when none of the WP:SK criteria apply
• Suggesting that I am a bad Wikipedian for not being a frequent editor: [64] - given WP:NOTCOMPULSORY this comment was pure bullying
• Falsely claiming that I am topic banned [65]
• ...then claiming that I should be topic banned: but this is pure bullying too, because if he really felt I should be banned then he’d propose it properly not just use it as an insult

Please can someone restrain this disruptive harassment. Amisom (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• You have, in a very short space, PRODed it, nominated this article at AfD once, canvassed the closing admin, taken it to DRV for a 2:1 rejection and now AfDed it a second time. You have no new points to bring up at this nomination other than a feeble JUSTNOTNOTABLE. The article is clearly in better shape now than it was. I have no interest in how much editing you do overall, but when you are only here (Amisom (talk · contribs)) to seek one article's deletion against repeated knockbacks, that's into disruptive territory. So yes, I'd certainly support a TBAN here – although its likelihood is negligible. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  Multiple contributors to the DRV, including the closing admin, went out of their way to say that, al5hkigh they endorsed the close, it would be appropriate to renominate. If you disagree, that’s fine. Calling me disruptive for taking their advice, though, is way out of line, as is misusing speedy-keep and making belittling and harassing comments along the way. Amisom (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  Excepting the comments about a tban at AfD none of this seems remotely actionable. Suggestion: Andy Dingley should strike through their tban comments as inappropriate for AfD and factually inaccurate. And that's about it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• The DRV explicitly permitted renomination. Amisom would have been within their rights to AfD it again right away, but instead chose to wait a few months. What exactly is the problem here? Reyk _YO! 14:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Why wouldn't renomination be permissible anyway? That's just how we work. Clearly it is, and the DRV close was reasonable to highlight it. However to re-nom an article which has doubled in size since the first AfD, thanks largely to Mervyn's referencing work, needs some reason as to its deletion. Amisom is permitted to re-nom it, but whether they should chose to do so is another matter. To do so on an improved article with no rationale is questionable. To attempt this for a fourth time, when fully half of their entire editing since April has been about deleting this one article, that's disruptive. As indeed, Andrew D.'s very first comment at the AfD pointed out. I'm also concerned about the bad faith shown towards other editors in describing the keep !votes in the first AfD as "not policy compliant". Even if those !votes were against Arguments to avoid, that only makes them a weak argument, not something against policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Being repeatedly described as a troll: "Don’t troll." "Troll" "relentlessly trolled the page" is pretty unimpressive behaviour too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If you don't like being called a troll, you shouldn't deliberately attempt to upset people. Your completely meritless talk of topic bans is hard to interpret any other way. Reyk _YO! 14:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am informed by Sir Spigismond "Spiggy" Topes of legendary popular beat combo The Turds that this is indeed the correct title for the article. Furthermore, a long list of Wikipedia policies support inclusion, notably (cont. p94) Guy (Help!) 15:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• I love the name "Sir Spigismond "Spiggy" Topes". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• There are times when I feel that the term "harassment" is thrown around willy-nilly to gain pity points. This is one of those times. pbp 15:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• I mean I still think Andy Dingley should strike through their TBan comments at AfD but otherwise this seems like a waste of everybody's time. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• I completely agree with both Simonm223 and Purplebackpack89, above. A strikethrough would indeed be a nice and reasonable expectation here. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

OvertounBridge

I wanted others here to be aware of the posts User talk:OvertounBridge has made, including their legal threats. I don't know if this is something that the Foundation needs to be made aware of(though he seems to suggest they aren't interested in suing the Foundation at least directly). 331dot (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

In the interest of helping others come to a quick conclusion: User:OvertounBridge wants Wikipedia to document his belief that dogs can smell invisible, magical fairies, and wants to sue anyone who disagrees. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

For information, if anyone wants more context, see my report which coincided with the user being blocked, so I deleted it.
Non-obvious points: this edit named the book's publisher, the companieshouse.gov.uk website shows the sole person with significant control has the same name as the book's author, suggesting it's a self-published source. User:OvertounBridge later wrote in the persona of the publisher, asking for the "contact details of who is responsible for the repeated, malicious, erasing of our author". Note that OvertounBridge's final edit threatens legal action against editors rather than the foundation. . dave souza, talk 09:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Alizabeth blon continues pattern of disruptive editing

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

---

User:Alizabeth blon has been blocked at least three times over the past month and a half for persistent disruptive editing at Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard and each time comes back and makes the same disputed edits without discussing it on the article talk page. She persists in adding the names of Dugard’s daughters despite repeated warnings that this is a violation of the Biography of Living Persons Policy and in adding another edit that is grammatically incorrect. Multiple editors have warned her and asked her to discuss the proposed edits. She has not responded. Multiple administrators have blocked her. I suspect she came back and edited using anonymous IP addresses and those were blocked. The article was semi-protected because of the persistent vandalism, but that status will soon expire. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Severe breach of WP:POLITE policy

User:Sebastian James just reverted another editor with this edit comment: "ADD THE SOURCE IDIOT, OR AT LEAST SEE THE SENTENCE UNDER THE GAME ON EPIC STORE"[66]. Perhaps a cooling down period, or at least a warning, would be appropriate.

Full disclosure, user has recently reverted my (I believe reasonable) edit, without comment.

LK (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

They've been warned here already, and their recent talk page history is quite a read: [67][68][69][70][71] -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like User:Sebastian James has a recent history of abusive and contentious edit summaries, and not assuming good faith. This in spite of Swarm's warning from the previous ANI report, so I have applied a block of one week. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a dang fine call. I didn't pipe up because of my previous interactions with the user, but they were definitely one of our less pleasant users. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This user has a significant and longstanding civility problem. A one-week block is a fairly lenient move, given their intractable behavior and the multiple warnings that have already been given. Grandpallama (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Dommiraubi repeatedly makes unsourced edits and ignores all warnings

Dommiraubi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly makes unsourced edits, especially to pages of recently deceased people, without any explanation. See the recent history of J. Om Prakash, for example. Multiple editors have left warnings on the user's talk page, which have all been ignored. -Zanhe (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for 60 hours. El_C 23:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Faizan is not deceased

This is the note written by Samee on talk page of Faizan.I learnt it from a reliable source about his death. Faizan was a worthy member of our WikiProject Pakistan. He was suffering from chronic illness for the last two years and breathed his last on 3rd June. Unfortunately, his account was hacked last year and subsequently blocked by a CheckUser. While he might not be remembered by the Wikipedia community for his contributions, the WikiProject Pakistan editors would certainly miss him. Rest in peace.

This is sick deception method, so that Faizan could return with a new sockpuppet and nobody could accuse the sock, as Samee will say Faizan is deceased, you are wrong.

I don't agree with the account hacking part. As when User:Towns Hill was active, in that period Faizan stopped editing. Towns Hill claim that he hacked Faizan's account. It wasn't hacking. As FreeatlastChitchat's sock account Elektricity was found and @Mar4d: was blocked as Acejet's sock, they don't want to create any more socks, even after changing ISP, behavioural evidence becomes strong, and their socks are blocked in spite of stale CU. கிச்சப்பன் ரேடுர்ன்ஸ் (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I take no position on this accusation by this editor claiming on their user page to be User:Santhosh993, but I will note that we as a project accept flimsy evidence for WP:RIP, especially from a group of people who would love to substantiate a clean start. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I myself have doubts about the hacking claim. And I agree with you that lying about someone being dead is sick. But here's the thing, that means so is accusing someone of doing so without good evidence. What evidence do you actually have that the claim is a lie? Also this happened over a year ago, do you have any evidence of sock since then? BTW, if you are User:Santhosh993, please log into that account and confirm the connection. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I looked a bit more and I'm not so sure the hacking claim is untrue as it's more complicated than I realised. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There are many people in the world named Faizan. Even if Samee produces a scanned/photocopy of death certificate of some man named Faizan, how can anybody confirm that, this Faizan is the same Faizan, who edited Wikipedia with Faizan account? Faizan wants to return, and he discussed this with Samee. கிச்சப்பன் ரேடுர்ன்ஸ் (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That is a very bold claim and does not even attempt to assume good faith on either editor's part. 2001:4898:80E8:7:C68D:C4ED:8292:B410 (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Have to agree with the IP that it's a very strong claim. How do you know Faizan discussed it with Samee? Please provide evidence or withdraw the claim. Nil Einne (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it really matters for the purpose of investigating socks. If Faizan's user account was compromised and then used to engage in disruption, then regardless of whether the original account owner is in good health, then the same person could be socking and checkusers should still investigate such claims. Just as we have no way of verifying the status of Faizan, we also have no real way of verifying the claim of hacking. So there's really no reason to challenge the claim, just let it be, and if it's true, let him rest in peace. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• I've removed the template. If Samsee wants to go through proper procedures, they can. Until then, we don't add templates like that without a discussion with administrators and reliable verification. Plus, other procedures for deceased editors have not been followed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User an edit summary to make personal attacks

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

---

I can't recall every crossing paths with User:KingForPA but they have taken issue with my previous edits to an article by calling me out in their own edit summary for that same article, instead of simply calling for a consensus on the talk page. I do request my name be removed from the summary as there is no need for this whatsoever. The edit and inappropriate summary can be seen at [72] NJZombie (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• @KingForPA: Do not make personal attacks against editors. Focus on content, not the contributor. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• That is hardly a personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Bender the Bot is malfunctioning

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

---

The Wikipedia page Jammu and Kashmir is being edited by Bender the Bit. This bot is providing fabricated information. It has very cleverly published only those informations in detail which are against Indian interests. It appears that It is handled by some Pakistan pro and anti Indian owner or handler. Kindly remove this page. Regards, Apurva K S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.50.100 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

An ethnonationalist bot — that's a first! Anyway, concerns about the bot should go to its operator first. El_C 03:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The bot's operator, bender235, is a native speaker of German who (judging by a link on his userpage), at least in 2004, was using a Deutsche Telekom IP address: he is or was in Germany, and presumably is not a Pakistan pro. All of its recent edits that I'm seeing are things like this edit, in which a variant URL is replaced with a more standard one. This is entirely appropriate, and unless something very different is happening at the page you mention, there's nothing fabricated whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear IP: Please review Help:Page history, which explains what the information you see on the "history" tab actually means. Bender the Bot is not the author of that article, just the last account to edit it. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

[another edit conflict] This edit to Jammu and Kashmir and this edit to Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) are perfectly fine. They replace links to books at books.google.co.in with links to the same books at books.google.com. This is a benefit, because ".com" is the core piece of the website, and (in my experience) Google Books doesn't allow you to view as much of a book if the URL is nationalized (e.g. "in.co" versus ".com") and you're in a different country. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Did not discuss first on the Talk page and deleted my contributions

HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · count)

Plz,see my User contribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/125.7.152.64

I wrote my opinion on the talk page but HistoryofIran did not give me any feedback and deleted my talk. Thank you.--125.7.152.64 (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Users are permitted to remove messages from their own user talk page. There is nothing actionable here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What A little blue Bori said. While I'm not happy with HistoryofIran calling this vandalism [73], it's also not enough for action by itself. Also remember, if you want to discuss article content (including changes you're trying to make to the article) the article talk page is generally the best location and I note Talk:Samarkand has not been edited since May 2018! If for some reason you felt it was better to discuss article content issues on a user's talk page, but the editor doesn't seem interested, there's no reason why you can't be the one to initiate a proper discussion on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Admin help requested at Amanda Cerny

Until earlier today, Amanda Cerny was a redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2011. However, earlier today User:Tortew moved the original page to Amanda Cerny (). Tortew then created a "new" article mostly by cutting and pasting text from the Playmate list article without attribution, thereby violating licensing requirements. Another editor then asked for assistance on my talk page,

This looks to me to be a shade too complicated for a simply speedy deletion request, and since I'm not an admin I can't simply delete the license violation myself. Therefore, I'm asking that an admin delete the current Amanda Cerny page as a license violation and then move the original page back to its original location. I've copied what little salvageable text there was to Tortew's talk page and encouraged them to follow proper processes if they wish to recreate an independent article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Smartse did the cleanup, I deleted Amanda Cerny () as an implausible redirect, and User:Tortew was checkuser-blocked in parallel. Thanks for raising this. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

CIR editor at it again!

• 2A01:4C8:839:F476:7567:4680:BFE4:92C2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:4C8:839:F476:C10B:9790:61AD:B7B2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Potentially_WP:CIR_editor_editing_sports_related_pages - this user is making very similar (problematic) edits to similar article; which leads me to believe this is block evasion... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Added another IP with similar editing pattern. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2A01:4C8:839:F476::/64 for two weeks for evasion of the block of User:NG Wilkinson. That was the account named in the previous ANI of 8 August:

• NG Wilkinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

The /64 guy shares NG Wilkinson's pattern of "Mobile edit, Mobile app edit, iOS app edit" in his edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Puzzling behavior from Murmansk IPs

• Cocomelon – Nursery Rhymes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2021 World Beach Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 5.142.197.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.142.228.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.52.16.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.52.18.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.54.185.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 95.54.188.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.68.118.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.68.113.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 178.68.127.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I had thought this was a humdrum case of undisclosed paid editing, but there's something odd going on, and TheAwesomeHwyh and I agreed that this was a better place than WP:COIN to ask for opinions about what exactly might be happening. A cluster of anonymous IP addresses, all of which geolocate to Murmansk, have been editing pages including Cocomelon – Nursery Rhymes (which I found by skimming the daily AfD log). Cocomelon, as it happens, is a YouTube channel for child-oriented videos, about which almost nothing is verifiable. Uncle G noted that the Cocomelon page had been heavily edited from Irvine, California (where the company is located) and from Murmansk (which makes rather less sense). For example, 98.185.164.198 (talk · contribs) seemingly tried to whitewash the page. 95.54.188.148 (talk · contribs) also appears involved somehow, and has a baffling habit of editing other users' sandboxes, including apparently trying to get them deleted. Editing the main Sandbox is what it's there for, of course, and they do a lot of that [74][75][76][77][78], but what about anonymously editing users' sandboxes [79][80][81][82]? And bot-maintained page lists in user space ([83][84]; many edits by 95.54.188.148 like [85])? And what was an anonymous IP doing trying to answer a semi-protected edit request? Here's another of the Murmansk IPs, leaving a warning template on another IP's User Talk page. How often do anonymous editors do that?

If anyone has thoughts about what this editor/these editors might be up to, I'd like to know. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like you forgot to warn some of the IP's, so I've done that for you. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• This is probably an example of ill-advised paid editing. The IPs are acting oddly but that may be a hamfisted attempt to appear as something other than an SPA. It's quite possible that their command of English might not be the best, so they may not fully understand what they're doing. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Back in the days of Project:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive185#Hidden page game these were sandbox fairies, although sandbox fairies did not do corporate promotion as well. Here are some accounts that they intersect. Uncle G (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • TastySpam (talk · contribs)
  • Kayvon2008 (talk · contribs)

Thanks for the comments, all. My most plausible guess was that this was a very "you get what you pay for" example of paid editing, perhaps trying to look more legitimate by racking up edits, but I'm still a bit surprised by the places they wandered into to make those edits. Some of those pages are far enough behind the scenes that casual and even not-so-casual editors don't know they exist, it seems to me. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Signature forgery by User:Neverendingstory123

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

---

User:Neverendingstory123 has just added messages with self-accusations and (imperfectly) forged signatures to four talk pages and then removed the "unsigned..." messages from SineBot, clearly impersonating User:Elitematterman. They are also active right now. Links to diffs: [86][87][88][89] Edible Melon (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Now indeffed by Bbb23. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Incivility

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

---

I am simply trying to tell User:Betty_Logan that I find her behavior to be uncivil, but she has reverted all of my comments on her talk page and mischaracterized my complaints as being merely content-related.[90] I find this representative of the dishonest behavior I believe I have experienced from her. I can avoid personalizing discussions with this editor in the future; I am only asking this Noticeboard to recognize my complaint.

This personality conflict originated from Millennials and its talk page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Where is the incivility? What is "dishonest" and why not assume good faith, instead? El_C 23:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:REMOVED. Betty Logan can remove nearly anything she wants from her talk page. In this instance it looks like she has tried to get you to focus on the content of the disagreement on the Millennials article, rather than badgering her on her talk page. (Full disclosure: I have collaborated with BL in the past and tried (in this thread to try and get KB to WP:FOCUS on the content, rather than trying to personalise their dispute. – SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat and I did have a discussion where they similarly did not try to see my perspective.

El_C, I feel that it is dishonest for her to say that I do not have a dispute with her over her conduct. I have repeatedly tried to clarify that my complaint with her is over her conduct, not merely content, but she has repeatedly denied that my personal experience exists. I have given her the benefit of the doubt, but at this point I feel gaslit. In the diff I provided you can see that I do not expect her to agree with me, I am simply trying to state the fact that I feel her conduct is a problem. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

KB your very first post in this thread Talk:Millennials#Pew paragraph accuses BL of "being dishonest and prejudiced" when she has been neither. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic. Your continued posts to her talk page are verging on harassment. At this moment the thread at the Millennials article seems to have reached WP:CONSENSUS so it would be a good idea to WP:DROPTHESTICK since BL's conduct it not a problem. MarnetteD|Talk 23:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any issues that pertain to misconduct on her part. Your diff fails to demonstrate anything of the sort. Why not just quote directly, then? El_C 23:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Karina Cynthia gaming 30/500?

Karina Cynthia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user had made a lot of edits in which they added numerous unnecessary commas to articles. They also tend to make removals of blank spaces (not blank lines) which have no effect on a page's rendering. They sometimes add "that" to sentences which were already grammatically correct already, as well as other unnecessary, trivial, or ungrammatical edits. They have been warned about the comma problem before. (See [91]).

This would be a minor matter, but they also edit articles related to Israel, which made me wonder if their trivial edits were, in fact, an attempt to use those edits to game the WP:30/500 requirement to edit in the Arab-Israel discretionary sanctions subject area. They currently have 589 edits and have edited for 43 days. They began editing Israeli-related subjects almost immediately after their account was created, but have not yet attempted (as far as I can tell) to edit is the DS subject area.

I would ask that an admin familiar with attempts to game 500/30 take a look at Karina Cynthia's edits to determine if this is simply an editor with a poor grasp of grammar and the use of commas (hardly a rare thing), or someone attempting to get around the DS rules. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a guideline or policy where admins can preemptively decide that someone is up to no good, before any policies or guidelines are broken? There is nothing this account can do that cannot be undone. If a policy is broken, then it should be dealt with after, not before --JOJ ^Hutton 04:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

While I do fear people gaming the 500/30 system, we can't convict people of future crime. If they haven't done anything wrong yet, AGF and let them be (although nothing wrong with keeping an eye on for NPOV/COI edits in the future). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• If the user is gaming the system in order to be 30/500 qualified that, in and of itself, is a sanctionable action. There's no "future crime" involved. If true (and it very well may not be), the "crime" is committed in the gaming itself, not in any possible future action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The user has made "589 edits and have edited for 43 days" so they have already got extended confirmed rights. So have they made any, other than the stuff above, problematic edits in the Arab-Israel area? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Then lets wait until they do eh? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

So, you're saying that buying a weapon illegally is fine until the weapon is used to commit a crime? (Just an analogy, I'm not equating the severity of the actions.) Is not gaming the system a sanctionable offense, or do I have that wrong? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Give it rest, BMK. I've reviewed the comma, space, and caps edits, and they look mostly OK, though sometimes "optional", and in one case I noticed added a comma into a quote where the source didn't have it. Did you engage about such things? Why the big revert? Why come here and try to drum up drama around a non-problem? Get lost. Oh, shoot, I forgot, I'm not speaking to you. Dicklyon (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

That comment really wasn't worthy of you, Dicklyon. Perhaps you might consider striking the personal animosity you've carried over from another dispute? Or perhaps someone would hat that comment as being irrelevant and inappropriately personalized? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Not very mature, Dicklyon. I'd also second BMK's call to strike the last portion of your comment. It's needlessly pithy and inflammatory. WaltCip (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for striking. On the substantive issue, I believe other editors, here and on the subject's talk page, agree with me about their misuse of commas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being a little suspicious of editors who seem like they may be racing to auto- or extended-confirmed. It's a common behavior for some LTAs, and we're often able to recognize them before they do anything harmful. Unless and until they actually make a controversial edit, it's probably better to just bring it up in private to people who might be in a position to know who it is. There's a lot less potential for drama that way. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this editor is attempting to game 30/500. However, they are a massive pain in the backside in terms of adding unnecessary and often incorrect punctuation, as well as making ENGVAR violations, and have failed to respond to any attempts to engage with them on this. I have previously considered reporting them for slow-motion edit warring by returning to certain articles repeatedly to readd the same commas when they are removed by other editors (one some articles this goes back to May, when they were editing from a variety of IP addresses). I would suggest a short block to at least get them to respond to concerns being raised on their talk page about their edits. Number 57 10:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Number 57: good idea, I've blocked them for 24 hours and explained the need to communicate - and to use edit summaries as they've ignored that request also. We'll see what happens next. I told them how to ping editors also. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • So that's how it rolls on Wikipedia now? Automatic block for not using edit summaries? Things sure have gotten worse over the years. We've come a long way since WP:BITE was a reasonably followed guideline.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
      • It's not biting when the user fails at communicating. Blocking to get their attention is the next logical step. El_C 21:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Exactly so. If someone is editing disruptively over an extended period, and you can't get their attention (or they aren't noticing attempts to communicate with them), a block usually alerts them that there is a problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
          • What were they doing that was disruptive? How are you defining disruptive? Were they vandalizing articles? Were they acting uncivil? Were they breaking any of the three core content policies? What policy was broken that needed immediate attention? When did blocking someone become a nonchalant way to get someone's attention? I'm just pointing out the obvious, that Wikipedia and the people who "run it", have broken away from what made Wikipedia an exciting community to a part of. I only edit sparing now because I saw how poorly some people used their tools. I only edit and maintain a few pages now and a few years ago I even took thousands of articles off my watchlist. And this problem is bigger than a stupid block of a single account. This behavior has been a problem for years. Most of you may not notice this drastic change because you've been active and the change has happened gradually, but to me, someone who hasn't spent that much time on Wikipedia or have paid attention to the everyday drama, to me it's like night and day. So sad that it's fallen so far from grace.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
            • If someone continues to be non communicative after multiple attempts to engage them about their problematic editing, a block is obviously the last resort to get their attention to this, so by definition it's not at all nonchalant. The less drama, the better, is just an axiom — and as for the good ol' days reflections, I'm not sure I'm exactly following your line of thought. El_C 00:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
              • Yep. This is completely normal. User has been here for over a month with over 500 edits, has also received 7 requests on their talk page to quit it with the commas, 1 request to use edit summaries, and 1 request to stop edit warring. Ignored or didn't see all of them. Block is fine. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Priyanshu dtx

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

---

user:Priyanshu dtx has been vandalizing for her entire time here, and it has stretched over multiple days. CLCStudent (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: I think that vandalism-only accounts can just be reported to AIV. Is there a reason why this can't be done in this situation? Diamond Blizzard talk 21:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I did this as opposed to WP:AIV because the user is not an imminent risk. CLCStudent (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Corvusphalanx

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

---

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

User with 2 edits making hundreds of automated edits via Citation bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This appears to be the same behavior as Marianne Zimmerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked as a sock of Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user making edits to Wikipedia entry

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

---

Hi guys,

I am the lead producer on the $25 million independent Australian movie Danger Close: The Battle of Long Tan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_Close:_The_Battle_of_Long_Tan

I spent 15 years getting this movie developed and financed and then made.

User Truth6557 (aka Jim Robison) is continually removing me as a Producer on this movie. He is a disgruntled person who has made unsubstantiated claims against our movie. He first added himself to the page when he's not entitled to a Producer credit. He then removed my name and has now done so three times.

The only Produced By credits on this page should be myself - Martin Walsh, John Schwarz and Michael Schwarz. This is what is in the credits and billing block of the film have and is also governed by the Producer's Guild. As such we are the only producers entitled to a Produced By credit anywhere.

This person Jim Robison (Truth6557) has some (Personal attack removed) of the film which was just released in Australia on 18 August.

Thanks in advance, Martin Walsh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddunefilms (talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

​This discussion was originally posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in Special:Diff/911239816. I've moved it here because it primarily involves user conduct. — Newslinger talk 15:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names § Reddunefilms. — Newslinger talk 15:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE for User:Jaywu2000 after unblocking

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

---

• Cantonese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jaywu2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For context, please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Continued disruption at Cantonese, again, again.

I changed my mind on AGF. He failed to resolve editing dispute in talk page and seek "external" help via RFC, edit war noticeboard (if applicable), etc. And after his temp block was expired. He just vandalise the article , see Special:Diff/911192970. Matthew hk (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 07:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

how to report socking for blocked IPV6 ranges?

So how do I report block evasion for a range if you keep deleting the reports? The puppet is 42.190.240.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the blocked range that is causing the socking is 2405:3800::/37 . Activity from both can be seen on Wan Kuzain, Sporting Kansas City and other association football articles. I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2405:3800::/37, but it was deleted without discussion, explanation or further instructions. Perhaps an update to the SPI page is needed? In the meantime, a block for evasion for the anon might be worthwhile. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Report it at ANI, with the appropriate links. An SPI for a range is not very useful--almost by definition an SPI is listed under the master, so you might could invent a name, I don't know. In the meantime I blocked the IP. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Will do! Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As a note. That vandal was reported again and again. Probably the last ANI reporting: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1014#nationality vandal by a Malaysian ip is back yet again. For 42.190.240.168, probably he just changed the ISP as a kind of block evasion. Matthew hk (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New user TheHistoryBuff101

TheHistoryBuff101 (talk · contribs · count)

Not sure what going on here, maybe the author of the images they're changing to, maybe paid editing, fan of the photographer idk. Can someone take a look into their edits. Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 19:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarify, My first concern was changing all these infobox images without discussion, then I noticed the commonality of the filenames. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOLD allows people to change content without getting anyone's permission. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime, if I'm curious about what someone is doing, I've found the best thing to do is ask them. If you think an individual edit is problematic, revert it and follow WP:BRD. It's bad form on their part not to communicate, but that's likely just newness. Try reaching out to them and drop them a conversational note rather than a dictate. Maybe explain what GA and FA articles are and suggest that perhaps seeking consensus and not being so bold over the lede image might be an appropriate route to opening communication. John from Idegon (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 08:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Jazz1972

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

---

Jazz1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just come off a 1-month block, set on 5th July. Virtually their first actions? Continuing the edit warring (on Cypriot intercommunal violence and List of wars involving Turkey) for which they were blocked. I think this needs to be nipped in the bud with an indef. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I indeffed as I promised I would, before I saw this thread. Acroterion (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Is it fact

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

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfC/User_names/Institutional_memory#Names_of_religious_figures

These are not allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhjk (talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This is, I think, the third time a question like this has been posted recently. The most recent time the account (Pisukoo) was indef blocked as LTA Nsmutte by @Zzuuzz:. [92]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, way more than three. It's a Long Term vandal. Railfan23 (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure, I just happened to notice the last three. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Vandalisms on Agdam by a possible vandalism-only account

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

---

• Muteleon360 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

In the article Agdam, a ghost town related to the conflict in Artsakh, the user Muteleon360 did 5 edits looking like vandalisms: here he talks about 70,000 people (it's about half of the population of whole Artsakh) living there in dire conditions (no sources). There are sources speaking about 300+ inhabitants on this ghost town but... 70,000? After this, he filled some empty sections with gibberish looking like clear vandalism/joke: there are no schools, nobody has cars, they (who?) have no money. Last edit is gibberish: it's not even a sentence and, at least, it's western Azerbaijan. His only edit on his user page looks like a vandalism. This account seems to be created just to vandalize Agdam, and note that the page was filled with this nonsense gibberish for 2 months. A temporary block to the page and an infinite ban to the account are, in my opinion, necessary. --79.49.7.107 (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Muteleon only has a few edits total, and the last time they edited was in July. This is pretty stale. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

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

IP making death threats

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

---

The IP which launch a Grossly insulting death threat to the Electricburst1996, would you request it to be revision deleted after the 2 week block has been imposed. Thank you. Sheldybett (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

emailed "emergency".-- Dlohcierekim 07:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

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

ip user making massive removals -no use of talk page

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

---

93.182.179.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blanking like crazy-- removing 7000-byte infoboxes from 10+ articles in last few minutes. No use of talk page. Says Infoboxes are garbage. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.182.179.223 Rjensen (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

In his edit summary for the removal the IP refers to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 6#Country comparison sections. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

... and I'm confused by your mention of "infoboxes". What the IP was removing were separate tables as described in the WikiProject discussion, not infoboxes. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 6#Country comparison sections came in 2018 regarding one anonymous person who added multiple poor-quality country comparison tables . A second editor said that the culprit should stop stating, "I agree that this should cease. The IP user doesn't engage in discussion and merely reverts anybody trying to remove their cruft." No one else commented. No "consensus" about automatic removal of all Country Comparison tables was ever proposed or discussed. What we have today in 2019 is exactly what that second editor complained about in 2018: I agree that this should cease. The IP user doesn't engage in discussion and merely reverts In this case IP removed them from multiple countries (Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China) in three minutes --faster than anyone could read them. The tables were noncontroversial and were sourced. That is disruptive editing. Rjensen (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• There should not be two concurring discussions on the edits in question. The user was temporary blocked at around the same time this discussion was raised. They cannot participate here, so either pick it up on their talk page or take to the relevant Wikiproject page after their block expires. Move to close by someone not involved. N.J.A. | talk 12:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "someone not involved" except that it was you who blocked the IP and thus prevented him from participating in the discussion here. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, which is exactly why I moved to close by someone else. I have not prevented them from doing anything. They were blocked before [I was aware] this discussion was raised [i.e. it was opened here 2 minutes after the block]. They were blocked due to their actions. If there’s the consensus you and they say exists then they should have stopped editing after the first or second revert and went to the talk pages and provide evidence by link histories of this consensus. Looking at their talk page since the block I am unwilling to unblock to allow discussion here. If you want to advocate their case you are free to, but I do not see what is meant to be accomplished here. I’ve already suggested the relevant Wikiproject pages. N.J.A. | talk 13:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Unless the time-tags are wrong, this discussion started at 11:46 UTC and you blocked at 11:48, so the discussion here was opened 2 minutes before the block, not "2 minutes after the block" as you state. I will, of course, believe you if you say you hadn't seen the discussion before you imposed the block. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
        • You are clearly not trying to listen and, perhaps unintentionally, misrepresenting the facts 1) I said above I was unaware of this discussion at the time of block. 2) Even without me satyng that, assuming any level of good faith it is likely someone is not aware of a discussion opened elsewhere within 2 minutes. 3) If you actually check all the time stamps, which you represent you have above, you would note the notification of this discussion, which is how I was notified of it, was posted to the user talk page after the block. If you have an issue with the block or my action in doing so then make your representations, but do so in good faith and without misrepresentations. Regardless of the timings, I would have blocked despite knowledge of this discussion as the user was editing disruptively. N.J.A. | talk 13:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

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

FC Bayern Munich

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

---

Hello, In that page, a bunch of IPs are doing some non-understandable edits (like changing continuously the name of the players in the lists The most recent Diff), and so they are enough annoying for us (the Pending changes reviewers) to revert them continuously. I ask you to take action as soon as possible. Best regards, Eni vak (speak) 23:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this was taken care of. In the future, you can request protection on WP:RPP. Frood 05:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Accused by IP

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

---

194.32.79.116 had recently accused me of being RainbowSilver despite having the same interests as anyone else. He or she thinks that my edits are disruptive having me adding sources to any articles. Please do something about this. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by IP

IP blocked 48h. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An anonymous IP account (Special:Contributions/2401:E180:8860:D3DE:61E7:731A:8680:A16E) is edit-warring personal attacks against myself and other editors into Talk:Carlos Maza. A block would seem merited here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Dealt with by User:Bbb23. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Deacon Vorbis censoring the math ref desk

User:Deacon Vorbis is a very valuable math editor, but I've run into him at the math ref desk a few times when he removed my comments pointing to the well established but controversial idea that infinities don;t really exist. The main issue with Deacon Vorbis' behavior is that he simply removes my comments as if it were vandalism when the commonly accepted norm is to hat a contribution, and that only if the contribution made were inappropriate for the discussion at hand. Outright vandalism must, of course, be simply removed.

This is the diff for his latest revert. His edit summary is totally misleading. First note that Deacon Vorbis' expertise in mathematics does not give him the right to be the judge and jury of what is legitimate math and what is not. He has dismissed people like Doron Zeilberger as kooks and cranks because of their work on ultrafinitism, he is allowed to hold that opinion and write on the ref desk why it's all wrong. But he goes too far when he doesn't allow other editors to point to the (ultra)finitist arguments of why infinite quantities are ambiguous and everything can in principle always be re-interpreted in finitistic terms. One can argue whether such an argument is pertinent in a certain math desk topic, an impertinent discussion may be hatted but not simply outright removed. But in this case the topic was about infinities and a hierarchy of ever larger infinities.

And before we get into a discussion here about the fringe nature of e.g. Doron Zeilberger's opinions, let me point to Formalism (philosophy of mathematics), which is pretty much what I based my comment on. Specifically from this source: "The guiding idea behind formalism is that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess."

Count Iblis (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm about to go make dinner and can't respond to this in detail. The short version is that Count Iblis is WP:NOTHERE and at the very least should be topic banned from the math ref desk; I'll have a better answer and get some diffs and such when I get back. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been warned at the 3RR board before because of your removals of my comments. If it's true that I'm WP:NOTHERE then you still can't simply remove edits that are not vandalism. What you can do is come here and point to contributions and you think make the case for WP:NOTHERE. You're not allowed to be the judge and jury, and this thread is about you behaving like that. Count Iblis (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that people have raised WP:NOTHERE before against me, let me point out that I edit this site more often than Wikipedia, and I'm extremely busy with research work in mathematical physics. As one can see my reputation on contributing to mathematics is quite good, although it's mostly outside of Wikipedia. Here on Wikipedia I make infrequent large contributions e.g. I wrote the entire Gaussian quadrature#General formula for the weights section from scratch. Count Iblis (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I notified Deacon Vorbis and that I'm not asking for any sanctions against Deacon Vorbis. The point of this thread is to remind him that he cannot simply remove contributions on the ref desk that are not to his taste. Count Iblis (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the edit in question, I don't see a problem. The reference desk is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Perhaps it could be discussed on an article whose topic relates to infinity (as long as it related to content). DV's reason to remove CI's comment is legitimate. DV wasn't calling it vandalism, but it does fall under disruptive editing, which includes WP:FRINGE theories. I'd say that claiming infinity isn't real is pretty fringe, and I support DV's removal. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not fringe in the sense commonly used in science, the way I invoked my argument is totally standard in mathematics. The argument made is not fringe, it's a well known and accepted argument, it's just that most mathematicians still favor an ontology involving infinities. Count Iblis (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Response. I've struck my claim of NOTHERE and promise to get diffs, because after eating, I just don't feel like I really care enough. What I'll say, though, is that as far as I can tell, Count Iblis has some sort of personal philosophical issues with math that involves infinite sets. This is a fringe view and fairly unusual, but whatever. However, he's had a habit of jumping in to math ref desk questions that are at best only extremely tenuously related to this to promote this view either directly or indirectly. This isn't an appropriate use of the ref desk. It would be like someone trying to talk about cold fusion at the science desk every time someone brought up a question about renewable energy. In all fairness, he's provided useful responses there, too, and I have absolutely no problem in that regard. But problematic use of the ref desk is problematic. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Except that finitism in mathematics cannot be compared to cold fusion in physics. A more appropriate comparison is perhaps a discussion on local determinism in quantum mechanics and how the violation of Bell's inequalities disproves this. Suppose that editor Hossenfelder appears there, raising the superdeterminism loophole. This is fringe only in the sense that it's not considered to be a likely possibility, it's not fringe like cold fusion. Removing the contribution from the discussion would not be appropriate, as it was not disruptive to have mentioned that possibility. But if editor Luboš Motl would edit there and encounter Hossenfelder's contribution, then it's not difficult to guess what would happen. Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Your contributions are FRINGE in the sense that they represent a viewpoint held by a small minority of relevant experts. Answering questions on the refdesk with fringe viewpoints is questionable to begin with, and failing to disclose that is doing the OP a disservice. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning that it's a minority POV would be good to do. But just like on the science refdesk if someone were to invoke a rather far-out idea (i.e. fringe but not in the sense of being crackpot), then I could comment on that by pointing that out, i.e. simply writer down a comment saying that this is a rather far-out idea. What I'm not allowed to do is to remove the contribution. At most I could hat the contribution if this is something that's derailing the discussion. Count Iblis (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's unlikely that ANI regulars will have sufficient enthusiasm to examine the refdesks but Count Iblis might recall times such as when another user was topic banned. @Count Iblis: Are you sure you want people from ANI to investigate? Wikipedia is not an exercise in liberty and if Deacon Vorbis thinks some of your comments should be removed it is extremely likely that they should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• The Reference Desks are supported by a set of high-quality guidelines. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. These represent the collective wisdom of a significant number of experienced Users over a long period of time. Users who volunteer on the Reference Desks should be familiar with these Guidelines.

The current dispute between two Users should be assessed against these Guidelines. Two sections in particular seem highly relevant:

1. Content and tone
2. When removing or redacting a posting

Dolphin (t) 13:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Count Iblis has some sort of personal philosophical issues with math that involves infinite sets. This is a fringe view and fairly unusual, but whatever. However, he's had a habit of jumping in to math ref desk questions that are at best only extremely tenuously related to this to promote this view either directly or indirectly. This isn't an appropriate use of the ref desk. This is 100% spot on. --JBL (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There are four separate issues. One is whether outright removal of the comment in this particular case was appropriate. The second issue is whether my comments where appropriate in this particular case. The third issue issue is if similar comments in the past may not have been appropriate in the particular context they were made. A fourth issue is what I personally think about infinite sets.

Whatever you think about issues 2,3, and 4, removal of the comment was not appropriate as I made a comment to not even the OP but to Meni invoking what Meni had said and simply invoked the well known formalist POV that simply says that mathematics can always be interpreted as a game played with symbols, see Formalism (philosophy of mathematics). There is nothing controversial about that, what conclusions you draw from that about the ontology of infinite sets is a different matter, of course. But given that the topic subject was precisely about the hierarchy of ever larger infinities, it was not inappropriate in this particular case. And if it needed to be mentioned that few mathematicians would take the formalist view to mean that infinite sets don't really exist, nothing would have stopped someone to mention that as well. If that discussion were to be seen to derail addressing the OP's question, then we deal with that by hatting the side discussion. Deletion is only done in extreme case like vandalism, contributions from banned users etc.

When I was a new editor here in 2004 and was too aggressive in keeping nonsense out of our climate change articles, I was not told: "Good work, 100% spot on". I was told by Admins here that however frustrating it is to keep the articles in good shape using the rules we have, it is more important to stick to the rules than to get to the correct version of the article by all means (there was no dispute that I was reverting nonsense).

Issue 3 isn't all that relevant, as it's not like I show up at the math desk every day starting discussions or posting comments advertising finitism.

Issue 4, not all that relevant, but I take the position that mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess. And if we take the view that we apply math also to the real world and there exist infinite quantities in the real world, then I can point to page 12 of this book, basically you only obtain the continuum we observe as a limit, you can't work with it directly when the difference between taking that limit and having it really exist would matter as it does in QFT. Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think Count Iblis's refdesk comment was mathematically wrong and not very helpful, but not disruptive enough to warrant removal. Deacon Vorbis should have left it alone. Meni Rosenfeld's comment about matching up countable ordinals with integers had nothing to do with formalism or finitism, but rather, I think Meni Rosenfeld was referring to ordinal notations which are basically ways to label the countable ordinals (up to some maximum that depends on the notation, since the set of all countable ordinals is itself uncountable) with integers. That is a conventional topic in set theory.

  Ultrafinitism in mathematics (the disbelief in infinite cardinalities or very large finite ones) is not exactly "fringe", it's just a minority viewpoint. Edward Nelson was a noted proponent and there are some interesting Math Overflow pages about it. Joel David Hamkins is currently doing some work related to it.[93] Count Iblis is a good refdesk contributor in physics and math topics related to physics, but the topics in dispute (philosophy of math, and mathematical logic / set theory) are outside of his area imho. I'd suggest that he study those subjects some more before expostulating about them on refdesk, since his post does come across as uninformed. He might find some of the writings from Edward Nelson's Princeton homepage (it is still up) to be of interest. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea about the reference desk, but encountered Deacon_Vorbis’s attempts to force own understanding of collaboration upon users several times, the last incident has been [94] [95]. May Deacon_Vorbis apply for administratorship to check how fashionable is shutting up every second person in en.Wikipedia? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64 (again)

Questionable or disruptive edits have continued from this IP range since my last report here, which was not answered by an admin. That said, a rangeblock might be necessary, but I would at least like an admin to assess this.

My original report from 6 August, which still appears to be adequately descriptive, was this:

Active since 22 July, disruptive edits originating from this IP range (Special:Contributions/2604:2000:DED1:4E00::/64) have been made on articles pertaining to superheavy chemical elements, the New York City Subway, and the Hong Kong MTR. Many of these edits were either against consensus (as in the case of elements) or constitue edit warring with terse edit summaries, and they have not engaged in discussion even in response to non-template messages. So far, one page has been protected, but others have since been affected and the IP is quite dynamic. I'm not sure if this is enough to warrant a ::/64 rangeblock, but other measures have so far proven ineffective. ComplexRational (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

ComplexRational (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The August 6 ANI report is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Disruptive edits from IP range 2604:2000:DED1:4E00. Based on User:ComplexRational's information and a review of the contributions from the IP range I'm blocking the /64 for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

The user KabukiStarship, who claims to be Cale Jamison McCollough from Eugene, Oregon, is disruptive. Accusing both David Eppstein and Stavros Macrakis of lying about their Ph.D.'s is taking this crap way to far. Please make it stop.

Nobody has argued that Ph.D.'s knows best, or are superior in any way on Wikipedia. Nobody has argued that titles or formal education is required on Wikipedia. Everybody has welcomed constructive and competent contributions to Wikipedia.

One of the main issues seems to be that KabukiStarship has a distributive lack of self-awareness regarding its own abilities and competencies, and "the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up" is required.

It is impossible to have a coherent discussion with KabukiStarship. Everything devolves into ad hominem attacks, and straw man arguments. 185.213.154.172 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The egregious accusation took place here (search for "I can lie about having a Ph.D. too"). 185.213.154.172 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you coming back to give the link; WP:WIAPA specifies that it's a personal attack to make this kind of claim without evidence, so I would have reverted your report and warned you. But since you provided that link, and since you're clearly right, I've blocked this user for 72 hours and left the following note at his talk page:

I've imposed this block because of the range of reasons discussed at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report, but more than anything else because of your completely unfounded claims that other editors are lying about their credentials. Our personal attacks policy specifies that accusations of disruptive behavior must be backed up, and baseless accusations are considered personal attacks. Once this block expires, you're welcome to edit productively, but if you resume the disruption that got you blocked, you will be blocked again, but for a longer period of time.

Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF user being disruptive

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

---

• Wikipevi.acc (talk · contribs)

It brings me great pain to report a user for WP:CIR. It really should only ever be used as a last resort, I feel. This matter is that.

Any user who visits User talk:Wikipevi.acc will see that, despite warnings and pleas for communication,^[96][97] they have continued a pattern of moving clearly unfinished articles into mainspace (Special:Log/Wikipevi.acc says it all). The thing that went to far was the move that just happened from draftspace to a nonexistent article's talk page.[98] This is the second time they've done this.

It'd help if I was a bit more confident with being a pagemover and NPP reviewer. This user did put out a request for help.^[99] I have no clue why they self-reverted that immediately.

I don't know what to do for this user. They keep unintentionally breaking things and don't seem to be learning nor displaying curiosity by asking questions about things. They just keep creating the same poorly written articles that keep getting deleted. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• I think Nom is right - if the user can engage we might be able to do something about it, preferably an all-round consensus approach and some teaching, less preferably a TBAN. But we need @Wikipevi.acc: to be willing to talk. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Back in April I tried to get him(her?) to engage and talk about what they were doing, because they clearly were struggling. However they haven't been particularly responsive, with a total of 12 talk space contributions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

They thanked me for the AN/I notice... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Question. @Winged Blades of Godric: can you shed some light on this? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyone out there wanna comment? –MJL ‐Talk‐^🍰 21:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There is clearly a significant language barrier here. While that alone doesn't disqualify someone from editing, the lack of response to the concerns raised (including a block earlier this year) and apparent inability to understand those concerns does. I think an indef block would be in order; it will stop the disruption and force the editor to acknowledge the problems with their editing if they want the block lifted. --Sable232 (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That sounds solid to me. If there are no objections, this report should probably be closed and that maybe done as a normal admin action. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll post on WP:Discord as well, but someone might want to look at Special:Contributions/Wikipevi.acc. Seems odd. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Could you maybe please close this? It's not fun having to randomly check AN/I to see nothing has still come of this report. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Also see: User talk:Wikipevi.acc#List of villages in Ashti, Beed moved back again to draftspace –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Rampant sockpuppetry on NY-NJ transit articles

Would anyone like to take a look at the 5 day backlog on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Train_Master? Cards84664 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

SPI perpetually backlogged - someone will get to it eventually. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please ask for your CU back DoRD! :( Blackmane (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

That would be great! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Editor who still hasn't learned about copyright, NPOV, original research and reliable sources

User:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. has been here almost 11 years with 3000 edits but is still struggling with our basic principles.

NPOV - they removed some text last month calling it editorializing but here they added to another article "that arose to fight for justice against the genocidal Mongols". Here is a diff for a series of edits made by this editor including the bit I've quoted.[100] Which leads me to sources - if you read that diff you'll see that the two paragraphs that are sourced are sourced to a YouTube video[101] from a group calls "Kasaysayan Hunters"[102] who are seeking the "true history of the Filipino people" and suggest that platinum was mined by ancestors of the Filipinos 3000 years before it was mined in the west - that and the megacity they mention on their FB are both fringe.

In various articles they are adding this text[103] " In relation to that, a population survey conducted by German ethnograper Fedor Jagor concluded that 1/3rd of Luzon which holds half of the Philippines' population had varying degrees of Spanish and Latin American ancestry. When statistical patterns in that survey conducted in the 1800s is applied to modern census data from 2015, when about 1/3rd of Luzon's people which is 16.5% of the whole Philippine population, would yield a population of at least 16.7805 Million Filipinos who have Spanish or Latin American descent mainly in Luzon, this is already discounting the Latin American and Spanish descent in Mindanao and the Visayas which also were colonized by Latinos and Spaniards. The proposed dissemination of Spanish genes among 16.5% of the total Philippine population as abstracted from Fedor Jagor's survey is near the 13.33% frequency of Hispanic Y-DNA among Filipino males presented by the company, "Applied Biosytems"."

I already submitted to your demands.

If you look at the latest version in that article. I myself removed the superimposition of that 1870 census data (which recorded race) to the modern ::census which doesn't. I myself recognized that information afterwards as synthesis and by your nudging I am morally bound to remove my own work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filipinos&type=revision&diff=911026044&oldid=910969165

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a combination of poor sources and original research. There's nothing wrong with using Fedor Jagor for historical information but its use here is clearly original research (as an aside, the whole section on genetics in Filipinos looks like it could use work).

A similar edit in a different article is here:

"During the initial stage of the Spanish colonization of the Philippines which were around the 1600s, about 16,500 soldiers levied from Peru and Mexico were sent together with 600 Spanish officers to fight wars, settle, colonize and build cities and Presidios in the Philippines. These 16,500 Peruvians and Mexicans supplemented the Native Malay Population which then reached 667,612 people. This large initial group of Latin American soldier-settler founders had spread their genes among the sparesly populated Philippines. This resulted into a massive spread of Latin American admixture among Filipinos as evidenced by a large number of Filipinos possessing Native American ancestry. A Y-DNA compilation organized by the Genetic Company "Applied Biosystems" found that 13.33% of the Filipino Male Population had Y-DNA of Latin American and Spanish origins, thus it can conclude that up to 7.162 Million (Male) Filipinos have direct patrilineal descent from populations then originating from Spain, Mexico or Peru. Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by German ethnologist Fedor Jagor of the population of Luzon island (Which holds half the citizens of the Philippines) 1/3rd of the people possess varying degrees of Spanish and Latin American ancestry. When transferring this variable according to modern population scales, this would mean that there are at least 16.7805 Million people (Mainly from Luzon) possessing partial Mexican and Spanish descent in the Philippines by the 2015 Census. However Luzon in the north is not the only area with a concentration of Latin American descendants, Zambaonga in Mindanao island at the south, speak Chavacano, a Creole Language based on Mexican-Spanish with some Peruvian vocabulary. The province has a population of 1.2 Million people, thus increasing the total Filipino population which posess varying degrees of Latin American and Spanish ancestry to about 17.9805 Million."

If you look at the latest version, you would find that I even submitted to your demands and removed several sections of my work which you considered original research.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted his addition of similar text at a couple of other articles but they've reinstated their edits. [104] and [105]

Yes, I have reinstated my edits but you also didn't say how I used even more genetic studies proving my point and I even listened to you by partially removing the contents which you considered original research.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Here [106] he has used unreliable sources, [107] which is based on user submissions and [108] which is a personal blog. I note that User:Stricnina gave him what seems a very clear warning and explanation about suitable sources and original research a few weeks ago at User talk:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.#About your contributions that do not follow the WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research guidelines

I'm sure I could find other examples but I've already spent too long on researching this. One other I just found when using the interaction analyse, this from 2016 where he inserted text which was not in the source (which I was able to download from JSTOR)[109].

How was I suppose to know about this? Sometimes, and in this particular case, I just edit wikipedia according to some suggestions and citations my friends give me and since I don't have the dollars necessary to have JSTOR account. (I earn in pesos). I have no capability to verify content beyond a paywall.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

He also still hasn't learned about copyright, see User talk:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.#Yet another copyright violation. I'll ping a couple of other editors who have posted to his talk page recently, @Wtmitchell and Rosguill: I think this editor has a serious competence problem and hasn't learned from the problems discussed on his talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I meant to add that his comments on my talk page (several sections) indicate to me that he is a good faith editor struggling with our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... I admit that I may have done wrong in some instances. It may be due to the fact that I have active communication with a lot of people in Facebook you say that I cite my sources from, mainly from the University of the Philippines as well the Kasaysayan Hunters (With members from La Salle and Anteneo University too) who I am personal friends with, and their ideas seep into mine and since they're mostly avant garde in nature I am in a way violating Wikipedia's policy of using only mainstream sources. A lot of my work isn't actually original research since its been circulating among non-mainstream academics for a while now. You can ask WMitchel since he knows that I have the emails of and have correspondence with a lot of History writers and Anthropologists. So I admit that some of my works are fringe in this regard. However, if it shown to me that my edits are wrong I admit correction. You can ask Stricnina herself, I aceded to her demands and I even fast tracked the deletion process of the articles I myself made by giving "Main editor consent" to delete them. Anyway, from this point on I have recognized that Wikipedia is not a viable media to introduce new content. From now on I will just write my work for publishers who will pay me for my write-ups instead of working for free in Wikipedia, only to be mired in edit warring. At least it will save me the psychological stress of constantly having to prove my point to people who have preset presumptions. After I finish writing, making and editing some few more Wikipedia articles, I will minimize my Wikipedia use. You don't need to have me banned or blocked since I will simply leave. Thank you. May you have a happy life.

You can look at my entire 11 year history BTW and you would see that most of my edits are not Fringe, not Original Research, not Copyright Violations and are verifiable. Picking 10% of my articles which are wrong (I admit that I am wrong sometimes and even then I accept correction) while ignoring the 90% more which are correct, is totally up to you. I have no power in Wikipedia since I merely am just an old and experienced editor here, not an Administrator. That would be inconsequential soon anyway since I may quit or minimize my Wikipedia activity or go on a brief Sabbatical at least.

Regards and best wishes to you.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding my comments on their talk page, if memory serves, we had a discussion on the talk page of a now-deleted article including several other editors. By the end of the discussion, Rene was in agreement that the central premise of the article was reliant on original research, and the article was thus deleted.

The only other comment that I would make at this time is that you can apply for a free JSTOR account using the Wikipedia library card platform. I have one myself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Yes I remembered you mentioning that I should make JSTOR account in the past, but I haven't followed up on that yet, thank for reminding me! But I probably won't use that though as I intend to quit Wikipedia or take a break from it after I finish off some projects...

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: Placing your comments inside another user's comment as you did here is incredibly disruptive to the flow of conversation, and risks leaving it unclear who said what. Please never do that again. If you are responding to a long comment and want to make it clear which portions you are responding to, simply quote relevant portions prior to your own responses. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Ok I will put that in mind.

• I checked the most recent edit by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk · contribs) which was diff at United States. The diff interjected WP:SYNTH commentary based on a 44 page pdf by Mark A. Stoler (an historian with no article) with no page number in the reference. The user should not be editing articles of that nature and some kind of resolution is required. If the issues were found in a single topic (Philippines?) a topic ban might be best. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have opinions on how wrong some of that looks, especially jammed in as it was. Anyway, part of the problem is that Rene doesn't seem able to figure out what the source actually is. He cited an essay on a website, but that website was simply hosting a journal article published elsewhere: “George C. Marshall and the ‘Europe-First’ Strategy, 1939–1951: A Study in Diplomatic as well as Military History,” by Mark A. Stoler, The Journal of Military History, 79:2 (April 2015): 293-316. It ticks every box as an excellent source, but the use here looks weird. I'd have to look into it even more to form a full opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I used that in conjunction with other sources (I didn't cite it in that edition of the America article because I was afraid that quoting President Manuel Quezon verbatim might violate NPO) But you can see his visible anger at America's Europe First Policy in World War 2, here, where he said his famous "Que Demonyo", speech...

https://m.ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=94

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

No sir, that is not a Synthesis. It's common knowledge. Americans abandoned the Philippines and pursued a Europe first policy. President Quezon himself was quoted in saying: “come, listen to this scoundrel! Que demonio! How typical of America to writhe in anguish at the fate of a distant cousin, Europe, while a daughter, the Philippines, is being raped in the back room!”

https://wanderingbakya.com/quezon-heritage-house/

I just didn't put my source in the statment since I'm afraid it might make Americans look bad so I wanted NPO and just stated the fact that America had a Europe first policy and abandoned the Philippines, however Mac Arthur had very scathing words against American policy as well as President Manuel Quezon.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What isn't synthesis? I've no idea what edit you are referring to. And you're proving my point about your problem with determining what is a reliable source, Wandering Bakya is a blog run by "roselee" and clearly not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC) @Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: pinging you again as my first attempt failed. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Well that blog only took that Quotation which Manuel Quezon said from this website. The International World War 2 Database...

https://m.ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=94

I hope that clarifies things.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: So why would you use it instead of the World War II Database (which I haven't researched). And again, what isn't synthesis? Doug Weller talk 10:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I stated in an edition of the USA article that the USA abandoned (I think I should rephrase that to "left" to become even more neutral) the Philippines to an invading Imperial Japan due to adopting a "Europe First" policy. The user Johnuniq, accused me of Synthesis WP:SYNTH to which I retorted that it was not and that General MacArthur and President Manuel Quezon themselves decried the "Europe First" policy in their interactions with Roosevelt. However, I self inhibited from quoting the full source verbatim, of that statement, that, the USA "left" the Philippines (Even though it's pretty self-evident) because I thought it was not Neutral Point of View for the USA according to the primary sources, however in the process, I was acussed of Synthesis or Original Research which I didn't do because the displeasure over Roosevelt's Europe First Policy originated with Macarthur and Quezon themselves, not me. Anyway, I hope that that elucidates this situation. Regards! After I make a few articles and edit some more I'll be quitting English Wikipedia for a while so around two or three weeks from now, I'll be wrapping up my Wikipedia activity. No need to block me in Wikipedia I'll voluntarilly take a break especially since I have a potential new job oncoming on a publishing company and I will just post my literature there without the hassle of edit warring. At least I will get paid for my write-ups instead of getting stressed over and over again, arguing with others in wikipedia with no benefit on my part since I'm doing it for free yet I still have to pay for internet and have debts in day to day life, yet people threaten to have me blocked or banned, in which case I'm saying to these people, alright you win! I will taper off from Wikipedia editing in the oncoming days. No need to have me blocked, since in a way, I will block myself. May God continue to bless you and may you grow in grace and happiness.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't want to come to this point but 2 Editors from the United States Article has already acussed me of "Synthesis" and "Original Research" which I am sick and tired of proving that it's not and that what happened in the Philippines in relation to America during World War 2 was pretty self evident (America prioritizing the European Theatre over the Asia-Pacific Theatre and abandoning theif fellow Americans and the Filipinos to help former Imperialist Britain) and furthermore, I simply did not put my source (From President Quezon and General MacArthur) in that Wiki Article since it colored a negative light on America. If any more accusations of Synthesis or Original Research will be put on me in relation to that article edition, I will just plop in that reference, so that I am done with this. All this drama is adding more stress in my life.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: I have much better things I could be doing then dealing with your edits, but as I think you are making a mess at times, and I discovered the problems, I feel I have to follow through. There are not two editors from the USA article accusing you of synthesis, I have nothing to do with that article and haven't even looked at your edit, that was User:Johnuniq What i said was obvious synthesis was your using modern genetics and a 19th century source to come to a new conclusion not in either source. After all your time here you should know that was against policy. I believe that your current text at Latin Americans[110] is extrapolating current population date from genetic research and that that is original research and have asked at WP:NORN to separate it out from this discussion and give you a chance to explain it in detail Doug Weller talk 15:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't put in the otherother study I cited from the Institute of Human Genetics and that study from National Geographic with a sample size of 80,000 Filipinos that concluded a large amount of Latin American and Spanish ancestry was present among Filipinos. I am using a Smartphone right now. So it's hard to put in the links via typing so I'll defer posting that until I get a laptop. But you know what I am talking about. Anyway most of the points I have addressed with you in a previous talk. I'll just post it here again so that the Administrators in this talk page will know...

Actually, the Open-source Y-DNA compilation done by Applied Biosystems was the one that presented the facts that 13.33% of the total male population they sampled from all across the Philippines had Spanish and Latin American Y-DNA and it just fit with the historical census data by Fedor Jagor that 1/3rd of Luzon which is about 16.5% of the Philippines had Latin American admixture. What I posted was a function of "Corelation" and "Sylogism" not "Synthesis", arriving at New data which was not present in the original sources via combinatronics like there are only two piano keys and if played by one key alone there is no melody formed but with at least two keys, you can start a musical piece. In fact for a Synthesis to form strictly speaking, in Dialectical materialism, two different schema with different qualities I.e. a Thesis and an Anti-Thesis should fuse or oppose one another to form a Synthesis. What I did was not a Sythesis in the original meaning of the word if we get into Logic or Semantics. In fact, I also put your POV in mind and I even reduced several sentences from my previous post, in fact I am willing to extend my consideration of you even more, to at least two magnitudes... Since we disagree that 16.5% of Filipinos are of Latin American descent then we either agree, on the spirit of consensus building, that 7% of the Philippine population (Since in that Open Source Y-DNA bank sampled from all across the country 13.33% of Filipino males and half of that is 7%, have sure Iberian/Latino descent from the Paternal line) or that at least 200,000 Filipino people have Latin American or Spanish descent (With indication that its from an 1870 Census) I'm already bending backwards for you in this case btw since I already cited those genetic studies from the National Geographic and the Institute of Human Genetics of California that most of 80,000 Filipinos they sampled had Iberian and/or Native American descent.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

User:AssociateAffiliate

I am concerned about the recent edits made by @AssociateAffiliate: particularly on Jimmy Kirkwood (field hockey and cricket). Even though Kirkwood has represented Ireland at cricket he has removed the [category:Irish cricketers] and [category:cricketers from Northern Ireland] and the cricket infobox from the article. He has also removed other articles from these categories. These categories should include every Irish cricketer or cricketer from Northern Ireland regardless of the level they played at. In my experience this is a standard definition across all sports. There are at least four separate subcategories for Irish cricketers who have played for the Ireland cricket team. Again I should point out that Kirkwood has played for this team. AssociateAffiliate has also nominated two player categories (Instonians, Lisburn Cricket Club) for deletion purely because they associated with clubs. He based this on a so called precedent (Railway Union) were he and just one other editor agreed on deletion. Djln Djln (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Why have you not gone to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket with this? Uncle G (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Following Uncle G's comments, I don't see any discussion on the article's talkpage and no discussion on AA's talkpage, apart from telling them of this ANI discussion! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• I wanted to get a neutral perspective on the issue and not just the opinions of cricket fans. The only place AssociateAffiliate has discussed his views is in the edit summaries of the Jimmy Kirkwood page which not really appropriate. Plus a patronising message on my talk page. Djln Djln (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• This was explained on your talk page, which, far from being patronising, actually laid out the way cricketers are categorised by the cricket project. So if you consider that patronising, then wow. In future I won't even give the decency of an explanation. So on Kirkwood. If you were to simply create an article about his cricket, he'd not meet WP:CRIN as his cricket isn't notable, so his hockey is the part that makes him notable, see John Manners (cricketer): his navy career isn't senior enough to make him notable, but his cricket career is. On Category:Irish cricketers, 534 of them all share one thing in common, they've all played a major format of the game. Playing 'minor' club matches isn't a major format, so they aren't categorised as cricketers. Take Phil Neville, he played second XI cricket for Lancashire, but pursued football. He has neither a Category:English cricketers or Lancashire cricketers attached to his page. On clubs, only those that play at those levels are included in domestic categories, Category:Players in English domestic cricket by team as an example contains solely FC/LA/T20 sides past and present. It's how the cricket project has categorised for years, it's effective and in line with the overall WP:CRIN notability guideline. If their cricket isn't notable to warrant inclusion they aren't categorised. As mentioned, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket is the place to seek change. I'm just upholding the way the project categorises players and teams, which makes total sense. StickyWicket (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This nonsensical rant should explain why I chose to seek a neutral opinion and not start a discussion at the cricket talk page. The statement "In future I won't even give the decency of an explanation" is not really appropriate or helpful. Just a really poor attitude. None of this nonsense above explains why an Ireland international cricketer has been removed from the [category:Irish cricketers] and [category:cricketers from Northern Ireland]. Unlike Phil Neville and Piers Morgan, Kirkwood was an international cricketer. What part of this does AssociateAffiliate not get. I totally get that every back garden cricketer shouldn't be included in cricket categories. However it is standard across other sports categories to include all players, not just internationals, if they have played at a decent competitive level. Plus not being notable in one occupation/field does not exclude an article from being placed in a category. For example none of the people in [Category:Category:Schoolteachers from Northern Ireland] or [Category:Women lawyers from Northern Ireland] is notable for being a schoolteacher or a lawyer. They are notable for being sportspeople, politicians, writers, poets etc. Should these categories be nominated for deletion. Djln Djln (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    • This nonsensical rant should explain why I chose to seek a neutral opinion and not start a discussion at the cricket talk page. Unfortunately, you are required to at least attempt to discuss this at the talk page. You may have a point about categorization; I don't normally dabble in those things. But at the end of the day, this is a content dispute, and this board is not the place to hash out content disputes. Please try to resolve the dispute on the talk page, and failing that, you may find the page Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to be helpful. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry, but this user is just completely irrational and unreasonable, and any attempt to reason just results personal in attacks. They are unwilling to discuss either on my talk page or the cricket project talk page. Prior to that, had they done their homework and looked at how the cricket project catogrises teams and players, they'd have realised exactly how it's done. Instead, they didn't bother to check before or even ask, just muscle in and when corrected (with a friendly explanation of how we categorise according to match status), the user reacts with ignorant rants and personal attacks. Oh and for the record, Kirkwood is not an international cricketer. His matches were minor (non first-class and he'd fail WP:CRIN as a standalone) and cannot be recongised as such. Though, the user in question obviously knows much more about cricket than the rest of us, having already claimed Kirkwood was a first-class cricketer. And you speak of a decent competitive level... yeah that's called first-class, List A and Twenty20 cricket - not sure what part of that you don't get. It's handed out to a select amount of teams, either by the ICC or full member boards. It's simply astonishing that, having been given examples of how it's been done for that last 15 years on CRIC, that you contiune to know best. I don't have the poor attitude, that'll be you who refuses to discuss the matter... I wonder why? StickyWicket (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I also see you have taken it upon yourself prior to this to change the protocol for cricketers without consulting the project first, such as here and have a track record of creating categories that get deleted. Maybe you should seek consensus instead of rubbing people up the wrong way? StickyWicket (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• AssociateAffiliates comments above are just further proof of why I started the discussion here. I have not made any personal attacks here at all. AssociateAffiliate has launched into a personal attack here against me just because I had the audacity to challenge their reasoning which contradicts every other method of categorising sportspeople. Djln Djln (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the difference between International Cricket (first class) and International Cricket (Non first class) -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

First-class cricket refers to the top levels of "red ball" cricket, such as test cricket, which doesn't have a limitation on the number of overs each side may bat (though there is usually a time limitation for the match). Non-first-class international cricket would be "white ball" formats including one-day international (ODI) and Twenty20 international (T20I) matches: limited-overs formats played at the international level. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The difference between international first-class cricket and non-international multi-day cricket is just the status of the match. Djln doesn't get that cricket is one of the few sports that places importance on the status of matches, with a large emphasis placed on stats. This is something which not many other sports do - so CRIC's way of categorising falls completely in line with how the sport rates matches by status (both by player and team, which is reflected in all our categories). First-class cricket (ranging from 3-5 days) is sanctioned either by the ICC or a full member board. So when Kirkwood played a few multi-day matches in the 1980s, they aren't considered as full-internationals so fall under the bracket of minor matches. This is because the ECB (being a full member) didn't sanction the matches as first-class and Ireland weren't ICC members until 1993, so the ICC wouldn't have conferred any status on the matches. So the matches go under the miscellaneous bracket and are non-internationals. StickyWicket (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Djln, you haven't challenged anything. You were blissfully unaware of how CRIC categorises, otherwise you'd have noticed Category:Irish cricketers contained 534 first-class/List A/Twenty20 cricketers and Category:Players in Irish domestic cricket by team were all major teams and asked on the cricket talk page if it was appropriate to categorise players/teams that don't fall under that bracket. StickyWicket (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll just say, classifying this as patronizing and this as nonsensical is simply a very bizarre take on things. It seems to me polite, civil, rational, and self-consistent. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree on the standards for inclusion in the national cricket categories, but I don't see any reason that disagreement needs to lead to this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Lot's of editors going off on tangents here. It's not really about the differences between test and T20 etc. It about correct use of categories. The fact is Kirkwood is Irish, from Northern Ireland and played cricket for the Ireland cricket team. He more than qualifies to be placed in Category:Irish cricketers and Category:Cricketers from Northern Ireland. Wikipedia is basically denying the truth if editors believe otherwise. Change "association footballers" for cricket here and it is more obvious. There are separate categories for cricketers who played international cricket in it's various forms, just as there is in association football, rugby union etc. Why is cricket treated differently ? Categories should not have long winded explanations of who qualifies and who doesn't. It should be clear and obvious from the title. Djln Djln (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

But those catergories are exclusively for cricketers who played at matches rated by either a full member board of the ICC as being forms of major cricket. Before I finished all the FC/LA/T20 cricketers, a clear out was made of Irish people who played cricket at non first-class level, such as Nathaniel Hone and a dozen or so others. If they were deleted by consensus for not playing at first-class level, then Kirkwood similarily (though notable in hockey) cannot qualify for the cricket category if we are to we are to maintain a consistent policy for all cricketers appearing in matches with FC/LA/T20 status. And cricket is the only sport (with rugby somewhat also doing it) which has status for its matches, football does not, so it's inclusion criteria and categorisation is much looser. StickyWicket (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

ShiftFN persistent spamming, continues after final warning

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

---

User ShiftFn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just re-added ([111]) an inappropriate external link (per wp:ELNO, item #11) to one of the pages on their personal website http://studia.scienceontheweb.net in article DNA sequencing. I had removed a bunch of links to this site and had given a final warning on their user talk a few days ago: [112]. This seems to be the only activity by this user. - DVdm (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. For what it's worth, promotion-only accounts can be reported to WP:AIV for faster service. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks & cheers. - DVdm (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

user:51.36.183.13

Already blocked, and in any event, I'm sure that you know that WP:AIV would be better for simple vandalism. ST47 (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

---

user:51.36.183.13 is making unexplained deletions after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Disruption

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

---

This is an alert to avoid the anticipated escalation with User:Colin.

I am a photographer, more active on Wikimedia Commons, though several of my pictures have been featured here on Wikipedia English, nominated by others, and I've created a few pages like Plexippus petersi or Hypomeces squamosus. But I'm French and not fluent in English, that's why I usually don't write much content, except in the few pages and articles I'm specialized in.

Now I've started a discussion in a talk page within the scope of WikiProject Essays, concerning indentation (typesetting): Wikipedia_talk:Indentation#Proposal_Avoid_multiple_indentations_and_Avoid_interference.

Immediately User:Colin contributes to the discussion with this rather hostile comment focusing more on the contributor than on the subject. I strongly suspect this attack deliberate, since this user is perfectly aware we should not act as such, recently he wrote on a talk page "To be clear: a personal attack is when you comment and attack the person, rather than argue with them about the topic." Giving lessons and acting in the opposite.

Colin and me never met on Wikipedia English before, however we are in contact too often unfortunately on the other wiki project, where there really have been enough sparks and disagreements until very recently to avoid now any further conflict. Me and another user were directly insulted only 5 days ago by this rude person, then I don't think the atmosphere is serene today, especially if someone starts one more time to focus on the people instead of sticking to the topic. WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL should apply and be respected. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that rises to a personal attack, or even incivility. I don't really understand what the argument is about (I've yet to read the discussion in full), but I get the sense that there isn't any actual disruption involved, either. Maybe I'm missing something, though — please feel free to quote directly. El_C 04:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

El C - It appears to be an extremely WP:LAME proposal by Basile Morin to regulate how indentation is allowed to be used on talk page discussions. I see it as a tremendous waste of everyone's time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding_incivility: "Avoid condescension" and "Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment.". Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Here's Colin's comment:

:Strongly oppose adding this to any policy or guidance or this essay. Basile has a bee in his bonnet about a very standard form of indentation used on all wiki projects. He goes around "fixing" other people's mistakes, leading to arguments and confusing discussion ordering where previously there was none. The style this GIF claims is bad, is seen and used widely on all forums on all wikis by all levels and experiences of users. The example text is abstract, though the wording gives the impression the person adding the "wrong" text is pushing in -- again this is Basile's annoyance showing. I can find examples of where this is used quite sensibly, though it will take me time to dig out the conversation where I last tried to convince Basile he was wrong. -- Colin°^Talk 10:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please underline (using <u> and </u>) the parts that you believe are disruptive, uncivil or personal attacks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure, let's do that. El_C 04:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It's actually a pretty lame idea, just aiming to amp up the tension here. Instead, just tell him there's not an issue for AN/I here. "an alert to avoid the anticipated escalation" is not a reason to notify admins. Go work on dispute resolution or avoid each other. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dicklyon. Interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, the user disagrees with this being a non-issue, so they can quote directly (my preference), or they can underline what they perceive is the offending text (also works). As for the tension, I think we can risk it. I'm more concerned about the tension between you, Dicklyon, and BMK. El_C 04:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. Maybe you can help make it clear to him that his involvement at AN/I is no longer a good idea (as it never was). Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon, you need to make a proper case that establishes that premise, once and for all, instead of following him around with incremental comments. El_C 04:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will. You want to help? Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

No, not at this time. El_C 04:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Now the section has been early closed by Beyond My Ken without rationale about the the content. Sorry, I don't find it admissible. Was this contribution out-of-topic? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

They called for it to be closed. The section has not been closed. El_C 04:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That is correct, I called for it to be closed because I was overwhelmed by its intrinsic WP:LAMEness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Should be reopened now, please. Important topic in my personal point of view -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion Beyond My Ken also generates mess in this current discussion with this edit using multiple indentations in total disrespect of en:Wikipedia:THREAD and en:Wikipedia:INDENT. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

---

@Basile Morin: what was said that you found to have been uncivil? Please quote directly. El_C 04:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Note that I am very close to closing this report for lacking substance. El_C 04:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

3rd offense from AdamPrideTN doing personal attacks

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

---

Dragging others into the drama he makes see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kwamikagami&oldid=910151358 as well as both other times I have brought up personal attacks and bad faith assumptions he has made Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks from AdamPrideTN again and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1013#Personal attacks from AdamPrideTN. He has been warned multiple times by @Ad Orientem, Jehochman, Cullen, Eperoton, and Nil Einne:. Maybe now someone can act he obvious didn't mean his apologies and keeps reoffending. Any help would be appreciated. Moneyspender (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Both of you, stop. You need to find a civil way to resolve this. And @Moneyspender:, you were told not long ago that this is not the forum to address this matter. Listen to what El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said, lest the WP:BOOMERANG find yet another meaty noggin.caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In fairness, would you not be upset if someone else kept on calling you a vandal, after promising not to make personal attacks and after being asked by two other people (me and Nil Einne) to stop doing that? What forum would you suggest for addressing such a situation? And wny do you think it blockable to be asking for help in such a matter? In none of the three reports has Moneyspender asked the content dispute to be resolved here; they have all three been about the personal attacks. Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Uncle G: i did not personally attack him, and if i did i apologised, i dont know what u call someone who keeps adding false unbiased infos to pages just to serve an agenda. Every other editor now even administrator asked him to stop and all reverted his edits no matter how many times he keeps bringing them.

      I did not attack him and i present it my arguments on his talk page and when he eekete it i did ask a former administrator who is and lgbt special editor and he took the matter so i will be out of moneyspender way and not have another useless edit war with him. On the Emirati page at first yes i lodt my nerve and apologised. The second and third time here, he tries to block me by saying this here because i present it sources and facts to which he did not respond

      In the end next time and from now on i will not meddle and respond to any of mr moneyspender edits. I will ask more experienced editors to address this with him. Laws are laws what he edits and adds is not true. Every other editor told him so. Cheers

      Again i did not attack him and if i did i hope this is the last time of me apologising since i will never address him ever again. Cheers! AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC

      • You continued to attack me while pleading for Kwamikagami to get dragged into our dispute. You referred to me as a "vadaliser" and told him to tell me to "stop vandalising" (yes both times he spells it wrong) while putting vigilante attacks in the punishment tab of LGBT rigts pages. Again, that shows bad faith and is seen as a personal attack. In addition, I have stated that in the Template_talk:Infobox_LGBT_rights page there is a discussion started by MartinEvans123 about whether or not vigilante executions should be allowed to be add into penalty summaries or not but there is no consensus either way on that issue. So no it is not vandalism, yes it is common in the countries I added it into and I have sources to prove that, and no I don't care if it's info you don't like to hear or that offends you. Wikipedia is not here to cater to your feelings about whether a truthful sourced statement offends you it's just here to present all the facts as is. Wikipedia is not a safe space and neither is reality. So stop slandering me, keep my username out of your posts and leave me alone. Moneyspender (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
        • @Moneyspender:It is not spelled wrong, i use British English, besides whatever u will make such disrubtive edits, i will ask for the help of a neutral more experienced editor. And no i work by sources and facts and what the law says, not by an agenda and unbiased assumption like some do, it is not what the law says. U will never here of me ever again i assure u and i will never ever address u and address ur name but i can ask whenever u make diruptive edits (vandalise) that i will ask someone else!! Cheers and goodbye!!AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
          • I don't make disruptive edits I sourced them and they are accurate, if you disapprove that doesn't make it wrong by default. And there is no agenda or assumptions. Those statements you made just prove my point that your promises you make that you "won't do it again" are worthless. You lie when you say this. You continue to attack me, make personal attacks and type personal assumptions. Others are starting to see how dishonest your claims are as well as your false shield of being a peacemaker while being dramatic. If you had committed to them instead of trying to keep taking low blows and slandering we wouldn't be talking here. Also, stop pretending to be a victim. That doesn't work here. Just own up and I hope someone takes real action against you. Moneyspender (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

So let's get this straight. AdamPrideTN, your reaction, to being asked several times not to repeatedly call someone who is not a vandal a vandal, is to say that you will stop calling that person a vandal directly, only call xem a vandal to third parties? Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Uncle G: nope, i will not call anyone a vandaliser or maker of disruptive edits, but if someone make edits that are not considered laws by any source or logic and other editors i will just ask other more experienced editors to look into that and just to check the history of a given page, i won't call him vandaliser i will just tell them that there are recent edits that needs to be looked up. (As it has worked with a recent page), i have no quarmls or dispute with anyone this is a free site, but edits need to be truevand accurate. Thats it. Cheers!!AdamPrideTN (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no way to know whether you can be trusted anymore. You continuously promise to not bother me and not talk badly about me or at me, which by looking at the history those don't last long. As you said that you yet again contradicted yourself but then going to attack me again, give a snide comment about my edits not being "true and accurate". I believe AdamPrideTN doesn't have the ability to learn to be WP:CIVIL and that he may be WP:NOTHERE. Moneyspender (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Moneyspender: WP:NOTHERE, really dude, pffff, after a year of more than 4000 edits, and updating pages on daily bases, pffff. Ok. Will u just let it go please, i apologised and answered ok. Thx. Bye!!! AdamPrideTN (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's have the community decide what should be done. Rule breaking should not come without a consequence especially since you have had multiple warnings. Moneyspender (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The community thinks that both of you should indent properly, and start using grown-up language, for starters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the above comment, which Moneyspender unilaterally removed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought it wasn't contributing anything to the conversation and as it was unsigned and it was a new user who had just made their account a few days ago, that it may have been a test edit or something but ok. Moneyspender (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You know Drmies (who made the post you removed) isn't a new user, right? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The sparring between Moneyspender and AdamPrideTN has been in my orbit recently, since Moneyspender had edited on LGBT rights in Singapore, and I watch recent edits Singapore related pages through Index of Singapore-related articles. Moneyspender, the edits you did on LGBT rights in Singapore is similar across other LGBT pages, i.e. LGBT rights in Tunisia. I warned you on the edits in Singapore's page and I quote in verbatim:

I do not dispute that there maybe laws that can be applied on LGBT. However, in my view these are opinions as they are not backed by facts which shows that these laws as been applied on the community. Were there cases published that utilised these laws on the community? If so, cite them. I am not a legal professional, and I am assuming that you aren't as well (without an explicit otherwise from you) at the moment. We don't interpret the laws here. Wikipedia is not for original research content. I cannot emphasize any more, cite your sources.

- on Moneyspender's talk page.

It is clear that you didn't take this message to heart given that Kwamikagami has also recently replied in his revision comments on your unsourced edits on LGBT rights in Tunisia.

AdamPrideTN may be in the wrong for using the words he used, but you aren't in the clear as well. The words you use to convey your intent in revision comments here and elsewhere, and everywhere else seems to indicate that you are adopt a hostile posture or assuming bad faith in other editors. Please don't carry on thinking that you are right in your edits and your language that you use here. Rightfully, any editors here could have already reported you for edit warring and persistently introducing unsourced claims or facts into multiple articles, and maybe assuming bad faith in other editors. robertsky (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@AdamPrideTN: I think the problem may be that you don't know what the words "vandal" and "vandalize" mean here on WP. They have specific, in-house meanings. A vandal is not someone who makes POV edits, even if they purposefully misinterpret their sources. (Of course, how do we know they did it on purpose? Perhaps they really understand the sources to mean what they write?) A vandal is someone who blanks the LGBT rights in Tunisia article and replaces it with "Tunisians are fags!!!". User Moneyspender is not a vandal. He has not vandalized the article. You don't need to stop debating him. You can continue to engage with him. But you do need to stop calling him a "vandal", or say that he's "vandalizing" an article, either to his face or on someone else's page. You need to stop saying he has an agenda, or is trying to destroy the article, or anything else about his purpose or his motives. Discuss what he writes, and only what he writes. "His edit is wrong because ... it is not supported by his source, it is OR, it is contradicted by another source," etc. Not "Moneyspender is bad", but "Moneyspender's edit is bad". Okay? I know it gets frustrating -- I have the same problem myself -- but casting aspersions on Moneyspender will not make people sympathetic to you, only sympathetic to Moneyspender.

If you keep calling Moneyspender names (and calling him a "vandal" or saying he's "vandalizing" is calling him names), then you will be blocked. Then Moneyspender will be free to edit the articles as he sees fit, without you being able to intervene. Think of that the next time you get frustrated. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/actually I didn't thanks for pointing that out. Next time he should just remember to sign his comments. robertsky I did take it to heart and the changes were sourced. It was determined that the sources were not seen as good enough or clear enough to be used in these particular articles. So now I'm leaving them be. And as for the tone of my post everyone has a breaking point, I think you would eventually lose your cool if you had someone badmouthing you after repeated claiming he would stop. But yes I could have been more tasteful with wording. Duly noted. Thanks for the advice. Moneyspender (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Jamaica&oldid=910055275 See the description of the edit he made "(Again the page was perfectly fine before u vandalise it with wrong info. Stop doing that please mr. Moneyspender)." Any chance of someone taking action now. This is the 6th? or 7th? time (Ive lost track) he's promised and not stopped harassing, doing personal attacks and assuming bad faith. I am now proposing a block but you decide the length you think fits. I'm one trying to reason or talk to him he's obvious not listening to me or anyone else. Moneyspender (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Before you decide here is one more example of his personal attacks on me, now it seems like he is also wp:Hounding, following me into page I go into. Moneyspender (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

In this "latest example", Adam hasn't edited that page in a week. He also edited that page before you did. Literally, your first edit to that page was after an edit Adam made. Regardless of whether Adam's edit summary was appropriate, the inaccuracies in your complaint raise serious questions regarding WP:CIR. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: @Mendaliv: @Robertsky: @Drmies: @Someguy1221: Thank you all and i see, i am listening and i understand all that and i see, a mistake and confusion on my part took place and i'm sorry for it. I Will make this mistake ever again.

@Moneyspender: for the last time i am sincercerly sorry for what seems was a personal attack from me and using words like vadal vandalise, its true at first i was frustrated and wrong, i am listening and see that i confused notions and hurt u by it, sorry fir the bad faith, for making u feel bad or hurting ur feelings, i am sorry and i promise this will never ever happen again, and as promised i will never address u or mention ur name ever again. Sorry. Bye!!!AdamPrideTN (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk) My competency is fine I never had it was the most recent one just that it was an addito=nal (abeit older) example of his typical behaviors. Now that's been cleared up. How can we trust your promises you haven't been one for following or keeping to them before AdamPrideTN. What if you break your promise again? There is no such things as infinite chances here. The way you go back and forth makes it seem more like you only temporarily apologize because others are getting on your case and less like you're actually sorry. I can assume good faith and hope that's not what I'm seeing, but your past makes it harder and harder. Moneyspender (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Moneyspender:, u are right, a mistake happened before many times, i acknowledge that, and promise will not make that mistake ever again, nor for him nor anyone else,

@Moneyspender: again, really sorry!AdamPrideTN (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• AdamPrideTN was indeffed for copyvios. Now AdamPrideTN2 has been created. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

AdamPrideTN got unbanned. Now we can finish settling this. Moneyspender (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: I now see conflicting info about whether he is still banned or not. Someone may have banned him again. Moneyspender (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam was never unblocked - he made a second account, which was blocked as soon as an admin noticed. He also tried editing while logged out, and then his IP was blocked as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry. Since he is no longer an active user I guess we can close this discussion. Moneyspender (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Account breach attempts

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

---

I have just received a notification that someone unsuccessfully tried to log in to my account from an unknown device 9 times for the past hour. Someone is obviously trying really hard. Is there anything that can be done other than setting up a strong password?--Twofortnights (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Not really, this happens all the time and has been reported earlier. Somebody is having fun again.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

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

96.20.25.59, vandalism, personal attack, refactoring comment

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

---

96.20.25.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) vandalised Feminazi [113] [114] and Evander Holyfield vs. Mike Tyson II [115]. After I gave them a level 3 warning they made a personal attack including a threat of violence at my user talk page [116] and refactored another editor's comment [117]. Sjö (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

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

The edit summary in this diff after already having been warned about this after one or two questionable notes, and other generally disruptive editing there and at Talk:Harry Potter. Linking the PEMRA they appear to be referring to. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Editor has done nothing except re-create the same spam article numerous times

• Rahulsetiya94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Has done little else except recreate the same spam article at least 7+ times, plus also a template on the same thing: [118].

Several of his remaining 13 edits have been reverted for cause as well, and he received talkpage warnings about them.

Clearly this editor does not seem to be WP:HERE, or else they would not still be trying to re-create that spam article. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I was the nominator those multiple times and I oppose a not here block, they do have other contributions albeit a small amount not related to this and I think with the proper engagement they can be a decent editor. They tried to reach out on my page, and they originally didn't understand the CSD thinking it was all to do with an image. Context in this is important and that's why I didn't report as promotion only. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I've left some advice and encouragement on their talk page. Hopefully this will help both the editor (to avoid getting blocked) and Wikipedia as a whole (to avoid having to clean up inappropriate articles), but we'll just have to wait and see. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

AFD discussion closure

• Ignacio Anaya (AfD discussion)

There is a back-and-forth dispute here over an early non-administrator closure after just 10 hours, with rollback being used. I am not in a position to deal with this. Uncle G (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's done now. But WP:DRV should be the next step (one may make all the out of process arguments there to their heart's content) — as opposed to edit warring over the close. El_C 23:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The close was to keep. I have reverted the close and semi-protected the AfD for one week. Although there are many !votes by legitimate editors, some of the IP's !votes were a joke. I remember one that said something like "keep but delete everything else on Wikipedia".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Not DRV, then. Fine. Well, at any case, unless there are significant changes, I'll probably close it as speedy keep soon enough myself, unless someone else beats me to it. As it stands, I don't think it needs to run for a full week. But I'll give it at least another 24 hours. El_C 00:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is any real policy rationale for not letting it run for a standard week, since most of the keeps are misinterpreting (or ignoring) BLP1E, nor do I think it qualifies for a speedy close. Please let it run the normal length of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a massive fan of snow closes (I once wrote WP:STEAM out of annoyance with them) but I would endorse closing this one early. Public-facing AFDs on high-pageview articles have the potential to turn into net-negative spectacles. Haukur (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Among a whole bunch of "keep"s and "speedy keeps" are 2 deletes, 2 merges (one is mine), and 1 undecided. I don't see any harm in letting it run the full course, or any particular benefit to the encyclopedia in speedy closing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Process for its own sake has no benefits that I can see. The ratio of ~20 editors choosing to keep versus 2 who call for delete make the prospect of deleting the article highly, highly unlikely. I am closing this one early, per WP:SNOW. El_C 03:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't Bbb23 who first tried to reopen this AfD, it was the nom, who is not a disinterested party. As per WP:NACD, "Closures may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; or by consensus at deletion review." 2607:FCC8:A211:B000:C0A8:381A:F7A5:FC7F (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

IP trolling on Calabria

Hi. In the last months an anonymous editor has been trolling the Calabria page, by pushing the same exact edit again and again in the lede sentence, stating that Calabria shares a border with Sicily (obviously not, because Sicily is an island). The first instance was on 21 June and it has been going on for months. Multiple users have dealt with this (myself, User:Vaselineeeeeeee and User:El C) and I even asked for temporary page protection which was granted for four days until yesterday. Of course today it started all over again. I don't report all the diffs because they are all basically the same. The IPs are

• 79.32.106.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.52.110.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.211.230.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.57.43.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.6.108.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.91.2.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.12.110.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You can see from the contribution list that their only purpose has been trolling the Calabria article. What can one do to make this stop? Thank you. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

My internet is wonky right now so I'm not going to try blocking ranges, but I'll note for anyone curious, that except for 5.91.2.24 these are all the same ISP. I hate that ISP. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

And, just in, another one

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

User:El C now protected the page until 14 September (thanks), so I guess at least until then the issue is solved. --Ritchie92 (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Meh, how about reinstating the edit but changing it to say Calabria is "neighbored" (rather than bordered) to the southwest by Sicily, or giving a little more detail. Calabria is separated from Sicily by the Strait of Messina which is less than 2 miles across at its narrowest point, and there have been perennial proposals (going back to the Romans) to build a Strait of Messina Bridge across the strait. Without examining the edit history my first guess would be that writing "bordered" is a minor misuse of English, maybe by a non-native speaker, rather than trolling. I'd say if you can drive a car across a bridge from country A to country B, it's most only slightly inaccurate to say that the countries border each other; and if the only thing stopping you is that the bridge is not yet built (but building it is practical and seriously proposed) then that's almost as good. So I wouldn't freak out about this. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying that since there is a tunnel between France and the UK, the two countries have a land border, because I can pass between country A and country B by car? I agree with the rewording, but a (non-existent) bridge or highway is not a border. There's a very large and famous bridge between Denmark and Sweden, however the two countries still don't share a geographical border, in fact the Denmark article states "Denmark lies southwest of Sweden and south of Norway, and is bordered to the south by Germany" and the Sweden article says "It borders Norway to the west and north and Finland to the east, and is connected to Denmark in the southwest by a bridge-tunnel across the Öresund Strait." Ritchie92 (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"So you are saying that since there is a tunnel between France and the UK, the two countries have a land border" No, I'm saying that statement would be slightly inaccurate-- far less inaccurate than saying that e.g. that the UK has a land border with Mongolia. The sentence in your version of the diff doesn't say anything about Sicily so the other person added some info that is basically helpful in describing the geography even though it's not quite right. I'd suggest editing their contribution to state the info more precisely, instead of reverting it. Did you try that? I think a native English speaker would not have written "south-west" with a hyphen, so that's why it came across as possible confusion about the exact connotations of the word border.

Anyway don't freak out. Someone looking at the map of the US could quite reasonably think that Illinois shares a border with Iowa, and it wouldn't have occurred to me til just now that that's an error. I'm not sure it's an error even now. But if I have it right, you get from Illinois to Iowa by crossing the Mississippi River. I also remember when you drive through the Lincoln Tunnel between NY and NJ, somewhere in the middle there is a stripe painted on the wall separating the NY from the NJ side. One could reasonably call that the border. There are similar things on some bridges as well. So you are quibbling. If someone makes a worthwhile contribution with a bug, keep the contribution and fix the bug. Don't be a low-effort reverter. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You haven't been paying attention. The reason why I issued this notice is not the edit in itself: look at the contribution lists of the IPs that I cited. This is not how Wikipedia should work, and it constitutes disruptive behavior. I already said that I agree with a rewording, I'm not quibbling. And anyway, there is no bridge between Calabria and Sicily, therefore no border sign. There's also a discussion about it on the talk page. Ritchie92 (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You wrote that the person has been "pushing the same exact edit again and again in the lede sentence" and that you "don't report all the diffs because they are all basically the same.". So I took your word for it. Why would I look at the history if you have already reported what is in it and I believe you? If there is something different there that's significant, you should have included it in your report. So I looked at your diff without looking at what you said would be a bunch of similar ones.

If your report is accurate then you should just fix the person's edit. Sunasuttuq's post on the talk page is reasonable and constructive. I think maritime border is not the right term either though, based on the contents of that article. I'd just pick a different word, like "adjacent" or "neighbor". Fwiw I would be interested to know if you think it is wrong (because of the Mississippi River) to say Illinois borders Iowa. We do hear some things about the "sea border" between the UK and Ireland, in the context of Brexit. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. I stated that they have been pushing the same edit for months, should I have linked three months of identical diffs? The edits were reverted by multiple users multiple times, and this looks a lot like disruptive behaviour. That's why I issued this complaint here. Then regarding the wording, you can discuss on the Talk:Calabria page. This complaint here is just about the behaviour of these IPs. --Ritchie92 (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Incivility

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

---

@Vanamonde93: violated WP:Civility and made personal attack to me. I can't continue talking with him/her. Benyamin-ln (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

1. @Benyamin-ln: - you MUST notify the other party on their talk page. A ping is not acceptable. I have done so on your behalf.
2. This is not a personal attack, and it's only mildly uncivil. I've reviewed the discussion on your Talk Page and Vanamonde seems definitely in the right. They are not INVOLVED as they've only taken administrative actions with you - they're not in a content dispute. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

   @Nosebagbear: Thanks for number 1.

   What the hell are you going on about? is seriously incivil. He/She said Can somebody else explain to this user what general sanctions are? instead of apologize for incivility.

   I can contribute in all articles by the rules, and until I'd not participate in disruptive or controversial edits, he/she shouldn't threatened me. Now this Admin WP:HOUNDING me. Benyamin-ln (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• That's not a personal attack, in any way, shape, or form. The notification is just saying that there are discretionary sanctions on it. It wasn't saying you did anything wrong. There are sanctions on articles about post-1978 Iranian politics. You edited articles about Iranian politicians that have been relevant since after 1978. Where you did do something wrong, however, is when you struck your name from the log. Again, the log is just saying that you were notified of the sanctions in place, not that you did anything wrong. Vanamode93 is uninvolved. If you two were in a dispute about an edit on one of the pages, they wouldn't be uninvolved. Since they weren't, they're not involved. Frood 22:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Can somebody else explain to this user what general sanctions are? I'm not getting through. The short version of this is that I notified them about the new community-authorized general sanctions about Iranian politics, and they got quite aggressive in response. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• @Benyamin-ln: This all seems to be a misunderstanding. Vanamonde's notice to you wasn't a warning or a stop sign. It was more like a speed limit sign: letting you know that editing Iranian politics is high stakes, and that if you go too fast you could be blocked. Tensions tend to run pretty high in certain editing areas, like Iranian politics. You are right, you can edit in basically any article. But, you have to follow the "speed limit" -- i.e. be extra careful with what you say, and how you edit. Vanamode was just letting you know. I think Vanamodes exasperation was understandable, given that you seemed to be contradicting all facts by your previous statement. While maybe Vanamode shouldn't have lost their cool, I don't see any problem here, and I doubt any action will be taken here. Hopefully we can put this behind us as just a misunderstanding, and get back to editing. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

user:109.152.211.159

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

---

user:109.152.211.159 is putting misleading information into an article. CLCStudent (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC) CLC Student has now violated 3 revert rule. 109.152.211.159 (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I have am exemption of "obvious vandalism", but I will not revert anymore. I will now let administration deal with this. CLCStudent (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no vandalism 109.152.211.159 (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You were changing what it says without changing the links. That is misleading. An assistant referee is not a linesman. CLCStudent (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I realize it may not have been vandalism, so I apologize for violating 3rr, but I still think it is disruptive. CLCStudent (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also going to get Mattythewhite involved because it was his edit that the IP originally reverted. CLCStudent (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• @CLCStudent: Any reason you chose to report this here, instead of at AIV? I note that this is the second IP you've reported here today. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

To reasons. One, I realize this disruption may not be intentional. Second, there may have to be discussion about this issue. CLCStudent (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The first line of the vandalism policy: On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. That's a content dispute, not vandalism. Did you try to discuss it with them first? Frood 23:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That is why I moved it from AIV to here. I did try to ask them to stop with warnings (even though those warnings were for vandalism) CLCStudent (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Assistant referee" is the correct terminology, though I realise that many people (myself included) often still use "linesman". I've reverted it to the status quo, and hopefully that should be the end of this. The IP is wrong, but it's not vandalism. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Field hockey at the 1908 Summer Olympics

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

---

A dispute has emerged at Field hockey at the 1908 Summer Olympics over what is the correct flag or flags to use. Great Britain did not compete in this tournament so I don't believe the Union Jack should be included. England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales competed independently. Also at issue is which Ireland flag to use. verses . The former has never been used by Hockey Ireland or it's predecessors. Any thoughts ? I appreciate this might not be the most appropriate page to resolve this issue but nobody has responded at the relevant project talk page and Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution seems to be inactive. Djln Djln (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Djln: You said "nobody has responded at the relevant project talk page" but User:DenSportgladeSkåningen, who has worked with you to turn that article's edit history into a completely pathetic wreck, is at the article's talk page, which is as good a place as any for a dispute over an article's content. That discussion has just gotten another message from User:Roxy the dog. This is a content dispute that just needed more eyes to build consensus and didn't need to be escalated here or WP:DR. Although maybe it's good that it's here at a board that's supposed to regulate policy violations; you and DenSportgladeSkåningen skirted WP:3RR so expertly you should both get blocked for it anyway. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Ha. I was worried when I got paged to ANI. It's on my watchlist, I played at a reasonable standard for years, and get very angry with those who think the game is related to ice for goodness sake. Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Is there an administrator available who can actually make a useful contribution and not just make unhelpful threats to block well established editors. It's not very constructive or helpful.Djln Djln (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem here. You went to the talk page to discuss the dispute resolution policy, which is pretty inactive. You were instead looking for the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is where I recommend this content dispute go. That page is quite active and a good place to resolve the matter. ANI is for conduct, not content. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: I see from DenSportgladeSkåningen history that in 2015 he was blocked in for 10 months for engaging in an edit war, including using multiple IP addresses. He is now engaged in similar again. Djln Djln (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI: The blocking I got then was incorrect, I was not engaged in "editing war". Regardless, the blocking has been lifted. The fact that you are trying to get me blocked for "edit wars", just because I don't share your opinion is just tragic. DenSportgladeSkåningen (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What is tragic is that you don't seem to have learned anything from your previous blocking and you have just returned with the same behaviour. Djln Djln (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

It's tragic that you don't read what I'm actually writing, but you completely ignore it. You obviously don't understand why I was blocked and it was an incorrect block. You have to learn to stick to the subject. This discussion is that you do not understand that is the wrong flag to use in Field hockey at the 1908 Summer Olympics when Ireland was part of the UK. From now on, I will only write on Talk: Field hockey at the 1908 Summer Olympics so the discussion is in one place. You should too. Because that's where the discussion started. DenSportgladeSkåningen (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:LAME. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I note that Djln has rather POINTILY changed the individual article for each of the Irish team at these games to the incorrect flag, and that the Template used also displays the wrong flag. Should I revert the POINTY edits? How do I get the Template corrected as I don't do Templates? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog:, with the greatest of respect you don't know what you are talking about. The 1908 Ireland hockey team represented the Irish Hockey Union and their flag is the most appropriate flag to use, not the Union Jack or the St.Patricks saltire. I am stunned that you are taking your lead from editor who was blocked for 5 years for edit warring and using multiple IP addresses over an editor with 15 years experience of editing Irish sporting articles. You should be embarrassed. DenSportgladeSkåningen is not fit to edit Wikipedia and in my opinion should be blocked again. I suspect if he continues editing this way, it's only a matter of time before an experienced administrator steps you. I implore you not to do his dirty work for him and listen to common sense. Please review my edits to the Ireland men's national field hockey team and related articles and than tell me who really knows what they are doing. Djln Djln (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Still an incorrect block that you have trouble understanding (I've probably just been unlucky to be on a dynamic IP address at the wrong time). I've been really tired of you now that you can't stick to the topic, you still don't seem to understand that the IOC did not recognize Ireland until 1922. DenSportgladeSkåningen (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I am tired of having to explain basic stuff to you repeatedly. It is totally irrelevant when the IOC recognised Ireland as independent member. Ireland teams have been competing at the Olympics since 1896. The 1908 Ireland team represented the Irish Hockey Union and their flag is the most appropriate flag to use. What part of this do you not get. Maybe it's your poor English that prevents you from understanding. Djln Djln (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop it you two. You've both said your piece, and if you continue to go at it, y'all will probably end up blocked for incivility. However, this board is not for mediating content disputes. I do not see any major conduct issues, and no reason for this to stay at this board. I recommend you both either drop the stick, and move on, or follow the dispute resolution protocols and probably seek a third opinion or use the dispute resolution notice board. Stop and ask yourself: is it worth getting this riled up over a century old hockey game? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand very well, but it is highly relevant when the IOC recognized Ireland as an independent member, as it was the IOC who organized the tournament. I know it is irrelevant what other language versions of wikipedia do, but most versions only use the union flag, for all four national teams, then all four represented the UK. I don't see what's wrong with using common sense. DenSportgladeSkåningen (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right it is totally irrelevant what other language versions of Wikipedia do. By imposing the Union Jack, you and they are failing to recognise that England, Scotland, Wales plus Ireland and/or Northern Ireland have a long history of sporting independence completing separate from the UK/GB. They basically invented international sport. Another fact you don't get. Djln Djln (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear: stop bickering and find a venue to solve the problem. That includes going to the dispute resolution noticeboard, getting a third opinion, or starting a request for comment on the talk page. This is the incidents board, and is only for chronic and intractable behavioral problems or issues requiring immediate attention. I believe that you folks can still be WP:CIVIL and work to solve this issue. Understand that you may not change each others mind, but that at least you can probably come to a mutually or community agreed solution. If you can't figure out how to use the dispute resolution process, let me know and I'll try my best to help. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Long-term financial vandalism at selected pages

A Mammootty fanboy is repeatedly exaggerating the budget of Mamangam (2019 film) and reducing the budget of his professional rival Mohanlal's Marakkar: Arabikadalinte Simham, disregarding sources. This is the nth time this guy is fudging the budget, even after multiple range blocks. IPs are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (and probably more). Because of a single guy, both pages were page protected. Sometimes also damaging other pages by reducing the box office numbers of Mohanlal films and exaggerating Mammootty films, a terrible version of that can be seen in the 10th and 11th IPs. Another trick of this guy for reducing the budget of Marakkar is exaggerating it first to a HUGE number beyond expecting and then reducing it in the next edit to a desired low figure like he was correcting it. Probably unaware that there is a page history and people can see (or is he simply shameless?). 2405:204:D181:541B:74EF:35A9:336:B485 (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Waste edits by 156.57.214.222

• 156.57.214.222 (talk · contribs · logs)

The IP started their career from scrabble in template arguments (such as removal of linefeeds between them) and removal of wiki comments. Now the IP has a keen interest in <br />: [119] [120]. Even for an account, such as bot, I wouldn’t tolerate edits whole only sense are such changes due to pollution of recent changes.

Let’s propose to 156.57.214.222 to either stop generating bot-like trash or register an account—at very least—for edits of that kind. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This user roams all over 156.57..0/16. He was previously 156.57.233.227 (talk · contribs), and before that 156.57.195.165 (talk · contribs), and before that, 156.57.202.51 (talk · contribs). I'm sure it goes back further. Appears to be acting in good faith, probably half their edits are the most minor of improvements with the other half completely pointless, plus occasional mistakes. Problem is that like with the current IP, this user never responds to other users, never uses talk pages, never leaves edit summaries, never seems to adjust his behavior in response to warnings. I'm leaving this unnecessarily long comment basically to make a little record, if nothing else. Oh, I also blocked him. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Fraudulent Links and Wikipedia page protection

I am the webmaster of the official website (www.legendarydavidallancoe.com) and manage the social media pages for David Allan Coe. The websites and social media pages listed on David's Wikipedia page are incorrect and a member of Wikipedia continues to revert to the incorrect links. The links that are shown below are incorrect and are owned and operated by someone using David's name and copywritten material for their own gain. We would appreciate any help in protecting this page from these fraudulent links being posted in the future. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rydin4life (talk • contribs) 17:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Rydin4life First, if you are employed by Mr. Coe, you must comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. Second, if you bring up other users, you are required to notify them of this discussion(see top of this page for instructions). Instead of coming here, you should discuss your concerns on the article talk page with the other editors involved. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rydin4life: I don't think anything here needs handled at AN/I. I think the correct place to handle this is the talk page of the article. That said, I am going to take a look at the links—both the ones Rydin4life suggested and the ones that 184.21.40.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been adding—and see if there are any obvious issues with WP:EL. I will also add the article to my watch list, and I am willing to protect this page if it because necessary because of edit warring over the links. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I've started looking as well. davidallancoe.com is an attack site, as is the twitter account @davidallancoeCD. I've removed them. ST47 (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Not helpful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have no idea what rights User:Rydin4life loses as a result of their obvious conflict of interest but I can't imagine it's so many that User:FlightTime's behavior is in compliance with policy. To the contrary, FlightTime hasn't performed a single worthy edit in this. The boilerplate warning that probably got this discussion started in the first place, automated restorations of extremely sketchy sources that he obviously didn't even look at, several reverts of good-faith edits without using edit summaries. Are conflicted editors owed literally nothing at all? 107.195.20.170 (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC) The situation is being addressed and Rydin4life has been told what they can do. A COI doesn't mean that someone with one cannot contribute at all, but it does mean they need to take care in doing so. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Fred. I appologize for the confusion. I manage the website for David and the list of sites (including davidallancoe.com and the twitter account @davidallancoeCD) are indeed fraudulent sites used to sell bootleg merchandise. We are just trying to help clean things up and prevent people from using David's name to their advantage. I am not familiar with Wikipedia and am trying to learn, so I do appreciate the help and your willingness to help me learn the proper channels here!50.201.179.1 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Remember to log in before you post, so that your posts are properly attributed to your account. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page to try to determine what external links, if any, to include. Let's discuss the content there, and we can probably close this AN/I thread. ST47 (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I have also referred the original poster to WP:VRT, who may be able to help, particularly with issues related to registration of the website and proving "official" status. But I think we're done at AN/I. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Vulgar personal attacks on my talk page by Anonywiki

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

---

Anonywiki (talk · contribs) has a long history of blocks for edit warring, personal attacks and disruption. His talk page is littered with warnings for same. For a few days now we've been engaged in a dispute at Chad (slang) over what he deems to be incorrectly sourced material. Initially he tried to change it to something else using an unreliable source, which was reveted by MarnetteD [121]. From then on it's been nothing but disruption from this user. Attempts to discuss on the talk page went nowhere. I even provided the specific quote that covers the information he keeps deleting, but he continues to edit war. He also demanded on the talk page of another editor who tried to help that they "mind their own business in the future" [122]. Now today, he has posted ad hominem personal attacks on my talk page [123]. First, he doesn't understand that user generated wikis aren't reliable sources and second, he exhibits a years-long pattern of inappropriate behavior. You could use either WP:COMPETENCE or WP:NOTHERE as a rationale for an indef block, but in any case, the attacks on my talk page are unacceptable. OrgoneBox (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Immediately following Anonywiki's PA, they posted this ludicrous and childish policy suggestion. They're complaining that other editors are immature, but Anonywiki seems to be too immature to even consider that they could be wrong. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Bbb23 who dealt with the AN3 report a few days ago. IMO, blocks are warranted for both parties: OrgoneBox for WP:EW and Anonywiki for WP:EW & WP:NPA EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I am available to answer any questions about this. According to me OrgoneBox is a liar, a chronic, pathological liar who is doing nothing but starting trouble and is lying to you here. Anonywiki (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Anonywiki: Completely uninvolved here, but from the outside looking in, you look to be way in the wrong. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I can go through his points one by one if it's that's appropriate, will that help clarify matters either way? Anonywiki (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Attention: From the looks of his history, he does this every time he gets into trouble... suddenly wants to be very helpful and respond to points and discuss. This isn't about content, it's about behavior: his. I will no longer address this person directly. Casting aspersions and making personal attacks not only on my talk but now here as well is not going to be tolerated by me and should not by anyone else. OrgoneBox (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow. I don't think Anonywiki is here to be collaborative, and this pretty much seals the deal as far as I am concerned. I'm going to put that page on my watchlist now.--Jorm (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef block for Anonywiki: CaptainEek's link above to a suggestion made by Anonywiki goes so strongly against our pillars (3, 4) and WP:BATTLEGROUND that it shows they are not here to (collaboratively) build an encyclopedia. Anonywiki also violated WP:NPA on OrgoneBox's talk page and their edit history seems to almost entirely consist of disruptive edit warring and aggressive confrontations. With such a lengthy block log and no sign even after twelve years on the site of understanding why edits such as this or this (note that the latter is on a mainspace page and they reverted to reinstate it) are inappropriate, I see an indef block as necessary.
  Oppose block of OrgoneBox, though they should be seriously warned that edit warring of the same frequency at Chad (slang) (regardless of whether they cross 3RR) is not acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Indeff now, not later. The diff Jorm posted cannot be tolerated. John from Idegon (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support block of Anonywiki per WP:NPA among others. MarnetteD|Talk 21:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't I get a chance to respond to his points? Almost nothing of what he said is true, he is lying to you. It is all attack, twist and escalate everything with him.

I have been helping to collaboratively build an encyclopedia for years with hardly any incidents. Anonywiki (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

He provoked me which I can show clearly. Anonywiki (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Being provoked is no excuse for making personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right it's not. But I hope it could be taken as a mitigating factor. 21:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Indeff Anonywiki pronto based on my above edit, as well as the absurd response to this ANI by Anony. In terms of OrgoneBox, I do not think a block is warranted, although I think a nicely worded note on edit warring would be good (so as not to WP:BITE). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yup, drop the hammer asap. The above response indicates WP:CIR, and to me screams this might be why. Mercy is sometimes dropping the axe faster. John from Idegon (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

What is "absurd" about my response? I looked for guidelines and couldn't find any. I asked if you wanted to hear me rebutt his points one by one and got no response. Anonywiki (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Anonywiki: WP:NPA is an established guideline. The only explanation we are concerned about at this point is either why you thought an edit like this one was even remotely acceptable or what assurances you can provide that there will be zero such edits from you in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked Anonywiki for the attacks, and will be wording a warning to OrgoneBox. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Edit conflicted with 331 - I would've supported the block as per CIR & BATTLEGROUND. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Discussion re removal of "Subscription required" from sourcing

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

---

@KAVEBEAR: @Amitchell125: @Nikkimaria: @Trappist the monk: @Samwalton9: Please direct me to the original discussion and decision on this. For a few months now, bots and individuals have been removing "Subscription required" from sourcing. In doing so, they have been noting a decision on this. I can't find where I saw that recently. But I do notice users of various sources available through Wikipedia Library, i.e. JSTOR, Questia, ProjectMuse, etc., are continuing to add "Subscription required". If it's removed, someone comes along later and adds it back. Whatever the policy is, can we please have it in a defined policy, and notice made to people who have access through Wikipedia Library? If it's not a set policy, then can we please stop the removal of it? As is, it's back and forth on adding it, removing it, and adding it back. — Maile (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think, see Help:Citation Style 1#Registration or subscription required for documentation on it, though I don't know if there's a specific discussion. The thing is what changed was more a matter of what fields the templates/modules support than specific policy, and from what I can see it's for a good reason. Rather than having the generic subscription=yes, since an individual citation can have a bunch of links (url=, doi=, jstor=, chapter-url=, etc.), and each of those may be different, there are now separate "access" fields for each. So if chapter-url= requires a subscription, but url= does not, subscription= would give inadequate information, but chapter-url-access=subscription. Same if you want to link both JSTOR and a DOI, but one of them has free access and the other does not. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I raised it at some template discussion two or three months ago. Can't say I am impressed with it as an idea. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not clear if Editor Maile66 is referring to the cs1|2 template parameters |subscription= and |registration= because none of the cs1|2 template nor any of their parameters are mentioned in the OP. Neither are there any links or diffs to help readers of this topic to figure that out. But, if Editor Maile66 is referring to cs1|2 template parameters |subscription= and |registration=, there was an RFC the closing summary of which says:

• Aspect B3 (Deprecating/eliminating/supporting old and new systems): There is a clear preference to Deprecate the old system.

|subscription= and |registration= are the 'old system' which were deprecated at this edit 20 April 2019.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: what I am specifically referring to are bots/individuals who have removed the "Subscription required" template from sourcing on articles, where they've noted cryptic references to why. Now a GAC review re-added "Subscription required" to a sourcing on an article I created. I removed it, and the editor who had added it is confused. As I am. Is it a set policy - or is it not - to allow editors to add "Subscription required" to their sourcing? If it is not a written policy on the removal, then editors should stop removing it. If it is a set policy, it needs to be somewhere everybody can link to. Right now, it's a mini-edit war. — Maile (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This is about Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States? If so, why am I pinged into this conversation? Neither I nor my bot account have ever edited that article; {{subscription required}} is not a cs1|2 template (also a template and doc page that I have never edited) so why am I here?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Is this really the proper place for this discussion? It sounds like it would be better for VPP or AN. It certainly doesn;t seem like an "incident". Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  I agree, this isn't an incident and really doesn't require administrator attention. I move to close, especially now that a link has been provided to the RfC that deprecated the nonspecific subscription/registration parameters from CS1/CS2 templates. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Remind me again with a link. What do you see above that is a link to an RFC that answers my original inquiry? — Maile (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

See above for the RfC. If it doesn't fully answer your question, then you're encouraged to bring it up at the village pump. ANI is for incidents requiring administrators' attention. Your question doesn't describe an incident nor one that requires administrative attention. It's a request for information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The RFC does not answer Editor Maile66's questions because it does not apply to the {{subscription required}} and {{registration required}} templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick note from the Wikipedia Library's side - we never required the use of this parameter, merely suggesting it as the then best practice. If consensus on it has changed then no arguments from us! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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

User:ديما مهدي ابوزينة

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

---

This new user is adding images, often inappropriate, often with titles in Arabic script (which I cannot read at all). Comments on the talk page have been ignored, and there is no evidence that English can be used to communicate with this person. I suggest they should be blocked. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Since they have done it again without answering any messages on their talk page, I have blocked them. ST47 (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Asia country dispute page

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

---

Hi editors,

I would like to bring to light a bitter and ongoing dispute on the list of sovereign states and dependent territories page that has been far too prolonged and which I feel deserves greater attention on this forum. The problem revolves mostly around how to categorize Palestine, Israel, and Taiwan and what qualifies a polity to be considered a sovereign country. It is also important to note that I respect and welcome all viewpoints and strongly discourage ad hominem and profane attacks. The central parties to the dispute are AuH20republican and some pro Arab league editors and their sock puppets. A few years ago, a compromise was reached in which Palestine would be grouped with Taiwan Kosovo and Western Sahara as opposed to Abkhazia South Ossetia Northern Cyprus artsakh, and Somaliland, but not with the sovereign states, in which in his view Israel is more worthy of belonging to. His justification is that although a majority of the worlds countries recognize Palestine, most of the ones that do not are most economic and political western powers and that Palestine was “Rejected” (rather than failed to achieve due to the threat of a US veto) UN membership, as he believes regardless of a us veto 8 of 9 unsc members would vote in favour at any given time. The counter argument, however, is that Palestine was admitted as an observer state in 2012 with an overwhelming majority (138 members, the same amount that currently recognize Palestine), in which half of the process of in membership was completed and Palestine is technically a state under the UN charter. They also argue that 138/193 ( 71.5% ) constitutes a majority of the UN across most of Asia, the americas, and Africa, and parts of Europe and Oceania, and that it is on similar legal footing as is Israel (recognized by 163/193 (84.5%) of the UN), a 25 country difference than Palestine). In addition, they suggest that at any given time, notwithstanding the obstacle of a us veto threatened or actual, it is possible for Palestine to still acquire 9 or more votes on the UNSC if, aside 8 votes in favour, a few other friendly non permanent members are likely to vote in favour (although there was one case in 2014 that Nigeria, who was seen as likely to vote yes, changed its mind at the last minute and joined 4 other nations in abstaining, effectively leaving Palestine for dead). Personally, I see some validity in AuH20republicans arguement that Palestine can do with more western powers joining its side as does Israel with Muslim and Arab states and I respect both opinions once again. however, due in part to my country, China, having to deal with threats to its sovereignty and having been denied recognition by most western states for 3 decades after independence (1949-1979), I would say I lean more towards the latter argument. However, it would be far more refreshing to get to read the opinions of other editors, especially those frequenting the Asia countries page talk page. In addition, I invite the following editors to state their opinions on the debate;

Myasuda resnjari DocWatson42 Xindeho Aakanksha55 Haranari Barracuda41

Lo meiin (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Judge1234

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

---

Judge1234 has been repeatedly making copyvios of Gordon life sciences Institute, and blanked other pages of irrelevant topics to push their possible COI. They have also been suspiciously editing articles about Kuo-Chen Chou, showing a possible conflict of interest. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 00:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

John A. Palmer (lawyer) is a probable hoax

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

---

This is related to the discussion above #John A. Palmer (Lawyer). Please see the comments of Cullen328 and myself on the AfD here on the very strong probability that the article John A Palmer is a hoax and should be speedy deleted under G3. The creator User:John Doe Texas should be indeffed, and the image in the article deleted as a hoax as well (I've already FfD'd it here). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

---

• Given that it's established that the article was a blatant hoax, that means it was deliberate disruption/vandalism, and there's more vandalism in User:John Doe Texas's short history. So should the 24h block (for "repeatedly removing AFD tags despite warnings" while the AfD was in progress) now be upped to vandal-only indef? And should the rest of his contributions be checked, eg User:John_Doe_Texas/sandbox? As an example, his addition to Division of Maribyrnong was reverted as vandalism. (Sorry I don't have time to check and clean up myself, as I have a busy day). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Every draft he made fails the sniff test. 20th century politicians, attorneys general, and 3-star generals should not be absent from from all online sources. Indeffed and deleted all of his creations, also reverted all of his edits since I'm assuming everything he did was in bad faith. Also reverted edits from a few IPs that appear to also be him. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, for some reason I was sure the user was indeffed when I closed this report. El_C 08:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

John A. Palmer (Lawyer)

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

---

John Doe Texas (talk · contribs) Keeps removing the AFD template from this article. I have issued him escalating warnings on his talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

He also blanked the AFD discussion here. Greyjoy ^talk 11:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I've made a report at AIV, as the user has surpassed the final warning for disruptive editing. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Texas has taken the AFD template down 15 times. What would a Level 14 warning be? I think we're well past 'A Gold Star and Purple Jellybean' level....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Next time, don't edit war. Come and ask for help. It does not matter if the notice is absent for a few minutes. There is a 'bot that puts it back, for starters. I for one relieve people of their editing privileges usually for the expected length of the AFD discussion in such cases. The discussion gets to happen without them. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

---

• @EdJohnston: Sorry to re-open this, but I think it's the best place for it - the AfD was closed as a hoax. The user hasn't made a single productive contribution to the encyclopaedia, changing birthdates and making disruptive edits to political pages. I suggest escalating the block to indefinite based on WP:NOTHERE grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC) Scratch that, it was reported as a hoax lower down on the page. My fault for reading top-to-bottom, apologies. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Vandalism-halting needed

This moronic racist requires some attention. Lepricavark (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this Lepricavark. Something is awry here - until today Raja Kaiya Vacha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing seems normal but they have clearly reached WP:NOTHERE levels at the moment. It is possible that the account has been compromised. Lots of today's edits and summaries need rev/del. MarnetteD|Talk 04:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I did go ahead and notify them of this thread even though they hardly deserve it. MarnetteD|Talk 04:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Indef this WP:NOTHERE nonsense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per Rules of Acquisition number 285 No good deed goes unpunished as I can tell by all the pings I am receiving. This troll seems to have hit the sweet spot when all admins are away. As soon as one returns a block of RKV would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 04:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a tool that lists admins who have made an edit within the past few minutes, but I forget where it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the block NinjaRobotPirate. There is still a batch of rev/del that needs the attention of someone who has the time. MarnetteD|Talk 05:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

There were a lot of copyright violations and some racist/obscene edit summaries. I think I got them all, but there are some vulgar edit summaries still unhidden that probably don't qualify for revision deletion. It probably wouldn't be very controversial to revdelete them, too, if someone wanted to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: FYI, I've deleted them under RD3: I have low tolerance for people who try to splash their bigotry over the encyclopedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

To find active admins try, the block (or deletion or protection) logs: block log. The tool for active editors might be toollabs:apersonbot/recently-active. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. In all my years of editing, I don't believe I've ever previously had a user vandalize a page immediately after I edited it (except for when I'm vandal-fighting). And of all pages, it would be Raúl Martín Sandoval, a page that had been edited three times all year before yesterday. I definitely did a double triple quadruple take. Lepricavark (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't have an evil twin do you? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't believe I do. Lepricavark (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary! Lepricavark's evil twin (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Gadzooks! Michepman (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Examples like these tell us that we need to add more admins from other time zones for a round the clock mopping. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• User:DBigXRay - Sadly, efforts to recruit a more geographically diverse set of admins have been frustrated by lack of community support. Just today, an RFA for an Australian admin with almost 10 years of high quality experience was narrowly rejected by the community. See here. While I understand and respect the rationale behind the opposition, it does mean that it'll be that much harder to find people outside of the predominant time zones who can do the hard work of adminning while the rest of us are asleep... Michepman (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Complaint about Dan56

How am I supposed to respond to this? This guy reverted about 10 of my edits without little or no explanation, and in some cases the wrong reason. He put an edit warring template on my page after writing the following on a Talk page:

"It's too late to make nice; he has completely turned me off with his incessant, myopic bloviating, anal rigidity and condescending, hypocritical remarks from the get-go, all of which I suspect are products of his obsession with removing a superficial project banner (that seems incredibly precious to him) and have blinded him from comprehending the basics of guidelines and policy-based arguments; one simply should not argue in the manner he has; it is unreadable and off-putting. I'm glad I'm not alone anymore to be driven crazy by his behavior, but I have no more patience for him on this matter."
Vmavanti (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

He tells me to stop being stubborn (that's rich) and gives me a link to an article about narcissistic personality disorder. A normal day on Wikipedia, right? Not quite. I've never done that.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Diffs, please. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Aja Talk page
–Vmavanti (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

No you only accused him of suffering the psychological symptom "projection". Pot calls kettle black....film at 11. This is a content dispute that frankly you are not handling well. John from Idegon (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Trouts to both editors. Vmavanti, your determined opposition to keeping the Wikiproject Jazz template on Aja (album) is, in my opinion, dogmatic and purist in the extreme. My gosh, jazz saxophone great Wayne Shorter played a solo on that album, many other jazz musicians contributed, jazz critics reviewed it and critics in general commented in depth on the jazz influences. Dan56, please be aware that you are simply not allowed to rant and rave at length with personal attacks against an editor that you are in a content dispute with. That's a policy violation. You know that various forms of dispute resolution are available, since you mentioned them yourself. So, knock it off, both of you, because if this ugly pattern of behavior continues, one or both of you may end up blocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm here to get work done. Most of these jazz articles are an embarrassment, and in a world of 7.5 billion people, two of us are doing most of the work, and my partner has gone AWOL since the recent dustup over the yearlong suspension of an editor. He isn't sure he wants to continue to edit. Who can blame him? People have worked aggressively and irrationally against us. God forbid one be presumptuous enough to know something about a topic. Wikipedia has a real opportunity to use our knowledge, effort, integrity, and persistence. Please work with us rather than against us. At the very least, don't insult us and make false accusations. I reject the "you are both wrong" escape route. I backed up my arguments, and that person who is an incompetent editor refused to address my points, choosing instead to change the subject, remain hostile, and insult me repeatedly. You don't start a conversation of any kind by calling someone a puritan. Cullen, I respect you and appreciate your opinion, but purity has nothing to do with this matter, and "purist in the extreme" is an exaggeration bordering on insult. Why doesn't someone question whether I know what I am talking about? Becker and Fagen always denied being a jazz band. Would a phone call from Donald Fagen persuade anyone? I'm not sure it would. No one has given me a good reason to perpetuate the fraud Steely Dan is a jazz band or why Aja should be included in Wikiproject Jazz when there is already plenty to do—on real jazz albums. This debate is about knowing the subject, making decisions, and getting work done. The Wikiproject Jazz cleanup listing, which I work on every day, has a ten year backlog of over 4000 articles. If we included every "jazzy" jazz tinged, jazz related, jazz connected album, song, person, dance, venue, restaurant, bar, festival, afflatus around the world throughout history, nothing would ever get done. Nothing. One has to ask who is here to write an encyclopedia and who is here for other reasons.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I was wrong. It's an eleven year backlog. I've been trying to get it down to ten against great opposition. Cullen, I was trying to remove the album from Wikiproject Jazz, not keep it in. Yes, I know you mistyped. Thanks for the quick response. I will move on.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

So you think an album with a Wayne Shorter solo and many reliable secondary sources describing it as part of jazz, broadly defined, should be removed from Wikiproject Jazz? Like I said, dogmatic and purist. As for a phone call from Donald Fagen, well that would be an unpublished primary source, wouldn't it? Don't you know that summarizing published reliable independent secondary sources is the backbone of the encylopedia? And that what Fagen thinks about jazz is worthy of a summarizing sentence, but should not override critical commentary published in reliable sources? These are policy matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support Aja as jazz - Oh, right, we don't do content here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, I apologize for losing my patience and being baited into comments that were off-topic. @Vmavanti:, I apologize things could not turn out how you wanted them to, and hope you have a good day. Truly. Dan56 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hide racist vandalism on Haitian page

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

---

Hide this racist vandalism on Haitian page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haitians&oldid=748973424 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selena Gomez Mexico fan (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 04:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Hide racist vandalism that says (Redacted) on Haitian Americans. Change visability. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haitian_Americans&oldid=748973356 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selena Gomez Mexico fan (talk • contribs) 04:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 04:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Hide visability on this racist edit and hide the racist summary "Black people should overdose on cocaine".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2606:F180:0:4:4:C167:6389:3987

Hide another racist edit and vandalism "Hip Hop is garbage. *** Black people."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlanta_hip_hop&oldid=754021281 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selena Gomez Mexico fan (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 05:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

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

New IP editor altering Content assessment importance values at a fast clip

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

---

User 2600:1702:1740:2CA0:1D43:8A98:EC54:CFE5 (talk · contribs) has altered the "importance" value assessment on dozens of articles in their first few hours on Wikipedia. I've undone most of them, and left what I hope is a helpful message on their User talk page, to urge them to stop. However, if they're this new, I'm not sure if they're aware of having a Talk page yet. They seem to have stopped (as of 00:39 UTC) after a hundred edits of this nature, but I'm wondering if an admin here can monitor them, so that if they crank it up again in the morning, they can be non-punitively blocked, in case their Talk page messages haven't been seen, or haven't been heeded.

In that short time, they've crossed paths with a couple of editors who have reverted the IP, either for this reason, or some other: @Flyer22 Reborn and John B123:; also adding @Doc James: because many of the altered "importance" scale values seem to be in MED-related articles. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

They used 2600:1702:1740:2CA0:1DF4:8F15:25F0:3CA9 (talk · contribs) a couple of days ago to do the exact same thing. Given that they have signed talk page posts with "Anonymous Kekistani", [124], [125], [126] I'd say they are simply trolling. RBI seems reasonable. --bonadea contributions talk 06:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the IP's efforts and commented here. I was contemplating asking at WP:AN whether such undiscussed activities were desirable and I support any action that prevents its continuation. Thanks to those who have reverted the enthusiastic edits. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

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

BamZ412

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

---

Hi, Could someone indef BamZ412 as per CIR/NOTHERE please,
They'd posted this earlier today which didn't fill me with much confidence,
Anyway they're currently edit warring on my talkpage over their signature despite repeatedly being told to stay away from it,
They also have a userbox on their userpage saying they're under 13 so IMHO they don't have the required maturity or competence to be editing here at the moment,
Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 16:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Davey2010, I left a firm warning on Bam's talkpage as you have asked them to stop contacting you. SQL^{Query me!} 16:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant thank you!, Annoyingly we edit conflicted but basically given Bam has edited constructively for the past 2-3 months of being here without issue I wonder if indeffing would be excessive here?.... SN's already taken them to 3rrno so maybe it should continue there? ... –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 16:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I'm happy to withdraw the report if they get SQL's message, and time proves that they have. On the other hand, they are still pishing about with their sig on user talk pages (diff, diff, diff, diff); Ajf773 is going to get a helluva lot of message alerts for no reason when they next pop in... ——SerialNumber54129 16:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Just block them as an obvious sock.Praxidicae (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: As usual, you're amazing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thats it, you've all been conscripted into the group that this user has been banging on about for the past few months. Anyone who shows any sign of interest, it seems, becomes an honouree member. My money is on Davey being club secretary. :) Cassianto^Talk 16:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha damnit I did try to keep that a secret!, WMF paid me to be the club secretary . –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 17:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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

User:VideoCTO and uftmachine.com spam

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

---

VideoCTO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been spamming links to uftmachine.com[127][128][129] (the YouTube video is essentially an ad for uftmachine.com), admits that he has the ability to edit uftmachine.com,[130] and has been making a pest of himself on the talk pages of anyone who interferes with the spamming[131][132][133] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Guy, you've helpfully engaged the editor on their talk page and it seems they've understood the issue. So it seems to have been handled for now. If it continues, just re-open this section. Thanks, Lourdes 09:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Good plan. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Editor who still hasn't learned about copyright, NPOV, original research and reliable sources

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

---

User:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. has been here almost 11 years with 3000 edits but is still struggling with our basic principles.

NPOV - they removed some text last month calling it editorializing but here they added to another article "that arose to fight for justice against the genocidal Mongols". Here is a diff for a series of edits made by this editor including the bit I've quoted.[134] Which leads me to sources - if you read that diff you'll see that the two paragraphs that are sourced are sourced to a YouTube video[135] from a group calls "Kasaysayan Hunters"[136] who are seeking the "true history of the Filipino people" and suggest that platinum was mined by ancestors of the Filipinos 3000 years before it was mined in the west - that and the megacity they mention on their FB are both fringe.

In various articles they are adding this text[137] " In relation to that, a population survey conducted by German ethnograper Fedor Jagor concluded that 1/3rd of Luzon which holds half of the Philippines' population had varying degrees of Spanish and Latin American ancestry. When statistical patterns in that survey conducted in the 1800s is applied to modern census data from 2015, when about 1/3rd of Luzon's people which is 16.5% of the whole Philippine population, would yield a population of at least 16.7805 Million Filipinos who have Spanish or Latin American descent mainly in Luzon, this is already discounting the Latin American and Spanish descent in Mindanao and the Visayas which also were colonized by Latinos and Spaniards. The proposed dissemination of Spanish genes among 16.5% of the total Philippine population as abstracted from Fedor Jagor's survey is near the 13.33% frequency of Hispanic Y-DNA among Filipino males presented by the company, "Applied Biosytems"."

I already submitted to your demands.

If you look at the latest version in that article. I myself removed the superimposition of that 1870 census data (which recorded race) to the modern ::census which doesn't. I myself recognized that information afterwards as synthesis and by your nudging I am morally bound to remove my own work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filipinos&type=revision&diff=911026044&oldid=910969165

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a combination of poor sources and original research. There's nothing wrong with using Fedor Jagor for historical information but its use here is clearly original research (as an aside, the whole section on genetics in Filipinos looks like it could use work).

A similar edit in a different article is here:

"During the initial stage of the Spanish colonization of the Philippines which were around the 1600s, about 16,500 soldiers levied from Peru and Mexico were sent together with 600 Spanish officers to fight wars, settle, colonize and build cities and Presidios in the Philippines. These 16,500 Peruvians and Mexicans supplemented the Native Malay Population which then reached 667,612 people. This large initial group of Latin American soldier-settler founders had spread their genes among the sparesly populated Philippines. This resulted into a massive spread of Latin American admixture among Filipinos as evidenced by a large number of Filipinos possessing Native American ancestry. A Y-DNA compilation organized by the Genetic Company "Applied Biosystems" found that 13.33% of the Filipino Male Population had Y-DNA of Latin American and Spanish origins, thus it can conclude that up to 7.162 Million (Male) Filipinos have direct patrilineal descent from populations then originating from Spain, Mexico or Peru. Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by German ethnologist Fedor Jagor of the population of Luzon island (Which holds half the citizens of the Philippines) 1/3rd of the people possess varying degrees of Spanish and Latin American ancestry. When transferring this variable according to modern population scales, this would mean that there are at least 16.7805 Million people (Mainly from Luzon) possessing partial Mexican and Spanish descent in the Philippines by the 2015 Census. However Luzon in the north is not the only area with a concentration of Latin American descendants, Zambaonga in Mindanao island at the south, speak Chavacano, a Creole Language based on Mexican-Spanish with some Peruvian vocabulary. The province has a population of 1.2 Million people, thus increasing the total Filipino population which posess varying degrees of Latin American and Spanish ancestry to about 17.9805 Million."

If you look at the latest version, you would find that I even submitted to your demands and removed several sections of my work which you considered original research.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted his addition of similar text at a couple of other articles but they've reinstated their edits. [138] and [139]

Yes, I have reinstated my edits but you also didn't say how I used even more genetic studies proving my point and I even listened to you by partially removing the contents which you considered original research.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Here [140] he has used unreliable sources, [141] which is based on user submissions and [142] which is a personal blog. I note that User:Stricnina gave him what seems a very clear warning and explanation about suitable sources and original research a few weeks ago at User talk:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.#About your contributions that do not follow the WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research guidelines

I'm sure I could find other examples but I've already spent too long on researching this. One other I just found when using the interaction analyse, this from 2016 where he inserted text which was not in the source (which I was able to download from JSTOR)[143].

How was I suppose to know about this? Sometimes, and in this particular case, I just edit wikipedia according to some suggestions and citations my friends give me and since I don't have the dollars necessary to have JSTOR account. (I earn in pesos). I have no capability to verify content beyond a paywall.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

He also still hasn't learned about copyright, see User talk:Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.#Yet another copyright violation. I'll ping a couple of other editors who have posted to his talk page recently, @Wtmitchell and Rosguill: I think this editor has a serious competence problem and hasn't learned from the problems discussed on his talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I meant to add that his comments on my talk page (several sections) indicate to me that he is a good faith editor struggling with our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... I admit that I may have done wrong in some instances. It may be due to the fact that I have active communication with a lot of people in Facebook you say that I cite my sources from, mainly from the University of the Philippines as well the Kasaysayan Hunters (With members from La Salle and Anteneo University too) who I am personal friends with, and their ideas seep into mine and since they're mostly avant garde in nature I am in a way violating Wikipedia's policy of using only mainstream sources. A lot of my work isn't actually original research since its been circulating among non-mainstream academics for a while now. You can ask WMitchel since he knows that I have the emails of and have correspondence with a lot of History writers and Anthropologists. So I admit that some of my works are fringe in this regard. However, if it shown to me that my edits are wrong I admit correction. You can ask Stricnina herself, I aceded to her demands and I even fast tracked the deletion process of the articles I myself made by giving "Main editor consent" to delete them. Anyway, from this point on I have recognized that Wikipedia is not a viable media to introduce new content. From now on I will just write my work for publishers who will pay me for my write-ups instead of working for free in Wikipedia, only to be mired in edit warring. At least it will save me the psychological stress of constantly having to prove my point to people who have preset presumptions. After I finish writing, making and editing some few more Wikipedia articles, I will minimize my Wikipedia use. You don't need to have me banned or blocked since I will simply leave. Thank you. May you have a happy life.

You can look at my entire 11 year history BTW and you would see that most of my edits are not Fringe, not Original Research, not Copyright Violations and are verifiable. Picking 10% of my articles which are wrong (I admit that I am wrong sometimes and even then I accept correction) while ignoring the 90% more which are correct, is totally up to you. I have no power in Wikipedia since I merely am just an old and experienced editor here, not an Administrator. That would be inconsequential soon anyway since I may quit or minimize my Wikipedia activity or go on a brief Sabbatical at least.

Regards and best wishes to you.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding my comments on their talk page, if memory serves, we had a discussion on the talk page of a now-deleted article including several other editors. By the end of the discussion, Rene was in agreement that the central premise of the article was reliant on original research, and the article was thus deleted.

The only other comment that I would make at this time is that you can apply for a free JSTOR account using the Wikipedia library card platform. I have one myself. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Yes I remembered you mentioning that I should make JSTOR account in the past, but I haven't followed up on that yet, thank for reminding me! But I probably won't use that though as I intend to quit Wikipedia or take a break from it after I finish off some projects...

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: Placing your comments inside another user's comment as you did here is incredibly disruptive to the flow of conversation, and risks leaving it unclear who said what. Please never do that again. If you are responding to a long comment and want to make it clear which portions you are responding to, simply quote relevant portions prior to your own responses. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Ok I will put that in mind.

• I checked the most recent edit by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk · contribs) which was diff at United States. The diff interjected WP:SYNTH commentary based on a 44 page pdf by Mark A. Stoler (an historian with no article) with no page number in the reference. The user should not be editing articles of that nature and some kind of resolution is required. If the issues were found in a single topic (Philippines?) a topic ban might be best. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have opinions on how wrong some of that looks, especially jammed in as it was. Anyway, part of the problem is that Rene doesn't seem able to figure out what the source actually is. He cited an essay on a website, but that website was simply hosting a journal article published elsewhere: “George C. Marshall and the ‘Europe-First’ Strategy, 1939–1951: A Study in Diplomatic as well as Military History,” by Mark A. Stoler, The Journal of Military History, 79:2 (April 2015): 293-316. It ticks every box as an excellent source, but the use here looks weird. I'd have to look into it even more to form a full opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I used that in conjunction with other sources (I didn't cite it in that edition of the America article because I was afraid that quoting President Manuel Quezon verbatim might violate NPO) But you can see his visible anger at America's Europe First Policy in World War 2, here, where he said his famous "Que Demonyo", speech...

https://m.ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=94

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

No sir, that is not a Synthesis. It's common knowledge. Americans abandoned the Philippines and pursued a Europe first policy. President Quezon himself was quoted in saying: “come, listen to this scoundrel! Que demonio! How typical of America to writhe in anguish at the fate of a distant cousin, Europe, while a daughter, the Philippines, is being raped in the back room!”

https://wanderingbakya.com/quezon-heritage-house/

I just didn't put my source in the statment since I'm afraid it might make Americans look bad so I wanted NPO and just stated the fact that America had a Europe first policy and abandoned the Philippines, however Mac Arthur had very scathing words against American policy as well as President Manuel Quezon.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

What isn't synthesis? I've no idea what edit you are referring to. And you're proving my point about your problem with determining what is a reliable source, Wandering Bakya is a blog run by "roselee" and clearly not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC) @Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: pinging you again as my first attempt failed. Doug Weller talk 10:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Well that blog only took that Quotation which Manuel Quezon said from this website. The International World War 2 Database...

https://m.ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=94

I hope that clarifies things.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: So why would you use it instead of the World War II Database (which I haven't researched). And again, what isn't synthesis? Doug Weller talk 10:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I stated in an edition of the USA article that the USA abandoned (I think I should rephrase that to "left" to become even more neutral) the Philippines to an invading Imperial Japan due to adopting a "Europe First" policy. The user Johnuniq, accused me of Synthesis WP:SYNTH to which I retorted that it was not and that General MacArthur and President Manuel Quezon themselves decried the "Europe First" policy in their interactions with Roosevelt. However, I self inhibited from quoting the full source verbatim, of that statement, that, the USA "left" the Philippines (Even though it's pretty self-evident) because I thought it was not Neutral Point of View for the USA according to the primary sources, however in the process, I was acussed of Synthesis or Original Research which I didn't do because the displeasure over Roosevelt's Europe First Policy originated with Macarthur and Quezon themselves, not me. Anyway, I hope that that elucidates this situation. Regards! After I make a few articles and edit some more I'll be quitting English Wikipedia for a while so around two or three weeks from now, I'll be wrapping up my Wikipedia activity. No need to block me in Wikipedia I'll voluntarilly take a break especially since I have a potential new job oncoming on a publishing company and I will just post my literature there without the hassle of edit warring. At least I will get paid for my write-ups instead of getting stressed over and over again, arguing with others in wikipedia with no benefit on my part since I'm doing it for free yet I still have to pay for internet and have debts in day to day life, yet people threaten to have me blocked or banned, in which case I'm saying to these people, alright you win! I will taper off from Wikipedia editing in the oncoming days. No need to have me blocked, since in a way, I will block myself. May God continue to bless you and may you grow in grace and happiness.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't want to come to this point but 2 Editors from the United States Article has already acussed me of "Synthesis" and "Original Research" which I am sick and tired of proving that it's not and that what happened in the Philippines in relation to America during World War 2 was pretty self evident (America prioritizing the European Theatre over the Asia-Pacific Theatre and abandoning theif fellow Americans and the Filipinos to help former Imperialist Britain) and furthermore, I simply did not put my source (From President Quezon and General MacArthur) in that Wiki Article since it colored a negative light on America. If any more accusations of Synthesis or Original Research will be put on me in relation to that article edition, I will just plop in that reference, so that I am done with this. All this drama is adding more stress in my life.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: I have much better things I could be doing then dealing with your edits, but as I think you are making a mess at times, and I discovered the problems, I feel I have to follow through. There are not two editors from the USA article accusing you of synthesis, I have nothing to do with that article and haven't even looked at your edit, that was User:Johnuniq What i said was obvious synthesis was your using modern genetics and a 19th century source to come to a new conclusion not in either source. After all your time here you should know that was against policy. I believe that your current text at Latin Americans[144] is extrapolating current population date from genetic research and that that is original research and have asked at WP:NORN to separate it out from this discussion and give you a chance to explain it in detail Doug Weller talk 15:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

You didn't put in the otherother study I cited from the Institute of Human Genetics and that study from National Geographic with a sample size of 80,000 Filipinos that concluded a large amount of Latin American and Spanish ancestry was present among Filipinos. I am using a Smartphone right now. So it's hard to put in the links via typing so I'll defer posting that until I get a laptop. But you know what I am talking about. Anyway most of the points I have addressed with you in a previous talk. I'll just post it here again so that the Administrators in this talk page will know...

Actually, the Open-source Y-DNA compilation done by Applied Biosystems was the one that presented the facts that 13.33% of the total male population they sampled from all across the Philippines had Spanish and Latin American Y-DNA and it just fit with the historical census data by Fedor Jagor that 1/3rd of Luzon which is about 16.5% of the Philippines had Latin American admixture. What I posted was a function of "Corelation" and "Sylogism" not "Synthesis", arriving at New data which was not present in the original sources via combinatronics like there are only two piano keys and if played by one key alone there is no melody formed but with at least two keys, you can start a musical piece. In fact for a Synthesis to form strictly speaking, in Dialectical materialism, two different schema with different qualities I.e. a Thesis and an Anti-Thesis should fuse or oppose one another to form a Synthesis. What I did was not a Sythesis in the original meaning of the word if we get into Logic or Semantics. In fact, I also put your POV in mind and I even reduced several sentences from my previous post, in fact I am willing to extend my consideration of you even more, to at least two magnitudes... Since we disagree that 16.5% of Filipinos are of Latin American descent then we either agree, on the spirit of consensus building, that 7% of the Philippine population (Since in that Open Source Y-DNA bank sampled from all across the country 13.33% of Filipino males and half of that is 7%, have sure Iberian/Latino descent from the Paternal line) or that at least 200,000 Filipino people have Latin American or Spanish descent (With indication that its from an 1870 Census) I'm already bending backwards for you in this case btw since I already cited those genetic studies from the National Geographic and the Institute of Human Genetics of California that most of 80,000 Filipinos they sampled had Iberian and/or Native American descent.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

All these years and I'm still not sure how to revive something recently archived. Anyway, apologies but I don't see any improvement in his recent edits.

Here[145] he added/restored some text with changes and a new source. His edit:

"Udayan, an outstanding warrior of Darew became the head of a system of alliances between people from the Pangasinan lowlands and the highlands of the Cordillera Mountain Range. He was widely considered the grandfather of warrior-princess Urduja.<ref>Early Historical gold trade networks in Northwestern Luzon, as reconstructed from ethnohistorical accounts, WorldView2 satellite remote sensing and GIS predictive modelling: the Gasweling case. By Michael Armand P. Canilao</ref>

I'm guessing that his failure to identify the source is because he picked up his wording from a search that didn't show it. In any case the aource is from "The Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports"[146] and the text is not by its author but a quote from two other authors which said

"The extent of inter-settlement alliances is climaxed in the memory of Tublay informants with the reign of Deboxah, Princess Urduja, in Pangasinan. She is acknowledged as the grand daughter of Udayan, an outstanding warrior of Darew. Her death signaled continuous decline of kinship and alliance between highland and lowland settlements."

Some of the wording is too close to the original for me to be happy while most of it doesn't seem backed by the original, which in any case should have been cited.

Here[147] he's copied text without attribution to the article he copied it from, Kedatuan of Dapitan, so he's copied over a travel site used as a source and something called Villegas which can't be identified. So we know he hasn't checked his sources but what's worse is that the article is tagged as a hoax and original research. Those tags are in your face and the article should not have been used. User:Diannaa gave him a warning about copying text from one article to another in JUne.

In that article and in Ternate[148] he's used a student paper as a source.[149] - the same source is used at Manila, Tanza, Cavite and Cavite City.

If you read that Student paper, you would know that he didn't make his assertions out of thin air. He also cited previous authors too. There is nothing wrong with using student papers BTW. William Henry Scott's Student Papers which were pioneering in relation to Philippine History, during his time are now widely cited. Just check the Wikipedia section on Philippine History or the Philippines Article and you would see his student papers especially. "Sources for the Study Philippine Precolonial History", a Dissertation he defended in Ateneo de Manila, used as a standard by modern academics.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I missed the fact that this editor crated the Kedatuan of Dapitan with the tourist site and a source just called 'Villegas'. User:Stricnina added the tags. I also think that the use of this looks like OR as I can't find the subject of the article mentioned in the pdf I downloaded. --Doug Weller talk 13:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I took that source that the Sultan of Ternate was departed to Manila, from the article on Ternate, Indonesia. I just took that reference from there and copied it to the Manila article. I thought it was a legitimate source since it has been put there before me and no one complained about it, but now that I copied that and put it elsewhere, everyone complains. That's from a legitimate book inside the very article though, but as you know me, I am just a poor Filipino boy which barely have ends meet, working for free on Wikipedia and I have no capacity to know what's on the other side of that Paywall.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., please tone it down. There is no warrant for this edit summary--if an editor's edits are problematic, they should expect to have their work scrutinized. Plus, there wasn't anything in that edit that resembles "very clear citations". (The citation is still incomplete: name of journal, page numbers, year, doi, etc. are missing.) Drmies (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

In the next edits I cited a website where that Literature was from. BTW.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow is this Wikipedia Inquisition? I challenge you all to review MY WHOLE Wikipedia citations history not just pick a few that fits your presumptions that somehow I'm a person who incapable of citing good sources. Then kindly compare the ratio of edits and citations with no complaints to ones which have, and I assure you, most of the citations and edits I have are legitimate. In all my previous editions with many people even the people I disputed with, that my primary goal is "Consensus building", as can be seen by the cloud of witnesses in my entire 11 year Wikipedia history here, if people show evidence that I did Original Research, Cited Improper Sources or Synthesis I promptly follow correction. Even Doug Weller here knows that among several occassions, I watered down my own edits several times over (despite the evidence being weighted in my favor), just so that I could build consensus with him. Yet he is dead set on putting me on Wikipedia Inquisition.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I need time to cool off. I'm getting pissed at my life right now. So I haven't been assuming good faith on Doug Weller and the people here. Something that I should do since they did it to me, you are all welcome to objectively review my entire Wikipedia history and kindly show me the parts where I erred and I will correct them. (A minority) As I want to end my Wikipedia life on a positive note before I quit or take maybe a short break in the following weeks.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Some serious CIR going on here, based on the number of replies... 167.220.2.145 (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

My mother wass a judge, research Rita Bascos Sarabia in the internet, she is even close to the Supreme Court and is a Candidate for positions there before she died, and from what I learned in real life, is that the amount of accusations that is hurled upon a person does not determined his competence, rather it is the quality of accusations. My mother as former Activist during the dark days of Martial Law and have had dozens of court cases slapped unto her, by the regime, all false (Sedition, War-crimes, Possesion of Illegal Firearms etc. etc.) by hundreds of paid stooges by the dictatorship but she didnt flinch an inch because she knew most of her work was of noble intent and her only crime is ruffling some feathers from the regime. I myself am a former monk and I have had many accusations hurled against me and my fellow clergy by the current regime (Saying that we're in league with criminals, drug addicts and etc. when we only tried to help the least, the lost and last and broke no rule except to expose alot of powerful corrupt people.) Now, I can't compare the Wikipedia community to the Marcos Regime that persecuted my mom, or the current Duterte regime that has persecuted me and my fellow men of the Cloth. Since, Wikipedia, I assume, is full of competent and good intentioned people including Doug Weler, but I just want to point out that the quanity of accusations is not an indication of the competence of a person, Jesus was accused as a Sorceror, Criminal, Drunkard and Glutton because he healed people, tried to talk to and save sinners and fought for the rights of little people against persons in authority but he was a very upright man. I'm not comparing myself to Jesus since to him my merits look like utter waste in comparison, but I just want to say number of accusation does not equal validity of accusations. Anyway, I just wound up poor and used up because I had previous vows of poverty which my religious superiors released me from upon my exit from the monastic life. I need to take a break from Wikipedia anyway. I have worked for free my whole damn life, worked for free saving drug addicts, criminals and prostitutes, devoted so much of my time and effort and money to make Wikipedia better in all 11 years of my stay here (When most people didn't complain about most of my edits except for some minor hiccups), worked for free while helping alot of people pass their Thesises. Etc. etc. And quite frankly it's EMOTIONALLY DRAINING working for free for a decade here, and no one appreciates you and everyone hates because you always take the the underdog side. I have created a hellova alot of articles and alot of cited of references, yet for all my efforts and time put in here, no one even gives me a simple "I love you" or "I appreciate your efforts" even when I became the top Contributor to the Philippines article or the Philippine History Article or the Iloilo Article, or the articles on the Rajahnate of Butuan etc. etc. When people are showered awards and attention for running some bot-program to fix a spelling error. Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC) I am categorically stating it here, righ now. "I AM DONE". Expect me to taper off English Wikipedia in the coming weeks. I wish you all the best of luck and happy life and I will pray for your constant sucess and happiness. I am tired of being everyone's punching bag. Good Night! Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Please don't put this rant of my frustrations against Doug Weler. He's only doing his job, weeding out potential vandals. And maybe it's really high time for me to quit Wikipedia. And maybe it's my fault for listening to so many suggestions and ideas that I should be more critical minded instead of trusting. Please forgive him, he's an Administrator and it is his duty to weed out the bad. It's ok if you just continue to accuse me, I don't mind being the cast the bad guy as long as it's for the greater good.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law and I stopped reading. The above block of text should be enough for anyone to recognize that this is a CIR issue. 167.220.2.145 (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Doug Weller, this discussion section has become messy as I can't follow the conversation. Some of the conversations are truncated. However, I am here as I want to communicate to you all that I'm unfortunately in the process of reviewing again (or better, debunking everything again) one of the newest articles published by Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.. The title is Conquest of Manila (1405). I can sense the exasperation you are all having when dealing with him and I want to join you all. There has to be a solution to this. I am nearing my limit here seeing all of Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.'s contributions which violate basic Wikipedia policies like "No Original Research" and sticking to the source. Stricnina (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Et Tu Strictina? Didn't we had a discussion before? I consented to the deletion of that Battle of Manila Article, becuase we determined it was original research. However, I also said that we should migrate the information that's true to a new article that is totally different to the previous one. Notice that I stated that there is no specified battle there in the new article since there is nothing of that sort mentioned there. I only stated what BERTHOLD LAUFER stated on page 259 on the source... Quote:"Some of the older Spanish authors also entertained the view that the Philippines were once subject to Chinese rule; and Father Gaubil relates in the Lettres edifiantes that Yung-lo maintained a fleet with j thirty thousand men, which sailed to Manila at various times. It was in I571 that the Spaniards and Chinese met for the first time at Mindoro, before Legazpi, the conqueror of the Philippines,undertook his expedition to Manila."

That's to prove that it's not original research (Which you already condemned me to have done before even reading the material). I have been always open to dialogue and correction. I am frankly hurt that I have agreed to you several times over and consented to have so many of my articles deleted and you took this oppurtunity to stab me in the back and join the chorus of people calling for my crucifixion... That's ok even if you violate the Wikipedia standards calling for NPO and assuming Good Faith from other users, I guess you will still consider me as some kind of "disrupter", that's ok I'm used to that, please cast the stones as if I'm not used to that already...

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Your inability to properly indent and insertion of statements WITHIN other people's comments is one of the many reasons I think you have a CIR issue, and wonder how you managed to edit Wikipedia all this time like this. 167.220.2.145 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Also let me call attention to this. "I have agreed to you several times over and consented to have so many of my articles deleted". If you are creating multiple articles that keep being deleted... perhaps you should stop creating them and instead make drafts. 167.220.2.145 (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Four of my articles are deleted and I made hundreds more which weren't and you base your decisions on that four?

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Conquest of Manila (1405) still has significant issues. While some of the sources cited there are usable, the conclusions drawn from them in the article are still full of original research. Not a single reliable source cited there describes a "conquest" of Manila, which directly implies a violent conflict. At most, the sources attest to the presence of a Chinese outpost on Luzon, but there's no mention of war or conflict, and the only event that happened in 1405 appears to be that China appointed a governor to the island. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There are peaceful conquests as well, conquest comes from the Latin "Con" meaning "with" and "quest" meaning search for, Conquest can be peaceful too as in you can buy territory, the meaning is not all violent or it's sports for example the conquest for the prize is contestation but it is not violent.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, the Jesuit Priest stated in that article, mentioned that Zheng He sent Thirty Thousand Men to Luzon (which according to Legaspi is the same to Manila). That Jesuit priest was the one who said the Thirty Thousand troops was sent to Manila. Why would someone send Thirty Thousand troops here? Are they going to play soccer? Well in my Monastery days in Bagiuo, we played soccer with the Philippine Military Academy. Maybe the soldiers just want to play a game with the locals. Lols. Love you bro. Thank you for your advice that I should register to JSTOR, but I won't need it since I would be quitting soon.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

See, Tht Jesuit priest was the one who said the Thirty Thousand troops was sent to Manila. Why would someone send Thirty Thousand troops there? Are they going to play soccer? is a textbook case of synthesis. Yes, it seems like a plausible inference to say that a fleet with 30,000 troops may be sent to invade somewhere. But unless the source explicitly says that a battle, conquest, or the like took place, we can't report that one did. For all we know, the fleet was there to intimidate but had explicit orders not to attack anyone. If we were having a casual conversation and you made the argument I highlighted, I'd probably agree that it could be evidence of an invasion. But Wikipedia articles demand a higher standard of verifiability than what is merely plausible. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Well the Spanish did say that a governor was sent to Luzon to rule and he was called Ko Cha Lao according to what is cited by Otley Beyer, even if a battle did not happen (I never stated in the article that a battle happened I only spoke the bare facts that their was a conquest either peaceful or not IDK) certainly a Conquest did happen though since by definition a conquest is a change of status or posession of something from one state to another, not necessarily violent. Like when Sports teams do a conquest of a certain Cup or you do "sexual conquests" in the sense that you have many sexual partners which is not violent either. Conquest does not mean battle. Only change in status of ownership.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

See, Tht Jesuit priest was the one who said the Thirty Thousand troops was sent to Manila. Why would someone send Thirty Thousand troops there? Are they going to play soccer? is a textbook case of synthesis. Yes, it seems like a plausible inference to say that a fleet with 30,000 troops may be sent to invade somewhere. But unless the source explicitly says that a battle, conquest, or the like took place, we can't report that one did. For all we know, the fleet was there to intimidate but had explicit orders not to attack anyone. If we were having a casual conversation and you made the argument I highlighted, I'd probably agree that it could be evidence of an invasion. But Wikipedia articles demand a higher standard of verifiability than what is merely plausible. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

My addition: I will kindly agree with Rosguill that the 30'000 troops may as well be there only for intimidatory purposes. I would also add that there was no mention that those troops were originally there during the 1405 tributary mission to Luzon according to the Ming Shi. As Berthold Laufer said in his 1905 book: "The "Ming shih" (chap. 323, p. I a) relates on this point that in 1405 the Emperor Yunglo sent a high officer to Luzon, who was to govern the country. The result of his visit was the embassy from Luzon' under Ko-ch'a-lao in the same year. How long Yung-lo's delegate remained on the island and of what character his jurisdiction was are not narrated[...]" In other words, the scant information we have does not permit us to know whether there was a military conquest or battle that happened during 1405.

Also, I want to add that Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.'s arguing over the semantics of conquest is absurd, judging from the fact that the added the Conquest of Manila (1405) and Conquest of Manila (1365) under the template Battle of Manila. I have yet to read what a "peaceful battle" is supposed to mean in this context.Stricnina (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok then, your argument is logical. I will remove that from the Template "Battles" since Conquest and Battle are seperate categories, as there are obviously peaceful conquests. Thank you for your contribution. However, your accusation that I was guilty of "Original Research", wasn't true in this case because I simply typed verbatim what that website said. If it wasn't mentioned in the Ming Shih but mentioned in that website it's the author's fault not mine.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW I never stated in the article that there was a "Battle" and the word "Conquest" can also be used in non-violent scenarious, i.e."Sexual Conquests", "Sports Conquests" or "Academic Conquests". Etc. Conquest is something to be attained and at it's essence is an issue of ownership not an act of violence. I didn't make the same mistake twice and equate the article as a battle, but simply as a conquest.

I would also like to point out that the Ming Shilu mentioned the term "Govern", you cannot govern a territory unless you exercised sovereignty over it. Clearly, at that point, the Ming exercised Sovereignty over Manila (Whether a battle happened is disputed). What sure did happened is that the Jesuit priest mentioned 30,000 Chinese troops were sent to Luzon and then afterwards a high officer was dispatched there to "govern", if that is not conquest I don't know what is. (Even if a battle may not have happened, Mongols for example didn't need to battle some people since they just surrendered to them).

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., the Ming Shi Lu is a primary source. Any interpretation of a primary source is left to actual historians. We are not allowed to extrapolate any meaning from any primary source as we are not historians. What "govern" means according to the primary source material is up to an actual historian, not a Wikipedia editor such as you. Please read No original research for more information. Stricnina (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Again why are you accusing me of original research? People change, they are not calcified into a certain state for an indefinite period of time. It was that website who posited that China exercised sovereign power over Manila NOT me. Let me quote Verbatim: "Some of the older Spanish authors also entertained the view that the Philippines were once subject to Chinese rule; and Father Gaubil relates in the Lettres edifiantes that Yung-lo maintained a fleet with thirty thousand men, which sailed to Manila at various times." THE RELATIONS OF THE CHINESE TO THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (Page 259 from this site: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/philamer/ahd7618.0000.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext "I am sorry if I simply cite what I read Verbatim." Am I guilty of original research then? In fact, this even paints the Philippines in negative light. You would have wished that Filipinos (Which I am and I am very much pro Filipino) should have battled the Chinese but by your own arguments we just seem ot arrive To the conclusion that we surrrendered to them as it seems. (Very uncharacteristic of Filipinos BTW since we don't usually surrender even when we know we would lose since my own ancestors fought in losing wars all the way to the revolution) but I would not put that there since that is Synthesis. Anyway I will humbly defer to your view. There was no battle we just surrendered as stated by the bare facts.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr., just by pulling out the word "sovereignty" or "sovereign power" using a source that do not mention such things means that you are committing personal interpretations of source materials. That counts as original research. The word "sovereign" was only mentioned two times in the Berthold's article and outside the relevant pages, while the word "sovereignty" is absent altogether. Also why name the article "Conquest of Manila (1405)" when the sources didn't even mention the word "conquest" when describing the event? The word "conquest" only appears three times in Laufer's article, two times it refers to the Spanish conquest and the other one is about the "conquest of Terrenate". Again, no mention of "Conquest" of "Manila" during 1405. You are committing original research by applying terminologies with loaded meaning when sources did not even mention such things. We have talked about this numerous times before and I am extremely disappointed that we have to talk again regarding proper use of sources. Stricnina (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok then I am open to changing that Article name how about. Changing it to "governance" of Luzon or something which was strictly said in the sources. Anyway didn't we have this conversation before? I said that we should delete the Battle of Manila article concerning this and that I intend to migrate it to a more appropriate name. I distictly remembered me mentioning that the new article would be labelled "Incorporation of Manila" or "Conquest of Manila". To which you gave me no reply to that but you agreed with me to delete the previous article. I explicitly asked you if the new terminology was ok but that was brusheda aside. I ask you again now what would be the better terms? Thank you. I really appreciate your contributions.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Query Could both the plaintiff and defendant (for lack of a better term) please slow this down a bunch and be FAR more concise on the matter?

• DW, you have some valid points, but they are being lost amidst copious verbiage. Please be more concise. While bare urls are not desired, they are also not explicitly required. DW stop your edit warring, or you'll be heading to a block; same applies with WP:HOUNDING. At this point, what you've provided here is less clear than it could have been. I recommend something like the following format which might make your points less ambiguous:
  • WP:NPOV: diff1 diff2 diff3
  • WP:RS: diff4 diff5 diff6
• RBSJ, from the evidence presented here and what I can see in your history, at least some of your references are vague or are not from reliable sources. No, this isn't an inquisition, but DW has claimed your edit history is questionable and user are looking those claims to see if they are accurate. From that history, it seems you have some confusion with copyrights and attribution. Assume that anything you find is indeed copyrighted unless you can prove otherwise (that rule of thumb is much more often correct than incorrect). Likewise, if you quote or use something someone else wrote, even if not copyrighted, is their original work and they should be credited for it. I concur with Drmies that your references are lacking/circuitous/vague and should have more details than what you're providing. Likewise, Rosquill points out one of many issues of WP:SYN that you have indeed done. From your history, it seems clear that you are not making the necessary distinctions and WP:CIR applies in spades here. I support a block on RBSJ to prevent such continuation and escalating blocks as necessary to stop such edits. His editing proves he is capable of learning from such mistakes, but that knowledge needs to be more evident. Buffs (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I honestly support a temprorary block of myself since I stated from earlier that I am indeed quitting or taking a break, it depends on what happens next. I just have a question though. If I am blocked can I still interact with people here? I intend to defend some of my edits.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Using your break to argue with other editors would be counter-productive. I wonder whether a topic ban might be more appropriate. Deb (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to argue I want to build consensus, notice how in all my edits, it is me who constantly adjusts to criticism? I want to defend my edits but if I am wrong. Then I am open to adjusment.Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Please learn how to properly indent. Reading your diatribes is made even more difficult because you refuse to indent correctly. 2001:4898:80E8:8:D9AA:ABD4:5421:5856 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A diatribe is a personal attack tell me how I personally attacked people here when I begged for my Tormentors' forgiveness?

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

What's all this about? Is there a proposal to WP:Block this user? If not, maybe there should be one so as to narrow the discussion. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There has been no official proposal to block me yet and this is just an incident report. But as I am quitting or taking a break soon on my own volition. A block would be redundant. But a temporary block would be ok with me.

Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I, for one, think you should quit Wikipedia or be blocked. If you think the sources you used for Conquest of Manila (1405) support what you actually wrote, even support the title, you are indeed too incompetent to be editing Wikipedia. You are also expected to know how to indent your comments after 11 years and 3000 edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Back when I was studying for my dual majors degree in Education and Philosophy. We had a class for special Education and we didn't even call people with special needs incompetent. And here I am being called an "incompetent" by an Administrator. A public servant of all people. You are supposed to exercise utmost care discretion when you are in public office. I know this, since my mother was a former Politician, so is my uncle and my Brother. I myself Have been elected into local offices not big but still enough of an experience in leadership. And never ever have I called a person incompetent even when he vexed me. Also, a conquest is not necessarily violent. Most of the Mongol Conquests were peaceful since the people just surrendered to them. Anyway, as seeing that every body hates me here and I don't even get the basic human right of being assumed innocent unless proven guilty I will cut my timeframe for leaving this emotional drain on me called Wikipedia even more, so instead of leaving 2-3 weeks from now. I will be leaving next week. Yes yes judge me on the latest articles wherein I ruffled people's feathers and patently ignore my hundreds of articles which went without a hitch or my thousands of other edits which are acceptable. Anyway, you're the boss here. Call me incompetent if you like but I don't even call kids with special needs incompetent. If you want we could discuss the legal, etymological or normative definitions of incompetent and by the mere fact that I am sane and have capacity to improve already discounts me being an incompetent. Anyway it's all moot since I will be leaving or take a break around next week. Have fun without me and please do try to overdo my top Contributor status among several wiki articles since apparently I'm "Incompetent" Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Block Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. until they can prove competence in editing, indenting, and reliable sources

• Support as nom because this has gone on long enough. 2001:4898:80E8:8:D9AA:ABD4:5421:5856 (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support for the inability to see the SYNTH and sourcing problems raised above, and for comments such as at 00:05, 22 August 2019 where the substantive issues are ducked again. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per my previous remarks. Buffs (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. I'll be the bad guy, because doing this via a community proposal seems to me to be just prolonging the agony, and tormenting the user needlessly. This is clearly a good-faith editor, but as regards competence, many of their remarks above are very alarming, such as this about how he goes by by Facebook and personal friends whose ideas seep into his. And "I just didn't put my source in the statment since I'm afraid it might make Americans look bad".[150] This great long incremental post,[151] [152] [153] [154] [155], as something posted on ANI, is alarming altogether; not even the hardworking IP 167.220.2.145 could face reading it all the way through. I have a lot of sympathy with Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.; it pulls at my heartstrings when he says repeatedly that he might as well quit Wikipedia. But, unfortunately, when he qualifies it as "quit or take maybe a short break in the following weeks", it depresses me further, because I actually think he does need to leave. There are too many basic problems, and too many people have wasted too much time giving advice that he doesn't profit from. As I'm always saying, the time and patience of good editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource. That resource is obviously being squandered here. I have blocked indefinitely because the user is a net negative, however well-meaning. Bishonen | talk 04:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC).

Spot on. Thank you. Buffs (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

User Farah.moonfairy

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

---

• Farah.moonfairy (talk · contribs)

The user has 640 edits total, all to articles, 599 to List of sex symbols.

Continuing to use poor sources (bookmyshow.com, jaynestars.com, The Sun, Daily Mail, Metro, therichest.com, ...) for BLP information despite many warnings. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Continuing - edit warring - Metro Daily Mail Daily Express --Ronz (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Continuing - edit warring - bookmyshow.com --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The User:Farah.moonfairy has never posted to a talk page or responded to the sourcing complaints, for instance this one. If they continue to edit without replying here a block seems necessary. Claiming that somebody is a sex symbol without finding a proper source is a BLP issue, even if most people wouldn't actually mind. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Milkfairyangelcutie (talk · contribs) looks like a sock, though this account is using different sources or additional ones rather than just reverting.

Daily Mail Metro --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Apparently communicating is hard! So much so that they created a sock to continue the disruption. Both accounts blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Kosmosi

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

---

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

Not sure where the correct venue for this is but I thought I'd try ANI. Kosmosi's user page reads If you're here to dispute my edits of trans people's articles regarding birth names - get the fuck over it. Trannies don't get special privileges over anyone else. All other people who change their name or go by a different name have their birth-names listed (e.g. Debbie Harry, Miley Cyrus). So, get off Tumblr and stop trying to censor Wikipedia.

If it's not obvious what my concern is, "tranny" is a disgusting and degrading slur and it's a gross violation of BLP (which applies on all pages on the site), particularly as it's directed specifically at the trans woman Kim Petras, at whose article Kosmosi has been slowly edit warring (1, 2, 3, 4) with some edit summaries so egregious that they were revision deleted by Geniac. As a user who clearly has no interest in improving the biographies of trans people, I propose that Kosmosi be topic banned from the topic "Transgender people", broadly construed, which would necessitate in particular the blanking or deletion of their userpage. — Bilorv (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That I would call simply unacceptable - they can express their viewers about deadnaming without resorting to insults if they want, but with the insults, that needs to be removed. Agree there is basis for a topic ban. --Masem (t) 13:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I've marked their userpage for speedy deletion as an attack page. TheAwesomeHwyh 15:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban; support indefinite block. If this user hated black people as much as he hates gender-nonconforming people, the word he'd use instead is the N-bomb, which would instantly get him indefinitely blocked. That's not a soft little insult used by uneducated people who don't really mean any harm. It's a hate term against a minority that lives under constant threat. Using it, especially since User:Kosmosi is also blatantly violating BLP by deadnaming, comes with an implicit threat behind it, exactly the same as a white person calling a black person a you-know-what. It looks like the offending userpage text has been completely nuked but if you saw it before, imagine reading the same thing except it said the N-word. Would you be here politely asking for consensus on a topic ban as relates to black people but asking the responding admin not to impose an indefinite block just in case the racist asshole manages to contribute better at a different topic? 107.195.20.170 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Block user — this sounds like a case of WP:No Nazis, though Kosmosi has a history of constructive edits unrelated to transgender up to this point. As such, I am unsure if the block should be temporary or indefinite, but in the former case an (indefinite) topic ban is warranted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Indeff as WP:NOTHERE. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hi. I do not see the problem with the word "tranny" especially as I am trans myself - my user page is not an "attack" page, it was not created to attack anyone. Anyway afaik this whole drama is becasue i put Kim Petras's birthname there. I do not see the problem with that, it is a biography and most other trans people have their birth names there too. I also do not like that I am being compared to a racist here. I am not a racist nor would I ever use such a word Kosmosi (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  Regardless of whether you are trans, use of a bigoted slur directed at others is not acceptable. The issue is your language and attitudes such as If you're here to dispute my edits [...] get the fuck over it, not your edits themselves—though it is worth noting that "other articles do this" is a fallacious argument and there is no policy requirement to deadname anybody; rather, it's something determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion based on depth of coverage in reliable sources. Discussion is impossible with someone that shows such an aggressive attitude. — Bilorv (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support indef block - Identifying as part of a group is not carte blanche to collectively demean them.--WaltCip (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocking now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban and indef, but support warning : Wow! Let's wait a minute! A simple warning would have sufficed. Are we jumping to block editors too soon nowadays? In good faith, I believe that Kosmosi is a member of the trans community. It is very common for people in minorities to take back names historically used by others as insult against them - a sort of devaluing the word/name which members of that community use against themselves and other members of the community without anyone taking offence. Both Black and LGBT communities have taken back historical slur words used against them and I do not believe for one moment that Kosmosi used that word as a negative insult against a community he is a member of. In fact, these kinds of reclaiming the word is very common among such communities. Further, this discussion was only a day old before @The Blade of the Northern Lights: took it upon himself to indef another editor without waiting for the discussion to generate momentum. Are you being hasty with your use of the Admin tools The Blade of the Northern Lights? What I see here are people going on emotions, and to equate the editor with a Nazi/racist is uncalled for and a personal attack. In my opinion, I think The Blade of the Northern Lights should undo his hasty indef block and allow this discussion to run. Unless, I'm going blind, I cannot see any other block for this editor other than this one which tells me it is their first ever block. Indefing an editor on their first block especially an editor who has been making good contributions is harsh and shows poor judgement and misuse of the Admin tools. We can not afford to have trigger happy Admins who block editors because they can rather than what is good for the community. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia isn't the place for that. And I'm fairly sure your true complaint is with me, hence your following me to this unrelated situation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Duh! Don't flatter yourself. I didn't follow you. Another discussion brought me here. Please do not make false claims against me. I am however eager to know why you have indefed this editor on their first ever block when a simple warning would have sufficed? The discussion had not even been more than a day old before you took it upon yourself to indef this editor who has been making good contributions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Block is fine. Past a certain level of toxicity we don't need to do warnings; just show them the door. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• This could have been solved without any deletion or blocking. The offending part of the user talk page can be — and was — blanked, the edit summaries suppressed, and the user asked to stop calling people names and rudely telling them to "get the fuck over it". I think that xe almost certainly would have. The editor made a foray of four edits into a topic area xe hadn't edited in before, and was completely tone deaf about resolving conflicts there and acceptable levels of civility. I strongly suspect that that is not going to continue after this. Moreover, given the length and variation in Special:Contributions/Kosmosi xe clearly is here to contribute to an encyclopaedia, and questions like Special:Diff/911666713 seem silly. See the contributions history for what articles outwith the topic area this person has already been editing for five years, from Home theater PC through French Wikipedia to GNU Chess. Uncle G (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

My real concern here was over the user page rant, which seemed to show a level of...deep misunderstanding and toxicity. I'm trans too, and would aghast if anyone ever used the t-slur, let alone would I use it! Combined with a "get the @$%* over it," the rant seemed the attitude of a troll to be honest. However, Kosmosi's unblock request gives me increased confidence, and I think giving them some WP:ROPE is the right course. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, if anyone is willing to unblock I trust your judgment. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've accepted the unblock, with some advice for the future, though I do feel I'm going out on a limb somewhat. Any repeat should be met with an indef and a lot less trust/AGF for the future. GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits

Keannueric18 (talk · contribs) has been making a series of edits to multiple articles such as adding "resume_date = 2020" to building infoboxes. There is no such parameter, and I don't really even understand the edit summary, normally something like "I will restarting soon in 2020". I have reverted some of these, and he has just put them back. There are three warnings on his talk page from this month, and many more older ones. He has never edited the page, so seems to be ignoring them. I don't know if this is actual vandalism or some other kind of pure confusion. MB 01:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably hoaxing? This user's most recent edits are mainly adding unsourced start dates to proposed megatall skyscrapers, including buildings whose construction is likely to require materials that don't exist yet. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It's still continuing, so I've indefinitely blocked Keannueric18 pending an explanation of the edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

What's the best way to clean this all up? I don't want to do this many manually. MB 04:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle, probably, though I guess it could fall under WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I rolled them back; all the ones that were current at least. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I reverted five more that had other (more recent) changes. I went back through the July edits where they were making similar changes to airport articles. There are similar suspicious edit summaries earlier in the year that still could contain more of this. MB 13:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Tag teaming in removing reliable sources

User:Mhhossein and User:Saff V. are Tag teaming in removing reliable sources from Hafte tir bombing. Here is some context where Mhhossein tried to get the page protected after their last revert. It comes across as collaborative WP:TENDENTIOUS editing in order to render a particular group responsible of this bombing, when sources mention other suspects as well. Ypatch (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

JJMC89 has now full-protected the article for one month. This thread can probably be closed unless that was not the best solution. The article could use some extra eyes in terms of the discussion. Softlavender (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Ypatch: Next time, instead of making bizarre accusations, try to collaborate with other editors correctly, without edit warring. Repeatedly saying the same thing without elaborating on your comment is not certainly what you had to do; I raised serious doubts over the reliability of the source and you just say it's reliable without carrying the burden of proving the verfiability. Those things aside, I would like to know how you suddenly jumped into the article! --Mhhossein ^talk 15:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I created a disscusion and have tried to give my reasons(here and here) to explain why it does not suit to mentioned that material into lead but you response Whether you agree with the sources or not,... and did revert!Saff V. (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The OP kept on reverting us in a fighting manner and now there's an explanatory comment shedding light on the disputed source saying how dubious it is. I think a Boomerang should fly here. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Just to remind everyone that the community authorized general sanctions on post-1978 Iranian politics (I closed the AN thread two days ago).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter: thanks for reminding. Can I have the link to that discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure: AN discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter: A good effort; but how could you reach a decision without asking the involved editors to comment? Seems odd to me, to be frank. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion was open long enough, consensus was obvious (though I would like to see greater participation), I was not involved in it in any way, and I closed it. You are the first person complaining so far.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ymblanter: Being open long enough is not a suitable excuse for those who demand wide participation, notably by involved users. I'll keep on my discussion on the remedy's talk page. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

If the discussion has been long open and the participation decay, it is. Having said that, you are obviously welcome to raise relevant points at the talk page and to generally help shaping the sanction.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS by Mhhossein: [156] [157]. Ypatch (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn accusing people of bias based on trans status + possible hounding

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

---

The primary reason I'm making this is that Flyer22 Reborn has suggested twice now that trans editors cannot be impartial about trans issues because they are trans, and without apologizing in either case. I think this is serious enough to justify this ANI even absent many other problems with civility, but since we're here already and it's relevant context I'm going to throw that stuff in as well.

Most recently, she suggested that WanderingWanda could not be impartial about a topic relating to trans men (middle edit) because Wanda had said on a completely different page that they were dating a trans man. Both I and Wanda objected to this but she did not appear to care. In fact she was rather confrontational to both of us, responding to me with a strange argument that she didn't break any rules, except WP:Civility, but not really, and it doesn't matter because nobody enforces WP:Civility anyway, and also you did it too.

She also had previously objected to a clearly rule-abiding and relevant notification of Talk:Transgender about a proposed move on the grounds that it would attract LGBT users who she assumed would be biased. Multiple people, including Wanda, sche, Kolya Butternut, and Equivamp objected to what Flyer22 said at the time, with Wanda, Kolya and Equivamp explicitly mentioning that Flyer22's focus on the identity of the editors was inappropriate. ( Sche objected on the ground that Flyer22 had pinged several editors beforehand, which WP:APPNOTE specifically says to avoid, and so objecting to a rule-abiding notice was hypocritical.) Again she does not appear to have cared and just went on arguing her case.

Wanda has tried to politely bring the older incident up with her on her talk page, but she promptly deleted it, and with the edit reason "Get out of here with your nonsense. Trying to paint me as anti-LGBT? Me? And when I just got a notification about File:Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg that I might need to save again? You are really trying my patience." This was before the more recent incident, so clearly she has no intention to stop doing this. Wanda then politely brought up a series of other times when Flyer22 had been oddly aggressive to her up on her talk page once more, but again Flyer22 promptly deleted it.

As you can tell from reading all that, this is also part of a series of broader WP:Civility violations on Flyer22's part: these civility problems are not exclusively against Wanda but many seem to be part of a pattern of possible WP:HOUNDING of her. Some examples (in addition to the ones Wanda links in those talk page messages): Flyer22 often casts aspersions on other editors by accusing them of POV pushing or sock puppetry with no or flimsy evidence, she has at least twice tried to intimidate editors by claiming unrelated rulebreaking (first edit in the one w/ three) by different people is similar to what her opponent is doing, and she is often also blatantly uncivil in ways that get called out by other editors. Many of these cases of hostility, especially recently, have been targeted at User:WanderingWanda; It's unclear to me whether Flyer22 is deliberately targeting Wanda with hostility or just is hostile to people she disagrees strongly with and often disagrees strongly with Wanda. Regardless, the same argument is clearly spilling across multiple pages, and usually with Flyer22 on the offensive, so I feel it's reasonable to bring up WP:HOUNDING even if Flyer22 isn't actually following Wanda around per se.

Now, just to get an obvious counterargument out of the way: it's also clear Wanda in particular has at some points taken the bait to some extent, for example here. But I want to point out here that while this is clearly unproductive and I said so at the time, it's still not equivalent to all the stuff posted here. In the case of this particular example, this happened after Wanda declined to get involved twice and Flyer22 kept pushing, and after Wanda finally bit Flyer22 responded with a five paragraph rant which has the same WP:Civility problems I've already mentioned, including accusations of sockpuppetry, POV pushing, and general rudeness such as Perhaps I should have left your post there for you to be roasted, as a number stated to me via email they were indeed going to do. Loki (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is unfortunate... All the other stuff aside, saying, "... you stated, "I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man." To me, it has seemed that you let your personal life (in addition to your political views) affect how go about editing here. Keeping personal and political views out of one's editing can be challenging, but it's what I do, and it's why so many Wikipedia editors have stated that they trust me to edit articles or have given me barnstars for it. I'm not even very political." ([158]) was inappropriate.  EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It may help to understand Flyer's behavior by looking at a rare example of when she "came clean":[159], from this archived talk page: [160] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolya Butternut (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you are speaking of an old discussion (from my newbie years) that you no doubt found via references to RfA inquiries mentioned here. This is the discussion. I'll leave you pointing to it for others to judge if it's relevant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, some silly behavior from ten years ago is hardly relevant here. Most people have matured over the course of a decade. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have experienced what I felt was the same behavior just this year.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Without even reading all of what LokiTheLiar stated above, I will note that I don't have much to state regarding the above misrepresentations, other than what I stated in this section to WanderingWanda at Talk:Attraction to transgender people and in this reply to LokiTheLiar about WanderingWanda and the literature at that same talk page. Additionally, there is no evidence that I have been hounding WanderingWanda or anyone else. Indeed, Curved Space and others have felt that WanderingWanda has been harassing me. Do see User talk:WanderingWanda/Archive 1#Archive of messages I left on Flyer22 Reborn's talk page and the content below that section. Also see Swarm's responses to WanderingWanda in this discussion about canvassing and to anyone else who doesn't understand what canvassing is and isn't. And as for sock accusations? Asking editors if they are non-new is perfectly allowed, as recently mentioned in this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Nowhere have I called either WanderingWanda or LokiTheLiar socks. I am allowed to believe that they are non-new. I have not objected to anything because editors are transgender. In all of my years of editing transgender topics, this has never been the case. My point with regard to contacting Talk:Transgender is that WanderingWanda did indeed contact that talk page specifically for viewpoints from transgender people, and did not look to contact other relevant talk pages, such as Talk:Gender or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies. I clearly stated, "I would feel the same if an editor was going around targeting only women editors for feminism issues. It matters not that feminism mainly concerns women. I would feel the same if editors were going around targeting only women for the RfC you now see at Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 1#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?."

I ask that people take the time to look at all that has transpired at these talk pages, beyond the above misrepresentations, and to keep Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: GamerGate in mind. As mentioned by others at that request page, some editors are trying to silence others, are engaging in all sorts of WP:Advocacy, and are calling any and everything transphobic or an attack on transgender editors.

Yes, certain editors have acted more like activists than like Wikipedia editors. Any of the editors happening to be transgender doesn't mean that I and others are targeting transgender editors. At Talk:Fingering (sexual act), WanderingWanda suggested that our medical and anatomy articles should use gender-neutral language. By this, and as seen in the discussion, WanderingWanda meant that the Human penis article, for example, should not state "males," "boys" and "men," but should instead state "people with penises." WanderingWanda meant that the Vagina article should not state "females," "girls" and "women," but should instead state "people with vaginas." Johnuniq, Adrian J. Hunter, Meters, Crossroads1 and I objected. Johnuniq stated, "Changing how these topics is handled will need consensus at a noticeboard such as WT:MED or perhaps WP:VPR." WanderingWanda then implied that I'm transphobic because I stated, "Wikipedia does not rewrite its articles to privilege tiny minorities over the majority of society." And because I asked, "'How could [WanderingWanda's suggested rewording] not give validity to those who state that transgender politics erase people?'" Like I stated, "It's not just trans-exclusionary radical feminists/'gender critical' commentators who feel that they are being erased when 'man' is replaced with 'people' or 'woman' is replaced with 'people.'" Even with this recent revert by sexologist/psychologist James Cantor at the Attraction to transgender people article, inappropriate cutting and an erroneous reference to WP:MEDANIMAL was made by WanderingWanda. My issues with LokiTheLiar started at the Feminist views on transgender topics, where LokiTheLiar has engaged in all sorts of problematic editing. I haven't seen LokiTheLiar being WP:HERE even once. The editor is solely here to push POVs, and some of this is being fixed by this current RfC at the WP:BLP noticeboard. These articles need neutral editors, and I have always been one of those at these topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Mate, turn down the rhetoric, otherwise it's going to be Operation Spiked Club. Sure, there are inflamed passions. Step back. Drink tea. Get mediators involved. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of who's right or wrong, is it too much to ask all parties for brevity? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I can condense a bit but this is sort of a pattern of behavior that's hard to adequately summarize? Even the thing I posted above was condensed from a longer version I was originally drafting.

The primary thing I'm complaining about is that Flyer22 has accused LGBT editors of being biased for being LGBT twice. The first time was on the move request from genderqueer to non-binary, where she accused WanderingWanda of improper notification for notifying Talk:Transgender because it would bring over more LGBT people who she appeared to feel could not be impartial. Multiple editors objected to this at the time. More recently (in fact, just a few days ago) she accused Wanda of being unable to be impartial about an article relating to trans men because Wanda said on an unrelated page that she's dating a trans man. This all is part of a long trend of uncivil behavior towards editors she disagrees with (including me a few months ago), and also of a more recent trend of aggressive behavior towards Wanda in particular, which is beginning to spill over to any page they happen to interact on (which is to say, potentially any page related to LGBT issues, since they both regularly edit those sorts of pages). Loki (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

What you have done is misrepresent things, per what I stated above. And, except for agreeing that it was inappropriate for WanderingWanda to mention their love life, you ignore all of the inappropriate editing and behavior WanderingWanda has engaged in, including that long screed of WanderingWanda's after WanderingWanda stated (with their "21:19, 16 August 2019" post) "I suggest you engage in a little bit of self-reflection" and I replied "I often do, but it's not needed in this case." And this was supposed to be me baiting WanderingWanda? And that long screed of WanderingWanda's, where WanderingWanda goes into my supposed checkered past that I was cleared of, wasn't baiting? I was just supposed to let that screed stand unanswered? There is no "long trend of uncivil behavior towards editors [I] disagree with." There is a long trend of me combating inappropriate editing and combating non-adherence to this site's policies and guidelines. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick clarification: I didn't and don't agree that it was inappropriate for Wanda to mention their love life on that unrelated article. (I honestly don't have much of an opinion either way about that other article.) I was saying it was inappropriate for you to bring it up to discredit her. Loki (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• If only Oscar Wilde or Noel Coward were alive today. I would so dearly love to see what they could do with raw material such as is found in this thread – I'm thinking The Importance of Being Earnest or Private Lives. EEng 23:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer Oscar Wilde's less appreciated work, The Importance of Ernest Saving Christmas. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• The TLDR stuff above is not helpful and JzG is correct that there is no need for over excitement. Flyer is concerned about concerted efforts like this which replaced the struck text with the underlined text: stimulating the prostate in malesthose who have it and stimulate the perineal sponge in womenpeople with vaginas. Flyer is correct that such good faith attempts to right great wrongs should be conducted elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Planned Parenthood, the largest reproductive health organization in the united states, uses gender neutral language like that, and in addition if you actually look at medical studies you'll find they tend to say stuff like "the prostate" rather than "his prostate" or "a man's prostate", etc. But if there isn't consensus to be gender neutral when talking about anatomy, I'm perfectly fine with that. My difference of opinion on that one, specific, content issue with Flyer is a distraction from the main point. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • You were roundly rebutted on your activism by both Adrian J. Hunter and Crossroads1, who pointed to what the literature overwhelmingly states. And I had already rebutted you with solid reasoning, including with regard to what the literature overwhelmingly states. I clearly mentioned WP:Due weight to you. I also told you that "Your sources are also not WP:MEDRS-compliant, with perhaps the exception of Planned Parenthood, but Planned Parenthood is borderline acceptable. We certainly don't prefer it when it comes to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources." There is far more support among medical sources to change "committed suicide" to "died by suicide," and the community keeps rejecting "died by suicide." And yet you think that the community is going to support using language such as "people with penises"? To repeat: "[W]hat valid counterargument is there that rewording the Vagina article to remove any mention, or most mentions, of girls and women is not erasing girls and women to a degree? The topic of the vagina primarily concerns/affects girls and women. All of the sources are about girls and women, from anatomy/physiology, to medical aspects, to societal/cultural aspects. And yet you want us to state 'people with vaginas'? Who are these 'people with vaginas'? It is vague, since it can refer to cisgender girls and women, transgender boys and men, transgender women with neovaginas, non-binary people, and intersex people. But, except for some of the sources on intersex people (which the article covers with due weight), none of the sources are talking about all of those other people (unless one were to say that some of them are not out about their gender identity). The sources are not talking about neovaginas." As for distracting from the point of this ANI thread? At ANI, everyone's behavior is under scrutiny. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • For those of us not inclined to read walls of text, the main pont being...? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I also agree that this is a distraction: even if Flyer22 was always correct about page content, personal attacks are still against Wikipedia policy. Loki (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Again, at ANI, everyone's behavior is under scrutiny. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
      • (Also I summarized under Blade of the Northern Light's comment above, though you still need to go through the main ANI for the diffs.) Loki (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
        • That summary has no diffs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
          • The diffs are in the original. The first three paragraphs contain the main complaint. Most of the hounding accusation can be found in either those paragraphs or in this diff of a time Wanda attempted to resolve the issue on Flyer22's talk page. The other paragraphs at top are to establish the context of a pattern of generally uncivil behavior. I'm trying to be concise here but it's hard to concisely summarize a pattern of behavior while also providing enough diffs to establish the pattern. Loki (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think Special:Diff/907300578 is so outrageous or unusual that it justifies dropping WP:AGF, which seems to be what you're saying here; it's something reasonable people might differ over. (I also think that this tendency to go "no, that is SO ABSURD that I'm gonna stop assuming good faith" is a major cause of problems in disputes over trans-related issues and terminology here.) No matter how personally repellent you find that change, it's not outside the bounds of reasonable disagreement on the sourcing and on what makes for a neutral WP:TONE, and definitely doesn't justify Flier's blunt unwillingness to WP:AGF above. Immediately leaping to the assumption that other editors are pursing an "agenda" rather than going for what they see as a neutral tone and an accurate summary of reliable sources is a clear WP:AGF failure - and axiomatically assuming that trans editors (or even those in relationships with them) cannot be trusted, as Flier seems to have above, is completely unacceptable. If you're going to edit in controversial topic areas, you need to be able to deal with people whose views on the sourcing, what constitutes a reliable source, and what a neutral tone on the subject looks like are radically divergent from your own without immediately ascribing some sinister motivation to them. --Aquillion (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq specifically said that attempt was good faith, and Flyer has been assuming good faith when possible. However, Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism per WP:AGF. If someone is letting WP:ADVOCACY color their editing, it is necessary to point that out for the good of the article and the editor. Someone very familiar with WP:MEDRS, as Flyer is, knows that WanderingWanda's proposed wording is actually far outside the bounds of reasonable disagreement on the sourcing, since those euphemisms appear zero times in PubMed. And, we all live in wider society, and we know that outside of a tiny group of activists, such phrasing is ignored at best. Note carefully that activist is not at all a synonym for trans; in fact, outside Wikipedia, many if not most of the most ardent activists in these matters are cisgender. The rest of what you say has been addressed elsewhere in this discussion. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Since I started becoming a regular contributor earlier this year, I've had a decent amount of abuse thrown my way. I've been targeted by off-site transphobic trolls, one editor called me a slur on my talk page, another posted something so offensive that it had to be RevDeleted by El C and, as documented above, Flyer has been hyper-aggressive towards me countless times. Nothing else has offended me as deeply as when Flyer attacked me by bringing up my identity and whom I've dated. (Thanks to Loki for bringing this case forward, though a friendly note that I prefer they/them pronouns.) WanderingWanda (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hyper-aggressive towards you countless times? As can been seen by the instances I pointed to, others (including me) believe that you have been hyper-aggressive towards me countless times. Even in this instance, you accused me of targeting articles you edit. This was obviously payback for the message I left on your talk page about targeting articles I edit. As noted with this edit summary, your accusation made not a bit of sense because "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography is not an article and it is on my watchlist; I have participated on that talk page times before, as checking the edit history shows. Many guidelines and policies are on my watchlist; I am all in those edit histories. I don't follow you!" I have been annoyed by you, and rightfully so. And not because you are transgender. I am done conversing with you in this thread, and challenging your misrepresentations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, I am sorry that abuse in those 3 examples has been hurled your way, but I don't see what that has to do with Flyer22 Reborn. Please be sure you are not taking unrelated incidents and (unconsciously?) attributing those feelings to Flyer. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Disclaimer: I saw the ANI notice on Wander's talk page. I read the report and responses. @Flyer22 Reborn: If you are going to say [Loki] is solely here to push POVs..., then you need diffs to back up that statement.
  Additionally, it'd help to bring up the fact that the RFC you mentioned was started by your brother.
  Also, can everyone here just tone down the accusations for a bit? Let's not forget the fact that this has been a contentious issues (the specific people in this thread notwithstanding). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment again. Much of this is turning back into a content discussion. To be brief, IMO:
  • Flyer22 is, as she stated, one of the people I (and many others) trust with this topic based on a history of sound editing
  • Flyer22 was right to revert the language. I use that language but it is too recent and not widely used enough for Wikipedia to adopt at this point.
  • Flyer22 was in the wrong to comment on another user's personal life and statuses as impairing or coloring their editing abilities
  • Harassment of trans and queer editors like Wanda is all too common and should be taken seriously. Their experiences with that should be considered as they seem to explain some of their anger at Flyer22. That said, petty slights and mild incivility are generally tolerated on Wikipedia. Short of slurs, intentional misgendering, etc., like with LilySophie, I am not sure there's much to do here without more evidence of maleficence.
  • Leave the content discussion for the article's talk page
  • Everyone's at like an 8 out of 10. We need to aim to be at a 3.

EvergreenFir (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• • • I agree we should leave the content discussion for the article's talk page. I'm not sure honestly why people are bringing it up here at all. This isn't one incident that could be boiled down to an underlying content dispute, this is at least two separate incidents, and IMO really a pattern of behavior over at least several months. Loki (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• I don't see at all how WP:HOUNDING applies. Flyer22 Reborn has been involved in sex and gender articles for many years; I have seen this in the histories and talk pages of these articles. If she has disagreed with some editors more than once, that is not hounding, that is just having the same interests.

I've looked at the diffs showing Flyer22 Reborn's allegedly problematic comments. I recommend all others do the same; the comments are not at all like the way they are being presented. I have never seen her say that someone is biased because they are trans. What she has done is point out what appear to be examples of WP:ADVOCACY, but this is necessary in order to prevent, well, advocacy.

When I have dealt with WanderingWanda, and the little I have dealt with LokiTheLiar, they tend to lean towards engaging in advocacy. I think they believe that this improves the encyclopedia, and this seems to color their editing approaches as far as I can tell. They do not seem to have absorbed that we describe the world as it is, not as it "should" be. This is not because of their gender identity; in fact I do/did not even know or care if they are cis or trans, though I do keep preferred pronouns in mind. The advocacy is there nevertheless. Here we have WanderingWanda try to remove reference to sex organs as male or female, which was roundly rejected [161]; and ongoing for weeks at Talk:Attraction to transgender people has been a conversation involving WanderingWanda, LokiTheLiar, and others, in which they have criticized the removal of undue-weight material in the "Social views" section suggesting that gay men should be attracted to trans men, and tried to remove or significantly alter (seemingly so as to discredit) material that criticizes this idea (even though the latter idea is vastly more common in society).

The accusations against Flyer22 Reborn are far in excess of any evidence seen by me, whether yet presented here or not. Many of them are vague and do not have any evidence. She is firm about NPOV on this politically fraught topic, and this leads to disagreements with editors who lean towards certain viewpoints, whether they are conscious of that or not. Trying to spin disagreement with seeming bias as accusing people of bias simply for their identity is totally improper, and would make it impossible for the community to identify and combat bias. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• • I'm trying to avoid engaging too directly with counterarguments because I agree we need to lower the temperature in here, but briefly:
  • The thing she said most recently was And here at Talk:The Matrix (franchise), you stated, "I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man." To me, it has seemed that you let your personal life (in addition to your political views) affect how go about editing here. Keeping personal and political views out of one's editing can be challenging, but it's what I do, and it's why so many Wikipedia editors have stated that they trust me to edit articles or have given me barnstars for it.. WP:NPA specifically prohibits Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, ... , etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors, as well as Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. Discrediting Wanda was clearly the point of bringing up that Wanda is queer and dating a trans man, because Flyer22 goes ahead and says that's what she's doing.
  • In the other incident, what she said was And just a note that in addition to the #Additional statement section that WanderingWanda created, I also consider this notification by WanderingWanda at Talk:Transgender to have been made in bad-faith. Of course, WanderingWanda will point to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification where it states "the talk page of one or more directly related articles," as support for that notification. But WP:LGBT, which has already pulled in LGBT people, was already notified. And "the talk page of one or more directly related articles" obviously does not mean that many or all related pages should be notified. This topic has a lot of related pages, and each one will just bring in more and more LGBT editors of those pages. Yes, it makes sense to have LGBT editors involved in this move discussion, but they are not the only ones an editor should be seeking to get involved. Discussions like this are not supposed to be about whether or not an editor is LGBT. They are supposed to be based on our rules at WP:Article titles. And if WanderingWanda wants to state that they weren't looking to pull in LGBT editors with the Talk:Transgender notification, I find that claim highly dubious.. She then followed that up by saying that Wanda's notification an attempt to further influence the outcome of this move discussion Two editors other than Wanda used the exact word "offensive" to describe these comments. Again, it's black-and-white against WP:NPA to assert that someone should not be alerted to a discussion because they are LGBT, or to assert that someone being LGBT will influence their ability to remain impartial in a discussion. (And particularly the renaming dispute at issue this was odd since it's not like it was about anything which one would expect trans people to share a single opinion on; it was about two names that are both used by LGBT people, so there was no reason at all to think they would be biased.)
  • I also invite people to look at these diffs, because I really do think they speak for themselves. Even zoom out, look at some whole threads if you want. The idea that I'm misrepresenting these diffs is IMO itself a misrepresentation. Loki (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The first bullet point above ("The thing she said most recently...") is nonsense—it is not a personal attack. Flyer is known to fix hundreds of sexuality articles with perfect neutrality—mentioning what someone said about their sexuality is in no way an attack. Of course such a mention could be done in a disparaging or mocking manner, but that is not in the quoted text, nor is it in Flyer's nature. It could be argued that the comment was not relevant to the underlying issue, but it's not an attack. Wikipedia is a big place and many of the people here are perfectly at ease discussing matters such as in the quote without any hint of disparagement. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Flyer22 is one of the most even-handed and neutral editors I have ever encountered who works in a very tempestuous and controverisal area of Wikipedia. If she is removed from the topic then Wikipedia would be removing one of the few checks and balances it has in this area. Wikipedia has become a platform for transgender activism which unfortunately detracts from its stated goals. I see no evidence of WP:HOUNDING and as far as WP:INCIVILITY goes there are obviously some tetchy exchanges that could have been worded better (by both sides) but that is par for the course in heated disputes. I don't see Flyer abusing anyone. She has questioned editorial neutrality in some cases, and not without good reason in my view. Betty Logan (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well, after working my way through the relevant (and irrelevant) diffs, I have to say that I agree with Betty Logan, both about Flyer 22 Reborn's nature and editing in general, and about their supposedly violating behavior in the reported incident. I see nothing which can be construed by neutral observers as serious incivility or hounding or abusiveness, and certainly nothing which would justify a topic ban. As Betty Logan and others above have pointed out this subject area has become an arena for transgender activism, which at times leads people to dig in and take positions, making it more diifficult for neutral editors to operate. I suggest that there is essentially no here here, and that the complaint be withdrawn and the thread closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• FWIW, I'm not seeking a topic ban, I'm seeking some sort of official warning that this behavior is unacceptable and she should stop. I also think the accusations of "transgender activism" are sort of akin to a gamer dude claiming that having gay or trans people in his game is political while not realizing that not having gay and trans people in his game was also a political decision (and of course not minding all the other examples of politics in his games that he agrees with). Indeed, this is largely how I see claims that Flyer22 is particularly neutral: I think she, like most editors, makes a good faith effort to remain impartial, but that she does clearly have her own views about these topics and that (like with most people) they do influence her decision making sometimes. Loki (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have commented above on a couple of points which were not attacks. I just looked at another, namely the "she promptly deleted it" incident. Suppose Flyer is neutral regarding LGBT matters. Given that assumption (WP:AGF), how should she respond if someone drops a comment with heading "⚠️ Making LGBT users feel unwelcome" and starting with claims regarding WP:NPA. There is no attack in her response. You might argue that Mother Teresa would have used different wording, but that standard is not required here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• It's not an attack itself (and I wasn't claiming it was), but it is a refusal to apologize in any way for a previous attack. The way editors are supposed to resolve issues with a user is by talking it out on that user's talk page. Wanda made a good faith effort to do that and was completely ignored, twice, which is relevant to this ANI because it shows reasonable efforts were made to work this out peacefully and failed. Nobody is expecting Flyer22 to be Mother Teresa but we do expect her to stop violating WP:NPA. Loki (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• You're saying that the diffs I've examined above are not attacks, but if I look at one more I'm sure to see it? Sorry, reports have to focus—don't use a shotgun at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment With all the lengthy statements above, it is very difficult to review what it is that Flyer22 is being accused of. In Loki's last couple of comments, they seem to accept that Flyer makes good faith attempts to maintain neutrality, which I think is all we can ask of anyone in terms of their general approach: we all have our biases, all any of us can do is try to remember that and strive for neutrality. Loki still seems to believe that Flyer has made comments that amount to PAs, and that they have doubled down on them rather than apologise when called out. Various other editors (including at least one admin) have reviewed the diffs, and say that they can't see any PAs. As a step towards resolving this and moving forward, can I suggest that Loki take one of the following steps:

• either withdraw this report, acknowledging that while Flyer22 has been arguing their point assertively, they haven't actually made any PAs;
• or, if they feel that there are PAs that have been missed by reviewers that have attempted to follow the conversation above, they provide a simple list of them below for others to review easily.

This will hopefully allow this report to be concluded efficiently, without expecting uninvolved admins to wade through what has really become a sea of text above. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I certainly can make such a list, and will, since I believe it would be helpful. I already picked out the two quotes that I think are really serious on their own above. However, if I were to make a complete list of every personal attack Flyer22 has made even just in the diffs I already listed, it would be very long, since it's my assertion that Flyer22 makes personal attacks regularly in arguments with other editors. So my current intention is to keep it in a sandbox instead of posting the full list here. Is that OK (particularly given WP:POLEMIC)? I assume since this is ANI it would be fine but I want to double check. Loki (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

LokiTheLiarThe problem with inserting quotes rather than providing diffs is that (a) it adds to the length of an already long thread, and (b) it takes the statements out of context. Providing a simple bullet-point list of diffs, without commentary (or perhaps just a few words for each one) allows editors easily to go to the relevant thread and read what was said by all parties. We probably don't need your whole list - if you provide just a few, that you believe to be the most egregious examples, that should be enough for admins to judge whether there is any substance to this. I'd caution though that if, as you say above, the two you quoted are the most serious examples, you might be well-advised to drop this - nobody else seems to think they constitute PAs, and if there's nothing worse than that on your list I can't see this going anywhere. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I intend to provide diffs as well, but the problem with just doing that without quotes is that in many of these cases there are many separate attacks in the same diff. My intent when I have the time to make a list is to list the relevant diffs, quotes in them that I think are personal attacks, and the point under WP:NPA which covers that quote. That ought to make it super easy for an admin to just go down the list.

I mean "most serious" in the sense that they're the ones which involve personal attacks in the sense of bigotry and not purely in the sense of rudeness. There are many others which are far more blatantly personal attacks; the two I listed are slightly subtler but IMO worse because they attack Wanda as a queer person and not just as a fellow editor.

That being said, it's certainly not the case that nobody agrees they're PAs. The very first comment on this ANI is EvergreenFir agreeing that they are personal attacks. Loki (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, I'm going to leave this here, as I'm aware that this side discussion is making a too-long thread even longer. Just wanted to note that User:EvergreenFir has not said that they were PAs. EvergreenFir used the word 'inappropriate' - it's a bit of a jump to conclude that they agree her comments constitute a PA. Do please provide that list as soon as you can, or withdraw the accusation. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I try to stay away from editing trans-related articles for a reason, and this ANI is a perfect example.
  I looked at the linked comment where Flyer22 allegedly "suggested that WanderingWanda could not be impartial about a topic relating to trans men." Nowhere in the comment did she make such an allegation.
  I looked at the linked comment where she "was rather confrontational". What I see is her responding to the comment by User:LokiTheLiar, addressed to another editor, that Flyer22 should have an ANI filed against her. Unless the definition of "confrontational" has changed, there was no hostility and aggression in Flyer22's comment. However, encouraging another editor in that discussion to support an ANI against Flyer22 is antagonistic, combative, threatening ... confrontational.
  The third link by LokiTheLiar where he accuses Flyer22 of objecting "to a clearly rule-abiding and relevant notification of Talk:Transgender about a proposed move on the grounds that it would attract LGBT users" is her comment in response to the statement and actions of the editor that requested the title move of a gender-related article, and for which said editor only notified WP:LGBT and the Transgender talk page. What Flyer22 stated in her comment is: "it makes sense to have LGBT editors involved in this move discussion, but they are not the only ones an editor should be seeking to get involved. Discussions like this are not supposed to be about whether or not an editor is LGBT. They are supposed to be based on our rules at WP:Article titles".
  "I feel it's reasonable to bring up WP:HOUNDING even if Flyer22 isn't actually following Wanda around per se." Accusing an editor of wikihounding just for the hell of it is WP:PA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."
  I don't often edit the same articles as Flyer22, but when I have I've found in their discussions that she is well-versed in the subjects she edits, because she reads and absorbs reliable sources (and by this I don't mean a few -- I mean many). She knows how to stand her ground. Granted, sometimes her patience is strained when dealing with obtuse or pompous editors, but that is not the case here.
  This ANI is unwarranted and should be dismissed.
  (And after reviewing the history of some editors in trans-related article discussions, it seems to me that some editors have been itching for a reason to drag Flyer22 to ANI.) Pyxis Solitary yak 12:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Very limited involvement in this area but I've been watching this a bit after seeing a RfC notice related to the Fred Rogers article. I have replied to a few RfCs/similar discussions. I think Flyer22 has shown themselves to be rather level headed when dealing with a group of editors who do appear to be pushing a POV rather than adhering to NPOV. In particular WanderingWanda has shown themselves to be rather tone def with respect to pushing material into articles (see examples above as well as the bi-sexual material they were pushing into the Fred Rogers article) and has made edits that were POINTY [[162]]. It's possible that some of WW's actions towards Flyer22 are related to asking if WW had a prior account [[163]]. (Disclaimer: I agree with the concerns and contributed to the discussion) is defensive because they were asked about possible prior accounts. Subsequently WW made some accusations against Flyer22 that, right or wrong, are not going to improve civility [[164]] (Disclaimer: I was not involved and only noticed that discussion today while searching for the multi-account discussion above). Flyer22 is a long time editor dealing with a new editor who, reasonably, raised suspicious and has been POINTY. Add to that some of the recent drama in the gender related topic area and, overall, I think Flyer22 has been maintaining a reasonable cool under the circumstances. Springee (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Move to close. Flyer22’s longtime editing experience, general coolheadedness, and long-standing willingness to edit fairly and neutrally in the highly contentious areas of human sexuality is well-known and highly respected. There is a line between reasonable advocacy and POV-pushing, and where people cross that line and don’t fully understand the difference, the community needs to help ratchet down unneeded drama. This is a case in point. Flyer22 has done nothing wrong here that I can see, and this whole thing is nothing more than a content dispute with some hurt feelings at most. Montanabw^(talk) 14:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Second. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Montanabw's comments above. Whilst I have had differences of opinion with Flyer22 in the past, they have always been discussed in a civil manner. I would add that she has been the "voice of reason" in many discussions, particularly in trans related matters, where there has been a lot of POV pushing by some editors. --John B123 (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am sympathetic to concerns that Wanda and others are pushing advocacy that oversteps Wikipedia's role as a tertiary source of information. However, suggesting an editor cannot be impartial in an editing dispute because of an immutable characteristic is a blatant violation of the core tenets of Wikipedia—focusing on editors, not conduct, assuming bad faith, and casting aspersions. It might help to consider how obviously inappropriate it would be for an editor to suggest an editor could not be impartial on edits related to Black Lives Matter if they had african ancestry, or ban subject-matter scientific experts from an article about climate change. Flyer22 should cut it out, and if there are issues with an editor not following WP:NPOV, deal with the behavior rather than blaming it on someone's gender identity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• I have only skimmed the bulk of the very long comments above, but in general I agree with Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs directly above me, with the caveat that I think Flyer22 knows this and there has been miscommunication here of the sort that comes from people seeing controversial things from different perspectives. There are certainly transphobic bigots editing this project, but I have every reason to believe Flyer22 is not among them. What I'm saying is I expect no offense was intended. A few points:
  • Editors have biases. There is no "neutral editor"; we achieve NPOV through discussion. Sometimes that means editors don't agree on things.
  • Suggesting that an editor is unfit to edit a particular topic just because of an inherent trait ("immutable characteristic" as the well-mannered fox put it), without evidence of a pattern of disruptive editing, is just as much a personal attack as calling them an asshole. But this is not the same as describing someone engaging in non-neutral disruptive advocacy as being unreasonably biased to participate in a topic.
  • Notwithstanding inherent bias, Wikipedia is not a platform for righting great wrongs. Paraphrasing someone else: we describe things the way reliable sources describe them, not how we would like them to be described, whatever our reasons are for wanting things to be different or what we think is better. If you want to make a Wikipedia using only the most modern and politically- or culturally-sensitive terminology for everything, you are welcome to download the entire contents of the project onto your own server and go about changing whatever you want (subject to CC BY-SA 3.0). It's only about 20 terabytes.
  • When an editor has a good faith reason to think things should be changed, they should feel free to make suggestions or bold edits, without fearing that they will draw ridicule or discrimination because of it. But they must also accept that sometimes the community does not agree, and must respect consensus. WP:TE describes the alternatives to respecting community decisions.
  • We as a community could generally do a better job of recognizing how resistant we are to change, and how doing things the way we've always done them for the sake of doing things the way we've always done them is off-putting to new editors from marginalized demographics.

In short, everyone treat everyone else with respect. The rest of the internet is a cesspool of hate and filth and the worst of humanity gets rubbed in your face constantly, the Nazis are back and the world is literally on fire, but at least on Wikipedia we assume good faith. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not an admin, but I've had extensive interaction with Flyer22 and minimal interaction with WanderingWanda, so I thought I should chime in. I was also involved in the discussion on the Fred Rogers talk page that Springee mentions above. I don't edit medical or LGBTQ articles, mostly because I hate confrontation, so I tend to avoid controversial articles and I have little knowledge of both. I have slight disagreement with the advocacy policy; I mean, as volunteers, we're naturally attracted to articles that we have interest in. That being said, my experience with both Flyer and Wanda is that they're both reasonable, polite, and civil. At least that's how they've both treated me. Both have been patient with me the few times I've ventured into those topics. I've been appalled, however, at the kind of vitriol and abuse I've seen leveled towards Flyer, whom I consider a friend. I've only skimmed this long discussion and haven't looked at the diffs and original discussions, but it contradicts my personal experience with Flyer. I've also seen this kind of attack of Flyer before, so I'm inclined to support her in this situation. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• I understand Flyer is a well-respected editor and for good reason, but she really overstepped the line in some of her comments about Wanda. There are some concerning diffs in the wall of text that started this discussion, for anyone willing to wade through them. I agree with what Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs says. But I will say that both of them are too focused on continually relitigating and bringing up past interactions with each other to the benefit of nobody—perhaps this is Flyer's fault, perhaps it's Wanda's fault and perhaps a mixture of the two, but I'd need to read a million words before I could determine that. In any case, they should both keep much more firmly in mind one of our most fundamental civility messages: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Even though both clear steer of actionable personal attacks, such walls of text about who said what in 2009 and where who said something tangentially related to the matter at hand on another talk page three archives ago are not beneficial to anybody.
  There are two detrimental chilling effects that are being had on trans-related articles: the first is obviously the inevitability that any openly trans editor will be harassed and targeted by trolls and POV-pushers if they hang around for long enough. But the second is the chilling effect that such intensely lengthy walls of barely relevant text have on a conversation: we are scaring away anyone who lacks the tens of hours of time or energy that is required to make any sort of progress in a discussion in these areas. If someone has less than two hours of free time per day to spend on arguments on Wikipedia then they really can't make headway in any discussion which involves these two editors. Both of them would help the encyclopedia a lot if they took a quarter of the time they spend on arguments and spent it on writing new articles, new text, adding references etc. in slightly less heated areas (which, by the way, you can still find even if your only interest is trans or queer issues; go write an article about a notable LGBT-related book). — Bilorv (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attack

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

---

Hello dear Admins. I edited the article Yazidis and had added sourced information to the article. Then the User:Ahmedo Semsurî has requested the page for protection and he calls me a „Kurdish nationalist“.[165] But I am not a nationalist. Best wishes 91.236.142.212 (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to the other Ip (unless that’s you as well). --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• I suspect the reporting IP might be a sock, given just how many times new users and IP's have reported Ahmedo to this board, despite the fact that Ahmedo's edits have been in the right. Looking at Ahmedo's edits, I think their reason for reverting was legit. Was asking for protection necessary? Maybe not, but it would have been up to an admin to decide anyway. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks from BrownHairedGirl

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

---

Foo fighters.

-EEng

BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) Created a page 1970s Foo with the only content as 1970. I do new pages patrol and I nominated for Speedy deletion. Which resulted in this thread[166]. BHG when she speedy deleted the page[167] added the edit summary 'Promptly deleting because its existence is causing great trauma to User:WilliamJE: see Special:diff/912288032#Speedy deletion nomination of 1970s in Foo)'. I asked her twice to remove this personal attack but she has refused to do so. BHG has a history of making personal attacks against me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• @WilliamJE: If the comment was in an edit-summary, how could it be removed?
  How in any case is that really a personal attack? It reads, perhaps, as if they are expressing a wholesome regard for your equilibrium. ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Sigh. William and everyone else would have a better day if William tried to be happy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  What does what you think my equilibrium is have to do with anything? This is the behavior of an administrator around here who SHOULD KNOW BETTER....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  BHG, excessive sarcasm and unctuousness can come across as extremely uncivil and can be extremely frustrating for the recipient (hell, I'm frustrated just reading it). Continued doubling down on telling someone to just "be happy" is totally uncalled for, and is only going to inflame matters rather than defuse them. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, that is even listed here, for good cause: It is making people upset if they feel that their concerns are ridiculed.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  (ec) Deacon, a wee bit of judgement by W before robotically adding a CSD tag to a recently-created test page would have saved lottsa drama and un-needed edits. William a history of sustainedly missing the point, and it's wearing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Administrative action is not going to come out of this thread, as we are not going to revdel or suppress that log entry. Some notes:
  *Admins need to create test pages from time to time, and are expected to clean up after themselves.
  *The obviousness of the test is debatable, the use of "Foo" as a metasyntactic variable is not necessarily obvious.
  *Nominating an editing test for speedy deletion is expected, using Twinkle is normal, and getting a CSD notice from Twinkle is also normal.
  *BrownHairedGirl "please stop wasting time with splatting speedy notices around" was snarky and not helping things, but WilliamJE the deletion log entry has not risen to the level of violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
  I suggest you 2 drop the sticks and go back to the good things you do. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Xaosflux is right on the money here. I don't see the log entry rising to the level of a PA. I don't think the tone that BHG took there, or here was helpful. And, indeed - "Foo" is usually indicative of an obvious test. I probably would have given it a lot longer than a half hour, and maybe sent a polite message inquiring about it before CSD'ing. To be fair however, I don't think I have ever tested code in mainspace in that fashion. We should probably be using userspace for that - which I'd suspect would have avoided this entire situation. SQL^{Query me!} 15:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @SQL, I was testing some subst code to use with AWB. I had tried it userspace, at User:BrownHairedGirl/1970s in Foo. (That page was still live at the time of the CSD tagging).

However, I was getting odd results, which I suspected might on a remote chance be namespace related, so I tried a mainspace page 1970s in Foo. My attempt to subst {{#invoke:String|replace|source={{#invoke:String|match|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|%d%d%d0s|match=1|nomatch=}}|pattern=0s$|replace=0|count=1|plain=false}} didn't work there either. Note that's the content of the oage; WJE evidently didn't check the source or edit summary before rushing to CSD, but eiher would have been a sign that it was a test. so I changed tack and eventually devised {{subst:Str left|{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|3}}. When that worked, I didn't save the test page, but took it to AWB and used Category:1920s in Albania to test it[168]. That worked, so I set up about getting AWB running with the right settings, and left the test page open in a tab to clean up later if I didn't need it again. I didn't see any point in deleting it only to possibly re-create it, and was annoyed that it's usability was now impeded by being cluttered up with a bulky CSD tag.

So there was plenty of clue that it was a test page, and WJE would have known about the userspace equivalent since he explained that he had checked my contribs, and the two were listed adjacent in my contribs.

WJE means very well, but goes about these tasks robotically without much discernment, and seems to have little grasp of how disruptive that can be, and little ability to learn when a problem arises. WJE would do much better to ask more questions and be slower to leap to conclusions, as well as slower to take offence when he discovers yet again that his inattention has inadvertently annoyed another editor. Unfortunately, I have had many such encounters with WJE, an it nearly always goes down a similar path of WJE's incomprehension being matched by his indignation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• BHG. Watch out for the "Barnstar of Edsum Excellence" I will be awarding you in the near future. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• I wouldn't have automatically associated "Foo" with "Test" - I generally think that test pages should say so. BHG's actions do not rise near to the level of a personal attack. I also think they, and their tone, were not particularly helpful Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Much the same as escalating to ANI without attempting a talk page discussion, I agree  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• • If it isn't a personal attack, then what is the purpose of what she wrote?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Venting frustration. Please do yourself a favor and drop the stick! Favonian (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

BHG has a long history of belittling me or accusing[169] me of doing something I didn't do. Again, what is the purpose of what she wrote?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Answered below, but while I was going to go on a bit of a rant about sarcasm and its value in relieving tension, the pain medication for my broken orbital bone is wearing off and I don't feel like typing anything that long, so instead, I'll just quote one of my favorite movies and say, "Lighten up, Francis." rdfox 76 (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

William, that comment in my edit summary[170] was because you had a long track record of CFD nominations which omitted the fact that multiple merge targets are needed, and because you had neither learned from all the times that was pointed out to you, nor even amended that nomination when the problem was identified.

We all make mistakes, and we all learn as we go. But do please try to learn from your errors, rather than yelling "zOMG! Personal attack!" when another editor complains that you have made the same error yet again, and then harbouring a grudge for three years. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Grudge? You're not when you make a wrong allegation or make comment here[171]?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I stand by that comment. And your trawl through our interactions over many years in the hope that you may find some comment of mine which was mistaken is an exercise which eloquently reinforces my point about your grudges.

Have you been spending time searching through the output of the user interaction tool, or do you maintain some sort of list of grudge diffs? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) To log that I went out of my way to satisfy your misplaced sense of urgency which derived from your clicking before asking a question or looking at the context. "Hey BHG is that page a test or what?" would have saved mountains of drama.

AGF questions are good. Please ask them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Coltsfan

Coltsfan (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverts my edits for no reason at all, especially the ones at the articles Cheka and Massacre at Huế, and the "Communist terrorism" category, even worse, the user is now accusing me of vandalism, bias, and disruptive editing, when he is the only one actually doing this. -- 179.180.135.174 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"No reason at all", yet Coltsfan left you a detailed reason of exactly why on your talk page. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Except that my edits weren't biased, the Cheka article is already in the "State-sponsored terrorism" and "Terrorism tactics" categories, and the Massacre at Huế, as a massacre perpertrated by Communists, is an obvious example of Communist terrorism, the Đắk Sơn massacre article is in the category, so why shouldn't the Huế Massacre be? Also, the My Lai Massacre is at the "Anti-communist terrorism" category, I also didn't remove right-wing references from articles involving Fascism, all I did was remove the "Right-wing politics" category from the category on Anti-communist terrorism, as it implied that it was all right-wingers who did this, but at the same time I didn't remove the "Far-right politics" category from it, that argument would have merit if I did this while adding "Left-wing politics" to the "Communist terrorism" category, but I didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.135.174 (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I note you also ignored the large orange box at the top of the edit page that says "you must notify the user you report on their talk page". I have done that for you. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.135.174 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The reason most categories were removed was based on technicalities, based on the rules (like WP:SUBCAT), and it was thoroughly explained here. But to the pressing subject of bias editing, through multiple IPs, this guy tried to add "left wing" categories in articles of massacres committed by armies that, though belong to communist countries or had communist leaders, were not carried out based on communist ideology (or at least the article themselves don't draw this conclusion, thus WP:OR). Or tried to insert the category of "left wing terrorism" in government agencies of Cold War era countries, all the while removing right wing mentions to notorialy fascist governments (like the portuguese Estado Novo, etc). Don't need an expert to see that if it looks like disruptive/bias editing, swims like disruptive/bias editing, and quacks like disruptive/bias editing, then it probably is disruptive/bias editing with a political agenda behind it. Coltsfan (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I only attempted to add one category, and on the article of the Huế Massacre, it is mentioned how Viet Cong intelligence officers compiled lists of "cruel tyrants and reactionary elements", which included South Vietnamese soldiers, political party members, religious leaders, American civilians, etc, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't Communist terrorism, lastly I only inserted the "Communist terrorism" category in the Cheka article, and not only did the Cheka commit extremely brutal terroristic acts (no different than CIA paramilitary groups during the Cold War), but it also was dissolved in 1922, way before the Cold War, and lastly, when did I attempt to remove right-wing mentions to Fascist regimes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.135.174 (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The massacre at Hue does not qualify as political terrorism, again, at least is not what the sources say. It was a massacre, committed by communist against its enemies. As far as the sources say, it didn't had the purpose of inflicting "terror" or pushing an agenda or defending a point of view through violence or any other definition of "terorrism". Thus for, the category that you placed is not correct. This was explained to you, but you chose to ignore (WP:POINTy). And again, Cheka was a government agency, and, again, government agencies can engage in political terrorism, but the definition is much less browned, as for the point i was trying to make that the Gestapo and Cold War intelligence agencies also engaged in state terrorism but there is no "right wing terrorism" there because, just like here, it wouldn't be adequate. And your other IPs even engaged in extensive discussions to remove "right wing references" or right wing group from fascists articles, even reaching the point of removing content that was backed by RS. The intent here is clear, to engage in WP:POINT. Coltsfan (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources on the article mention clearly that political party leaders (obviously of Anti-communist parties) and also religious leaders (Communism is opposed to religion) were targeted, and there wasn't any explanations or anything about this anyway, the massacre wasn't even mentioned by you, and to frame it as a "massacre, committed by communists against its enemies", is rather odd, the same thing can be said about many cases of terrorism, and there are many stances of state-sponsored terrorism or state terrorism in the "Anti-communist terrorism" category, but relatively few in the "Communist terrorism" one, and when did I engage in extensive discussions to remove Right-Wing references from Fascist articles? Please, prove it, or otherwise it did not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.135.174 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If a killer is a christian/muslim/jew and he kills an atheist because he considers them "their enemy", is that "religious terrorism"? Not necessarily. Not if the sources don't call it as such, at least. The definition of terrorism (and also WP:V, perhaps most importantly) are clear on that. As for the "right wing stuff", for one exemple, here, as an attempt to sugar-coat something, through sources said otherwise. Editing in one bias way, ignoring warnings, refusing dialogue, and asserting your own view on the articles, ignoring RS and other rules, that shows a clear WP:POINT on your part. That much is obvious. Coltsfan (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If a Christian or a Muslim commit a massacre against Atheists or vice-versa because of their religion (or lack of), then yes, it would be religious terrorism, how is this an argument? And that didn't have anything to do with removing right-wing references from Fascist regimes, it all had to do with a dispute over whether the Estado Novo was Fascist or not (which ultimately ended in no consensus being reached, so the status quo was kept), in no moment did I attempt to remove right-wing references from it or any other regime, in other words, you're now making false claims, which is very telling to be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.180.107.156 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not. Not every massacre is "terrorism". there is a difference between "i don't like you so i'm going to kill you" to "i'm trying to say something and infusing terror through violent acts will achieve this goal". The RS is king in this subject, and those are not on your side, at least not in the articles you tried to change. And the diff speaks for itself. You tried to remove referenced content. Or are we bending reality now? apparently you didn't refrain from that. We can argue semantics all you want, but the WP:DUCK is very obvious. Coltsfan (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Repeated restoration of NFCC violations

Coldcreation (talk · contribs · count)
Modernist (talk · contribs · count)

Nonfree content enforcement has been a contentious matter for years, generating many heated discussions. Discussions involving the visual arts have been especially contentious, even when the underlying issues are relatively straightforward. Last year, JJMC89 initiated an extensive set of FFD discussions centered on 1) the use of nonfree images in galleries or otherwise without significant sourced critical commentary; 2) enforcement of the minimal use principle ([[WP:NFCC|NFCC#3, WMF Resolution #3); and implementation of WP:UUI#6 (avoiding duplicate uses of nonfree images). Modernist responded by initiating what quickly became a heated discussion at the Visual Arts Project ("Under Attack". Many of the central issues were addressed here [172]. Of the roughly 40 FFDs involved, all but one were closed as delete or as remove inappropriate nonfree uses (the last was no consensus), closed mainly by Jo-Jo Eumerus and DeltaQuad. Typical closer's comments included "the blanket "keep" arguments are much too perfunctory to override the NFCC concerns. It is not enough that an image satisfy fair use criteria to stay here; it also needs to comply with the much stricter non-free use policy". See Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_June_18 generally, and see Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_June_18#File:Kline_no2.jpg for a particularly extensive exposition. The basic issues were solidly settled.

Neverthless, two of the editors involved in the dispute refuse to accept the outcome. User:Modernist and User:Coldcreation, continue to contest the removal of nonfree images from galleries or from articles without any pertinent substantive sourced commentary, making exactly the same arguments rejected last year or no argument at all. See the recent history of Sculpture, Modern sculpture, and Cubist sculpture. Frankly, this is no longer a good faith dispute. This is simply an effort tp prevent enforcement of a policy the editors disagree with, by drawing out and obstructing the process and making the editing environment unpleasant. Coldcreation has also violated WP:ROLLBACK by using rollback in a content dispute [173] [174]. Modernist's advocacy is so indiscriminate and uncriticsl that he actually opposes removal of nonfree images from Commons. [175] [176] [177]

The issue is not whether "art needs to be seen", as it is often phrased. The issue is whether art needs to be seen in every article where it is mentioned or alluded to, and NFCC policy answers that question in the negative.

Therefore, I propose that Modernist and Coldcreation be placed on 1RR restriction with regarding to restoring nonfree images to articles, and that if they do restore such an image, they be required to provide a substantive justification for their action on the article talk page. In addition, Coldcreation should at least be warned that any further misuse of rollback will result in the loss of that right. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Those images are important images by enormously important artists. The Henri Matisse in particular [178] which dates from more than one hundred years ago as well as the other sculptures belong in the articles that this editor has erroneously removed. They are covered by important Fair Use Rationale's and they enhance the meaning of the articles in which they appear. They all are important enough to not only remain in the articles but they need to be seen to clearly depict the subject of those articles. The complaining editor initially removed three valid images from Modern sculpture claimimg that they could not be used in a gallery because they were not in the public domain and were therefore improperly placed in galleries; in actual fact however - those images were not in the galleries; but were used properly as thumbnails with fair use rationales and I properly placed them back into the article. This editor is very damaging to the visual arts and should be banned from the visual arts articles that he clearly both misunderstands and seems to despise. For years he has attempted to delete valuable images of works of art. He seems to be incapable of adding positive information to this project. He has ripped visual arts articles apart for years. This is clearly a danger to the project and its credibility as an encyclopedia...Modernist (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I would point out that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has 94,590 edits, 82% of which are to articles, but that the average size of his edits is -172.8 bytes. [179] That's negative 172.8 bytes. (I don't believe I've ever come across an editor whose average edit size is negative.) That figure strongly indicates that HW's primary activity is not adding material to the encyclopedia, it's deleting material from the encyclopedia. While there is certainly material which should be deleted from the encyclopedia, such as BLP violations, it is very, very unusual to find an editor whose modus operandi is so thoroughly based on deletion that they have a negative average edit size. Such behavior would surely all but guarantee that they would get into many disputes with other editors -- the ones who added ther material he deletes, for instance -- which could, perhaps, explain why HW feels that he has been "Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006."

On the other hand, HW has uploaded 344 files (353-13 deleted), and created 80 non-redirect pages, but he has also nominated 392 articles and miscellany for deletion, [180] so it still seems that deletion is his metier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: My average edit size is -86.5. Perhaps it's different for admins, especially those involved in deletion and BLP issues, but I wouldn't say it's uncommon.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Huh! I'd never come across it before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away. — Saint-Exupéry, Wind, Sand and Stars EEng 03:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have had numerous problems in the past trying to get the Visual Arts project to understand the problem of galleries and NFCC on pages like History of painting, which has excessive images (not only non-free but also free) for a summary style article. All the schools/periods of painting have their own articles, and often multiple sub-articles within those, and there, a small number of images are reasonable for examples. But Modernist has been extremely assertive that these images can't be removed, that "art must be seen", which makes no sense for NFCC. I have tried to explain that they can still cover visual arts, just not with all the images in one massive article while still meeting NFCC, but these editors do not want to heed the policy of WP. Mind you, past discussions have not engaged in any immediate disruptive behavior, but this attitude about NFC adherance has been there for a long time. --Masem (t) 04:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This is basically polite disruption, as far as I can tell. Forcing well-meaning editors to jump through hoops and obtain consensus for obvious outcomes, especially when the two editors have such demonstrably daft interpretations of copyright policy, it's just a waste of everyone's time. I think it would do well to simply forbid Coldcreation and Modernist from, at the very least, ever reverting the removal of a non-free image from an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, these files should not have been removed. Rather, the user should have discussed at the respective Talk pages, as he/she was asked to do several times (diffs 1 and 2). A CN tag would have been sufficient where needed, or if critical commentary was absent or insufficient, it could have been mentioned and readily added. The mass deletion of fair use images, all of which are adequately covered by fair use rationales, constitute a form of blanking vandalism, per WP:VANDTYPES. It is fortunate that the Visual Arts editors are attentive enough to spot unconstructive removal of content—most of the time—before it gets out of hand. Coldcreation (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps its a problem with the indicated FFDs but we do not have anything called "Fair use rationales". They are non-free rationales which is a stronger stance on the use of copyrighted work than US fair use defense would allow , per the WMF's desire to be a free work. And no, knowing from past discussions on various art pages, discussing on the talk page goes nowhere because the visual art project aggressive defends the use of so many images with the blanket "art must be seen" argument, which goes nowhere. FFD is the proper place to discuss extraneous non-free use of images, and calling their removal "vandalism" when the FFD closed against that is absolutely wrong and shows no understanding of policy - not only NFC but how XFDs are to be handled. --Masem (t) 05:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright policy is understood by all involved here. Where needed, it is constructive to add critical commentary and citations, rather than remove visual media. Talk pages are the best place to point out potential shortcomings. Coldcreation (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither you or Modernist have demonstrated you understand Wikipedia's NFCC criteria. Even a brief look at the FFD discussion linked above shows that. If you did understand it, the only conclusion is that you disagree with it, and are being deliberately disruptive in order to prevent it's enforcement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, where policy is lacking (i.e., when non-free images are in galleries, without commentary or citation), it is preferable to modify and conform, than to delete. Coldcreation (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no lack in policy as has been explained to you repeatedly. Your refusal to listen indicates you need to be banned from adding or removing any images, or any NFCC discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Based on just what you've posted here in this thread, it's clear that you don't understand the copyright policy. NFCC makes it plainly clear that it is the burden of those seeking to retain non-free content to demonstrate that the requirements of the policy are satisfied. If you think it is appropriate to revert removals of non-free content without providing substantive explanation on the talk page yourself, and if you think that policing non-free content is vandalism, it would appear we have a CIR issue on our hands rather than simply a refusal to follow policy. NFCC will be enforced by blocking if necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly. When non-free visual art images do not conform to policy, it is preferable to modify, e.g., by adding critical commentary and citations—and thus conform to policy—than to remove the images. Coldcreation (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly

You're not expressing yourself clearly NOW. You've made an assertion: so, why? --Calton | Talk 09:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• You've been arguing over this for well over half a decade, at least. The assertion that one should add critical commentary rings rather hollow when looking at Modern sculpture#Minimalism, which contains no prose at all, just images. There are discussions on the talk page going back to 2013. But none of the proponents of adding critical commentary apparently actually have when push comes to shove. Should you be judged by your words? Or by your lack of putting them into practice over years? In 2009, this sort of thing was characterized as paying lip service to content policy. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• It's certainly possible, in a limited number of situations, to make a non-free image conform to NFCC, by adding critical commentary about that image. But you're not doing that. At Sculpture and elsewhere, you're edit warring to insert multiple non-free images in galleries where the images often aren't even mentioned in the text [181]. Even when they are mentioned, something like "examples of this type of sculpture are X, Y and Z" are not critical commentary. That's simple violation of NFCC, and that simply isn't happening. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Good points. At this time however, I am not at my personal computer. That will be changing shortly. In the mean time, rather than removing images, only to be replaced later with citations and critical analysis, it would be preferable to leave these long-standing visual arts articles with the low resolution images intact. Wikipedia users will benefit from actually seeing the artworks about which the articles are written. Finally, the editor who deleted all of the images under scrutiny, could very well have started adding some analysis and/or citations, or at the very least, could have discussed doing so at respective Talk pages, avoiding as such entering into an uncalled for edit war with experts in the visual arts and art historians here at Wikipedia. Coldcreation (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp how severely copyright violations are supposed to be dealt with. The onus is 100% on the person who argues for inclusion of non-free content to demonstrate compliance with the NFCC. Editors are not only permitted but encouraged to remove copyright violations on site. There is no requirement that an editor attempt to add new content to the article to solve the problem. I will gladly block any art expert or historian who thinks that our copyright policies are optional. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

How much critical analysis are you going to be putting into the summary-level articles like History of painting? Not much, because of the very definition of "summary style". There is no problem for purposes of a summary style like the ones shown here to have one example of a specific school or regional or era-specific work, such as Proto-Cubism or an artist's page have several non-free example that then can be discussed in depth with the critical commentary. It is understood that a history-spanning article like History of painting will have many free images available but will suddenly have problems with non-frees for more 20th century works and beyond, and NFC is not deaf to minimal allowance to balance the visual layout, as long as the free are appropriately balanced too; I am sure there are specific non-free paintings that are critically shown to be prime example of certain schools/eras/etc. But you cannot justify massive numbers of galleries on non-frees on these summary style articles in any fashion, and if you are looking for visual balance, reducing how many frees are show at the top levels of the summary-style hierarchy. --Masem (t) 19:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

it would be preferable to leave these long-standing visual arts articles with the low resolution images intact. No, it wouldn't, and indeed it would be a very bad idea, because they violate NFCC which is a policy and is therefore not optional. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It is important that images be found in articles on visual art. A solution might be to place "critical commentary" in the captions of images. An example of this would be the 4 images of artwork found at the article Kay Sage. WP:NFCCP states under the heading "Contextual significance" that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." These should not be images included willy-nilly where they don't "increase readers' understanding of the article topic". But when writing about the many styles and sub-styles in visual art I think it is important to provide examples. Based on words alone a reader can't visualize a style of art. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That's actually the problem - there are many (free) images in these articles already, so except in very exceptional circumstances - i.e. where an important style of work does not have any free images - should we be including them, and even then they still need to comply with the other tenets of NFCC. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

And the problem is not at the very bottom of the summary style articles - the specific artists or schools -but at the top level, where far too many examples are being given when we're supposed to be giving a high level summary of the field. Again, one example per major area in a summary style could be reasonably justified by NFCC, but not multiple and multiple galleries. --Masem (t) 19:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem—I don't think there is a distinction between "summary style" articles and articles that delve into the styles as may be found in "summary style" articles. Our aim should be educating readers on widely-held general concepts. A number of images appropriate to the subject addressed by the article should be used—if they are "contextually significant". Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite—images are not as interchangeable as you are implying. These are elusive concepts. A poor image is going to do a poor job of illustrating a style. Bus stop (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A summary style article, like History of painting, is there to help organize the topic for the reader (here, of all types of painting), and providing links to more detailed articles or in many cases here, additional summary style articles with further details in linked articles. It should not be the case that the reader knows everything about the topic of painting after reading that article, but has enough context to know where to go to find out more if they weren't sure. When you get to the detailed articles like on specific painters or schools, that's where you can tell the reader the nitty-gritty details, and that's where multiple non-free supported by critical commentary would be reasonable. But not at the level of providing the overview and outline. A few NFCC images to go along with free iamges are fine at the highest levels to give quick visual identification of the various schools, but there is no need to teach the reader everything about what each school/regional area has to offer, and thus no need for excessive non-free images such as those in galleries (as is currently the case). If you were writing an history of painting book, you would not load up the the introductory chapter that outlines the books contents with all those images; same thing here. --Masem (t) 19:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The only difference between the "levels" of articles you are referring to is the level of knowledge readers already have when reading these articles. There is an appropriate number of images relative to any given article. It would be pointless to arbitrarily rein in the number of images appropriate to what you are calling a "summary level article". Bus stop (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The appropriate number of non-free images is always 'the minimal amount necessary'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Bus stop (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What Masem seems to be arguing is that in overview articles it is more difficult to claim "contextual significance". A work of art that is appropriate for inclusion in an article on a specific style of art may also be appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. This might be the case if a work is considered a quintessential example within both articles. The image of The Persistence of Memory may be found to have "contextual significance" in an article specifically about Surrealism and also in an overview article on the History of painting. I am wrong in both cases. I see that the image of the painting called "The Persistence of Memory" is found in neither of those articles. But it is the principle that I am trying to illustrate by an example. Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I never said you can't duplicate the use of a significant image. Persistence of Memory is the type of work I would expect on at least 3 articles - the painting itself, on Dali's page, and at least one page about surrealism. I can also seeing it used as the "Example" image of surealism on a list of types of painting styles in summary style. But in that case, that should be the only example of surrealism, not two images, not a gallery of images as is being done now. --Masem (t) 03:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It is important to visually exemplify those artistic movements correctly and quite often several images are necessary; in order to demonstrate clarity and complexity. In surrealism for example an image of a painting by Dali is not enough to demonstrate the visual complexity and history of that important movement....Modernist (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

And again, that's not what's been said. On "Surrealism" I can reasonably expect a few non-free examples from a variety of artists to explore the breadth of the school of art - but not multiple from the same article or from the same sub-school; if the artist is important, they will have their own standalone article that can support multiple non-frees, or if a sub-school is important, there too. But going up the summary-style ladder, from Surrealism to History of Painting, you don't need multiple images of surrealism art to illustrate where the school of surrealism fits into the history of painting, which is not an article about art appreciation. If every art image was free, this might not be a problem, but you have a situation that that 10% of images that are non-free are going to dictate how you should be using images through the series of works. Remember, in genera en.wiki should not be hosting large galleries of images - free or otherwise. That's better suited to Commons and that's where you can lay out pages and pages of examples using the free images there. But en.wiki and non-free just is requiring more limitations to meet the free-content goal of the WMF. --Masem (t) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem—you are referring to points on the history of art as if they corresponded to points in the relationships between gigabytes, megabytes, and kilobytes with a neat and rational relationship between major schools, sub-schools, and sub-sub-schools. The reality is not that neat and rational. We should be reflecting reliable sources rather than imposing our preconceptions on sources with the resulting arbitrary restrictions on what images can be included in art history articles. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

In a top-level summary style article, they better be treated as points of reference to help readers. I can tell you that reading though History of painting, which is written to establish the when and where of each school/type of style, and not a critical review or comparison of any style, could be understood without any images (free or otherwise), whereas getting to Surrealism or Dali, I would need more visual aids. Obviously a small number of images help for visual appeal on History of painting, but key is that they are not required. This is critical to restricting the number of non-frees on these top-level summary articles. We have a responsibility to the Foundation to take steps to reduce non-free where inappropriately used. --Masem (t) 14:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

We aren't talking about "visual appeal" at all. You misunderstand the topic of discussion. The images are not there to be pretty. If you or Hullaballoo Wolfowitz disagree about the necessity of an image of art in an article on art then you should be presenting that argument on the Talk page of that article rather than peremptorily removing images. A key question will be "contextual significance" as that is what policy calls for. You aren't giving people a chance to respond to your challenges and now the issue is being considered in the inappropriate forum of WP:AN/I.

Here we have Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removing images with no prior discussion on the article Talk page corresponding to that removal. Do the 3 removed images, by Henri Matisse, George Segal, and Mark di Suvero satisfy requirements for "contextual significance"? That is a question most appropriately discussed on that article's Talk page. Instead Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is removing those 3 images without any discussion and reporting good faith editors at WP:AN/I. I think Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should not be blaming others for their failure to engage in dialogue over the contested images. Bus stop (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Images which fail to satisfy NFCC are removed until such time as a valid rationale is provided for their inclusion. They are not subject to 'discussion is required prior to removing them'. As you well know, because this has been explained to you multiple times. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• A point. Editors on one side of this issue have cited "fair use" and have properly been corrected, in that the issue is not about whether the images are allowable under fair use regimes, but whether they are allowable under Wikipedia's NFC rules. On the other side, "copyright violations" are being referred to, and this is often equally incorrect. Any use of images which is allowable under normal fair use rules is not a copyright violation, although it may be a violation of Wikipedia's NFC rules, which are stricter than fair use. Both sides appear to be using terminology which utilizes the gap between fair use and NFC to score points against the other. This should stop, and all argumentation should be on the basis of WP:NFC alone, unless there is an actual copyright violation with the use of an image which would not be allowable under fair use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz—policy permits non-free imagery when accompanied by "contextual significance". Why do you think these articles are being written? They are addressing the history of art. This is not a subject area not worthy of being addressed on Wikipedia. It is a legitimate subject area and it is entirely dependent on seeing art. In a classroom setting, art history is invariably taught in the presence of images. The instructor provides verbal commentary while presenting projected images for the class to view. This familiarizes the student with artworks generally accepted as noteworthy over a period of time. Is there some reason that we should fall short in taking on that task? Can you tell us some reason that Wikipedia should be able to function in the absence of images when presenting the same material as may be presented in a classroom setting? Bus stop (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Because NFC is a stronger stance on use of non-free material than the average fair use allowance that many schools operate under. --Masem (t) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• As you know we are creating as accurate and as self explanatory articles about modern, contemporary and recent art history as possible. Imagery is required and we are doing our best to work within the parameters that public domain and copyright allows; sometimes the edges becomes blurry; sometimes fair use makes the most sense. As you've heard me say many times art needs to be seen; initially 12 years ago the foundation made exception to the use of images of works of art by encouraging fair use...Modernist (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Just a reminder, again, that it's not only public domain and copyright law in which you must maneuver, but also Wikipedia's NFC policy, which is more stringent than copyright law (unnecessarily so, in my opinion, but there it is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• "Fair use" is not an option on en.wiki because it is overridden by Non-free. Yes, maybe 12 years ago, there was statements that established the use of copyrighted images under fair use, but with the resolution in 2008, we do not talk fair use anymore, but non-free content policy and minimize its use. Imagery on some articles in the visual arts is not required; just because you are talking about art does not mean art needs to be displayed. --Masem (t) 00:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Imagery on some articles in the visual arts is not required; just because you are talking about art does not mean art needs to be displayed." How do you figure? It seems counterintuitive to me. Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• No images are needed to discuss the history of painting, like where it originated, how it evolved, and modern evolution. Images help to display some milestones in that history, but are not required to understand the history. You don't need images to talk about surrealism having started in the 1920s and in Europe, as part of the overall historical picture of painting. Now when you start getting into discussing a specific school of art, or an artist, now you might find the need to show images to show what elements actually are considered part of surrealism - something that should not be covered at the history level. --Masem (t) 03:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree. Any book on the history of art, any essay, any magazine article, anything at all will contain visual material, it's simply unavoidable - some things as just much harder to describe than they are to show. It would be kind of like trying to describe arithmetic without using numbers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• That explanation makes sense when and if image captions or article text explain how the image relates to the text. NFCC requires an explanation of why this particular non-free image illustrates a point in the text better than free alternatives, and that is not achieved when not only does the FUR lack any meaningful substance, but also the article never makes reference to the image. It's just decoration at that point. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• But they aren't "decorative". Aurora (sculpture) is being removed from Modern sculpture. No amount of words can substitute for the image. The image is as educational as its textual counterpart. A reader should be familiar with the image. In the absence of reader familiarity with the image, it is hard to see that any amount of words can have much meaning. But Hullaballoo Wolfowitz isn't using the article Talk page. There is no meeting of the minds of editors. Dialogue is removed from the equation. That battleground mentality is what brings this to AN/I. This is the deliberate creation of an impasse. It is avoidable. Editors should be working together to fulfill Wikipedia's educational purpose. There can be no doubt that the image of Aurora (sculpture) is educational in the context of a Modern sculpture article. The editors writing the Modern sculpture article are trying to comply with the requirements for non-free imagery. And I don't see where they are not compliant with those requirements. If Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is of the opinion that an image of a very prominent example of modern sculpture does not belong in an article on Modern sculpture then the constructive thing to do is to raise that concern on that article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• There is zero discussion of the Aurora sculpture on the Modern sculpture page. Even the Aurora page shows no sign of notability of the work, much less its importance to the topic of modern sculpture, much less of why a non-free image of it is needed on the page of modern sculpture when several free examples of abstract sculptures exist. There need to be sourced commentary about the sculpture to use any non-free, and I am seeing none of that in the Modern Sculpture article, the Aurora article or the Mark di Suvero article. This is the problem across much of the visual arts project and they have failed to comply numerous times with NFCC; such images might be fine in fair use, but that is 100% failing non-free. We cannot consider the use education just to show what it is and not have any discussion of its importance to the area of modern sculptures or art in general. Non-free does not all these types of decorative uses. Hullaballoo tried to resolve matters with the FFDs that they put up, and clearly editors like Modernist were aware of these but failed to take steps to resolve when Hullaballoo removed them , so there's very little sympathy here. NFC one of our strongest policies, perhaps just a notch behind BLP, of how far it needs to be enforced. --Masem (t) 13:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Excuse me? the article Modern Sculpture needs imagery - try using WP:UCS. Regarding Mark di Suvero, his work needs to be seen in order to be understood.......there are tons and tons and tons of modern sculptures......some figurative, some welded, some molded, some conceptualized, some abstract, some tiny, some enormous, some political, some apolitical and even some that are under water....one or two images doesn't illustrate important art and many more images are needed; the few images in the article now are probably enough for the reader to see the range; but many works are not included. These articles should be respected and left alone...Modernist (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • work needs to be seen in order to be understood does not have any applicability for non-free images on en.wiki, period. You need commentary to say why those images are important enough to be seen, not that they just exist and you want the reader to take it in themselves. --Masem (t) 00:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Masem, what would help would be a specific edit - advocating - commentary needed here - rather than deletion...That would indicate and might even mean that the visual arts project and the NFC project can begin to work together, the idea is to build articles not tear them down...Modernist (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Masem—from where are you deriving that "You need commentary to say why those images are important enough to be seen"? I am aware of WP:NFCCP allowing non-free images when the images have "contextual significance". The wording used is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Bus stop (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
        • If no context is provided in the article or even the image caption, there is no contextual significance. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
          • That's not true. In the context of the article the image has significance, if we are talking about this sculpture by this artist in this article. Why remove the image? And why remove the image with no prior conversation at Talk:Modern sculpture? Bus stop (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
            • The article only mentions Aurora to say that it is an example, among many others, some of which are available under free licenses. There is literally no context provided on that page that even hints at which Aurora would hold any special significance to the subject, or help the reader understand the topic in a way that is not satisfied by any of the available free images. The FUR for this use is simply asinine, "1. This is a historically significant work that could not be conveyed in words. 2. Inclusion is for information, education, and analysis only. 3. Its inclusion in the article(s) adds significantly to the article(s) because it shows a major type of work produced by this artist. 4. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work and would be unlikely to impact sales of prints or be usable as a desktop backdrop. 5. It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value." That's just meaningless boilerplate, assertions so vague you would have no idea which file they were actually referring to. As for why not engage in prior conversation at the talk page, because policy does not require it. The burden of proof lays entirely with the editor(s) who wishes to include non-free content. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
              • We already have an article on Aurora (sculpture). I think that is a plus. Internal links are generally considered to be a good thing unless they are excessive. We already have an article on Mark di Suvero, the person who made the sculpture. It is made in 1992-1993. We don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Modern sculpture would include the years 1992-1993. Of course our choice has context. I would argue that context is "significant". This is because it is an example of modern sculpture. And it is a notable example. Our project hosts articles on both di Suvero and their sculpture. This is a non-issue. There should be no reason for removing that image from that article, much less doing so without prior dialogue. In the future Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should be required to discuss first before removing. That is what collaborative editing is. Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
                • The article on Aurora gives no reason why this particular piece of art is significant to have its own article. There's factual data (who made it, when it was installed, where it was installed, etc.) but nothing that meets the GNG. I would expect , at minimum, some type of art criticism (positive or negative) to be able to support that, and if it that important a piece of art, some sourced criticism discussing that. We don't need to source "the sky is blue" because that's an objective statement, but that absolutely does not apply to "this is an important piece of art." That's only the start of the problem at Aurora - without any of that in Modern sculpture, the image use outright fails NFCC. You simply cannot say "This is an important work of art" without any sources as to justify the image. And this has been pointed out repeated to the visual arts projects and they have refused to take steps to reduce NFCC use, meaning that others will had to do it for them to conform those articles to the requirements of NFCC. --Masem (t) 16:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
                  • Masem—as you know you can nominate Aurora (sculpture) for deletion. You say "That's only the start of the problem at Aurora - without any of that in Modern sculpture, the image use outright fails NFCC." If the article exists, it does not fail NFCC. WP:NFCCP states, under the heading "Contextual significance", that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The image of Aurora (sculpture) has contextual significance in the article Modern sculpture. Additionally they are pointlessly removing other images. How does it make any sense to remove the image of The Back Series by Henri Matisse? Bus stop (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                    • NFCC#8 which you are quoting requires the presence of critical commentary to understand why the picture is relevant on Modern sculpture, otherwise, its just another picture of a sculpture. There is zero mention of Aurora in the body of that article, and the lack of significant sourcing from the main Aurora article suggests that there might not be any. You need reliable sources that says to some extent "Aurora is a critical example of modern sculpture", otherwise its use is unallowable on that page per NFCC#8, because if that's not discussion, its omission is not going to be detrimental to the reader's understanding because there's nothign in the article talking about it. And NFCC is very clear you don't just use another picture because we strive for minimizing non-free, per NFCC#3a. If you have not provided those sources and the article is silent on the NFC work, then the removals being done are 100% in line with NFC policy. --Masem (t) 00:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
                      • Masem is entirely correct here. It's also important to note that the use rationales for this image (except for the article on the sculpture itself) are invalid on their face(s). The rationale for modern sculpture claims, for example, the image meets NFCC requirements "because it shows a major type of work produced by this artist". Even if we put aside the point that last year's FFD discussions established/recognized the consensus that generic, cookie-cutter rationales like this don't meet NFCC requirements, it's still clear that the image is replaceable because free images of other sculptures by the same artist are available for use. We have an established consensus that, as general rule, the claimed rationale for using the image like this is invalid. We have a specific violation of the replaceability standard. Both WP:NFCCE and established practice dictate that the image is subject to summary removal from the article(s) involved. In these circumstances, no individual discussion is called for before removal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Masem—it seems that you are coming up with novel interpretations of policy. From where are you deriving that "[y]ou need commentary to say why those images are important enough to be seen"? WP:NFCCP#8 states, under the heading "Contextual significance", that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you want to delete the article Aurora (sculpture) then I think you would still have to explain why Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is removing The Back Series by Henri Matisse. Bus stop (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• That is not a novel stance, that is how we evaluation NFCC#8 with some limited exceptions (outlined at WP:NFCI). If there is no sourced critical commentary about the work - not just basics like who made it, where it is located, etc, but instead how it is interpreted or its themes, how it is influenced others or impacted the world - then omission of the image of the work of art does not harm the readers' understanding of that. This is doubly true on articles like Modern sculpture because there is zero mention by name of the work of art in the body of the article (excluding captions), so just showing a random non-free image with no seemingly apparent relevance to the text is absolutely unallowed by NFCC#8. HW's removal of the Back series is similarly in line - not one mention of the name of the series in the body. And keep in mind - you as a WP editor simply cannot make the claim that these works are critically important and/or influencial to modern sculpture -you need sourcing for that, which at least for Aurora I've not been able to find.
• As for the Aurora page, it barely meets the GNG, but that's "barely". I have not done a proper BEFORE search (meaning AFDing would be extremely pointy) and there's at least two sources (one I just added) that at least comment on the work. So no, I won't be AFDing that, and because its a proper standalone article, the image of Aurora is fine there per NFCI. There's the barest minimum of critical commentary about the structure to allow that. But I would forewarn that if another editor went through, did a thorough BEFORE search, and found no further sourcing except what is there already, deletion is definitely a possible outcome. --Masem (t) 16:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Masem—as you know you can nominate Aurora (sculpture) for deletion. You are claiming that for a non-free image of an artwork to be considered for use in an article in the visual arts we would need to show "how it is interpreted or its themes". Not according to policy. You are making that up. It is not found in policy. You are claiming that a prerequisite for the inclusion of non-free images would be an explanation of "how it is influenced others or impacted the world". But policy says nothing of the sort. WP:NFCCP#8 states, under the heading "Contextual significance", that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." If you are going to nominate Aurora (sculpture) for deletion then please do so for the sake of this discussion. But you can't argue that a sculpture on which we have an article such as The Back Series by Henri Matisse should be removed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The requisites of WP:NFCCP are satisfied because in the context of an article such as Modern sculpture the image of "The Back Series", on which we have an article, has "significance". Please tell me why it wouldn't have significance in that context. It was made within the time period covered by the article "Modern sculpture". Are you going to argue that we have an article on a sculpture that is non-notable? Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Please stop repeating the policy you have been quoting every reply. We know what it is and it is making this conversation worse.
• Second, just because the artwork is notable like the Back Series and thus has both a standalone article and a non-free image of the work, does not mean reusing that image elsewhere is acceptable. NFCC#3a requires minimizing non-free use, that includes repeated uses of images. So each article using an image has to show the significance of that image to the article in question (that's why we require separate rationales that are supposed to be different for each use). The image of Aurora may be okay on the page that actually is about that piece, but if you cannot tell me why the work is significant to the overall field of Modern sculpture by way of sourced critical commentary which is necessary to convey understanding of its importance, then the image is unallowable on that page. Just existing as an editor-chosen example of modern sculpture does not work for us at all, particularly as there are other free images of modern sculpture in countries with freedom of panorama that can be used instead as representative examples. This is all about minimizing non-free use and removing uses that fail the basic requirements of NFCC#8. HW is exactly in the right for that image's removal from Modern sculpture for that purpose. --Masem (t) 17:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• "if you cannot tell me why the work is significant to the overall field of Modern sculpture by way of sourced critical commentary which is necessary to convey understanding of its importance, then the image is unallowable on that page". Nothing like that is found in policy. WP:NFCCP, which you would prefer I not repeat, allows for the use of non-free images in the presence of "contextual significance". In an overview article, such as "modern sculpture", there is as much "contextual significance" for the non-free image as there is in the article on that sculpture by itself. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• NFCC#8 has two tests, and the second test about omission being harmful to the reader's understanding is the point here. Just showing an image of some art without any context beyond "this is an example of this type of art", when there are plenty of free examples of the same type of art, means the image can be removed without harming the reader's understanding. How do you make sure that omission would become harmful? You may sure there is significant discussion of that piece of art in the article that the image is being used in. That significant discussion cannot come from editors; that has to come from secondary sources that discuss the influence/importance/etc. of the work to some degree to make it relevant to the article in question. That means for these modern sculpture images, it should be established that these are works that are key examples of modern sculpture. Without any of that discussion, NFCC#8 is not met (since the art image can be removed or replaced with a free image without impacting the readers' undertanding of modern sculpture. Not that we don't spell out "critical commentary" in NFCC#8 because there are exceptional cases where this is not required, as outlined at WP:NFCI, but in all cases, this is expected. --Masem (t) 19:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• "NFCC#8 has two tests, and the second test about omission being harmful to the reader's understanding is the point here." Omission of images is harmful to readers' understanding in articles on visual art such as the article "Modern sculpture". "That means for these modern sculpture images, it should be established that these are works that are key examples of modern sculpture. Without any of that discussion, NFCC#8 is not met (since the art image can be removed or replaced with a free image without impacting the readers' undertanding of modern sculpture." Which free image? You and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz are only tearing down the article. There is no dialogue. There are no alternatives suggested. An article on "Modern sculpture" relies on images. You would write a pretty poor article on "Modern sculpture" if it could not contain any images. Yet Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is constantly raiding the article. It is an unacceptable situation when one editor is so uncooperative and so consistently incorrect in their interpretation of policy. Masem—you should not be making up nonexistent policy in order to make it more difficult to write about art. Bus stop (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• The omission does not harm the article on Modern sculpture because there is no discussion or context for that specifici piece of art in the article. There is discussion of what modern sculpture is, so if there were no possible free images for that, we'd allow a few non-free images. But fortutnately, you have plenty of free images like File:Henry Moore Double Oval.jpg in use that clearly meet the idea of modern sculpture that do illustrate the concept properly, and infinitely more free images could be made (eg: a UK photographer could take a shot of Auroa and licensing that to PD/CC to make it a free image due to how FOP works). So to include any non-free (per NFCC#1), that rationale needs to meet a pretty high level of inclusion, such as a modern sculpture that is widely recognized as the pinnacle or principle example of the form, and that it is impossible for a free version of that sculpture to be made. Cannot jsut be any random example as the case with Aurora or the Backs, this has to be a well-sourced example. And no, HW is not required to replace removed non-free with free here : you have sufficient examples that a few less images makes the article barren. And no, HW has to have no dialog given that those in the visual art projects that continue to include non-frees willy-nilly just stand on "art has to be seen" use, which shows no attempt at meeting long-standing policy. Goes back to the main point of this thread: editors like Modernist and Coldcreation show no interest in complying with NFCC, so there's no reason HW has to "respect" the process since NFC is a core policy. --Masem (t) 19:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• What are you talking about, Masem, when you say they "do illustrate the concept properly"? Correct me if I misunderstand you but are you saying that File:Henry Moore Double Oval.jpg properly illustrates the "concept", whatever that might mean, of File:Aurora Mark di Suvero.jpg? Please clarify. Bus stop (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I am clearly talking about illustrating the concept of "modern sculpture", not the Aurora sculpture.--Masem (t) 21:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• Masem—wouldn't the concept of "modern sculpture" be better illustrated by multiple examples that are different from one another? You say "And no, HW has to have no dialog given that those in the visual art projects that continue to include non-frees willy-nilly just stand on "art has to be seen" use, which shows no attempt at meeting long-standing policy." I see you are having difficulty in understanding that "art has to be seen". Art education involves familiarization with those works of art considered by so-called connoisseurs as being significant. The text is not more important than the images in Modern sculpture. The included images are serving the purpose of familiarizing the reader with those examples that are considered noteworthy or significant. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• There's numerous multiple FREE images of various styles already on Modern sculpture. You do not need any that are non-free for that. And there is not one iota of text between all these articldes that identifies Aurora or the Backs as works "considered noteworthy or significant" in modern sculpture. If you had that, that would make this a different discussion. And again, I stress that you cannot say that in wikivoice without a source to back that up as that otherwise is original research. If they are as important as you say they are, it should be easy as pie to find those sources. But no effort has been made, so removal is the right action. And we are not here to be an art appreciation site. We can teach art history and the types of schools, but we're not here to tell readers how to appreciate art as it is highly subjective. The best we can do is identify why some pieces of art are considered significant by including sourced discussion from experts in the field. Which is not happening at all at this point. --Masem (t) 22:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"There's numerous multiple FREE images of various styles already on Modern sculpture." Art tends not to be replaceable with other art. Put another way, works of art tend to not be interchangeable with one another. We are not simply trying to find examples of "Modern sculpture". We are trying to find images of examples that express the range of modern sculpture. When you remove the image of Aurora (sculpture) you have to replace it with something because it represents a unique outpost in modern sculpture. Artists tend to carve out unique outposts for their work. You won't find another artist making Mobile (sculpture)s other than Alexander Calder. OK, some other artists may make something similar, but probably distinct. Connoisseurs provide examples of outposts of art. I think it is mistaken to say, as you are arguing, that these are the best-of-the best or superlative examples of something. That is a mistaken notion. Art is unlike baseball in this regard. There are no rules but individuality tends to rank high in values. You simply can't omit Mark di Suvero from sculpture any more than you could omit Chuck Close from painting or Marina Abramović from performance art. Contrary to your exhortation for "critical commentary" it is almost better not to have critical commentary. It is mostly hot air anyway. And policy is not requiring "critical commentary". Policy is clear: it requires "contextual significance". Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The Foundation resolution doesn't care about art having this type of individuality that you are claiming. In the purposes of Modern sculpture, the Aurora picture is easily replaced by other free images that are serving the same education purposes as to showing what are example of modern sculpture ("Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." as in the Resolution). If the example is critical - either the work in question or the artist, then that needs to be explained in the text to justify the use of the non-free image. And here's the other half of the problem with these articles is that right now there is zero sourced text to explain why we should care for de Suvero's art. (The line in Modern sculpture only says, effectively, de Suvero's does some large-scale sculpture, but gives zero weight to how important he is.) If that artist or that work is truly that important, finding sources from the art world should be easy. But that onus is on those wanting to keep the NFC to properly meet the Resolution and NFCC policy. The bulk of this article lacks sources meaning it also fails WP:NOR (you may think critical commentay is hot air, but this policy requires that you have it for this type of material in prose in the first place), and because its also naming indvividuals, WP:BLP. Write an article that explains why we should highlight specific examples of art that are non-free, and then we can talk appropriate inclusion of non-free images, but without any of that sourcing or text any use of NFC fails several policies and guidelines. --Masem (t) 22:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"And we are not here to be an art appreciation site. We can teach art history and the types of schools, but we're not here to tell readers how to appreciate art as it is highly subjective." You are arguing that this be an "art appreciation site". I am arguing that the article "Modern sculpture" be an art education article. You are arguing that we should "tell readers how to appreciate art". I am arguing that we should familiarize readers with art deemed important by influential art critics. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

"art deemed important by influential art critics" Where are the sources for this????? This is a fundamental issue here. You can't hand wave as say "trust us". Source these statements, but until you can, you can't use non-free on these articles. --Masem (t) 00:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hilton Kramer, an influential art critic, writes about Mark di Suvero. Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

FINALLY you have provided a source that should be present in Modern sculpture. That said, that article - written in 1976 - supports the potential use of an "For Lady Mady", "Victor's Lament", or "Homage to the Viet Cong" (all three commented on it detail, as well as establishing di Suvero), but definitely not "Aurora" (since that was in 1992). But that is exactly the type of source that needs to be present to support non-free. And that sourcing that has to be in the article first before the non-free can be added. If that was all there, and HW was removing an image of one of those structures, then there may be something to warn HW about. But that's just not the case here; its on the visual art project to get the sourcing in first. --Masem (t) 00:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem is you are seeking contrivances. "How do you make sure that omission would become harmful? You may sure there is significant discussion of that piece of art in the article that the image is being used in." You are being non-discriminating. I'm actually opposed to adding hot air to articles on art. If something is worth adding, it should be added, if it is not worth adding, it should not be added. Bus stop (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You may consider that "hot air" but that is secondary sourcing which is required to avoid NOR as well as potential BLP violations. And that's before we get to the NFC issue. Content that makes these claims that these artists or art pieces are important without this type of sourcing can and will be deleted for failing core policies. --Masem (t) 01:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem—do you really think WP:OR and WP:BLP are applicable here? Or are you overstating your case? You haven't explained how those policies are applicable. We have articles on Henri Matisse, Mark di Suvero, and George Segal (artist). Non-free images of work made by those artists are being removed from Modern sculpture. How does WP:OR and WP:BLP have bearing on whether or not the removal of those images is justified? Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It is OR (and for those artists still alive, BLP) to assert that they should be discussed in Modern sculpture without any sourcing to explain why they belong in an article about modern sculpture. Great, they have individual articles. Bring some of the sources that make the assertions that these are artists well known for their modern sculpture to show that is the case. Obviously you can't bring every possible artist in modern sculpture into that article, so you need to pick the most important examples, and that requires exception sourcing that shows them as leading artists in that field. Otherwise, editors are engaging in what appears to be original research (and BLP Violations where applicable) to make decisions on which artists to include. There's minimal sourcing on the Modern sculpture article of this type, so that absoluitely had to be fixed to remove the OR before you can support NFC. NFC is not a right, it a priveledge, and the article you are trying to use it in must have the necessary context to support NFC use. The NFC will continue to be removed by HW or others (per WP:3RRNO) until the article has the right context to support it. You're handwaving and not actually trying to make the improvements that we've guided you to many many times. --Masem (t) 16:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Aren't you misapplying policy? Of the 3 persons that we have been discussing only di Suvero is still alive. But I'm not seeing how the inclusion in Modern sculpture of File:Aurora Mark di Suvero.jpg by di Suvero is a WP:BLP violation. Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I said "where BLP applies" knowing that some of these artists are probably dead, but BLP still applies in at least one case here. You are in violation of NOR (and in di Suvero's case, BLP) by adding their names to Modern sculpture without sources that identifies them as leading artists in this area. Without sources about the artists or any specific work, there's no sourced discussion of the artist/work that a non-free image can significant improve their understanding of, and omission of the image will not harm the reader's understand per NFCC#8. Per NFCC#3a, it is not like Modern sculpture needs additional non-free images since there are numerous free examples spanning a wide range of styles. We simply do not claim "art must be seen", we need evidence via sourcing that the art is something signifciant to be seen, otherwise the image is decoration and can be removed freely without discussion. --Masem (t) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• Whatever "respect" for the process may mean, it's more than fair to say that a few users who disregard the consistent outcomes of repeated extensive discussions are showing less "respect" than editors trying to implement those outcomes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see you using the article Talk page. Why is that? You are arguing with two experienced editors. Are you showing "respect for the process"? Wouldn't dialogue be more conducive to a meeting of the minds? Bus stop (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of images that fail NFC does not require discussion, its not a consensus-driven process. --Masem (t) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• If last year's run of forty-odd FFDs and repeated discussions on boards like this haven't shown you that consensus and policy are well-established and contrary to your position, the minds are never going to meet. There's no need to repeat time-consuming discussions every time a well-established principle/policy/practice is enforced. Insisting on it inow s just being disruptive and obstructive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

(ec) *Masem is generally quite correct here; I would quibble only as to how "exceptional" the circumstances are when nonfree images do not require critical commentary, since we have many, many nonfree "identifying images" used in, for example, articles about deceased persons. But that is not important for this discussion. What is important to keep in mind is key language from the WMF resolution underpinning our nonfree use policy: "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. Bus stop's approach has exceptionally broad limits, if it has any at all. There is no piece of sculpture that cannot be used to illustrate an article about sculpture. There is no limit to the number of nonfree images which may illustrate such an article. We should also keep in mind that WP:GALLERY, which is policy, declares that even free images ordinarily should not be displayed in galleries unless "captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery". When combined with the requirements of WP:RS, it is evident that this vague and expansive interpretation of "contextual significance" cannot substitute for or displace the general need for sourced critical commentary. I'd also suggest that Bus stop quite sorely needs to review those dozens of FFD discussions I cite in my opening post before characterizing any other editor as "consistently incorrect". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

"When combined with the requirements of WP:RS, it is evident that this vague and expansive interpretation of 'contextual significance' cannot substitute for or displace the general need for sourced critical commentary." Please show me this in policy. Please quote policy. Bus stop (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Its established in the WMF Resolution. Non-free may only be used to complement free media and be used in appropriate context. That, for use, translates to having contextual significance to use the image - that that image is something that is discussed at length in the article it is used on. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches also explains (not policy, but an accepted standard of using NFC) what is expected to meet each NFCC, and NFCC#8 there is again as requiring some contextual significance to the article where the image is to be used. --Masem (t) 21:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)