Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 25 January 2020

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

User editing from a U.S. government office, with a long term disruptive agenda

• 155.19.91.37 (talk · contribs)

WP:NOTHERE, per ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and associated edits to Nathan Phillips (activist). Primarily disruptive, trolling and using Misplaced Pages as a personal soapbox. Perhaps the Defense Department should know if this is the activity of one of its employees. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If we do block them, WP:SIP probably needs to be followed. The DOD is not specifically listed there, but I would be cautious and notify WMF as described there. --Jayron32 19:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, only the first two ranges listed for the U.S. House and the range for the U.S. Senate are tagged with class mw-tag-congressedits on contrib lists. The other ranges listed at WP:SIP have markup no different than any other IP address. Other than having a browser user script tag them (is there one?), where should I go to suggest expanding the tagging to these other ranges? I'd like to be able to style these so I notice them in histories/contribs. —— 03:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Even if they aren't explicitly in the list of sensitive IP addresses, if we believe that the IP address or range is just as sensitive as others listed in the table (or if we believe that they even might be), we should follow the guidelines and procedures as if they were. It's much better to be safe than to be sorry. ~Oshwah~ 05:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I've left a custom warning message on this IP user's talk page (diff, permalink). If further disruption occurs from this IP address, we should treat them like we would any other user. If no admin is willing to do so, I will - just message me and let me know. I've done it before under circumstances that warranted it, and I'm not afraid to do it again. ;-) ~Oshwah~ 05:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah: WP:DYK DoD has a lot of IP addresses? I've submitted an edit request for some DoD IPv4 addresses to be added (specifically, the 218,103,808 from their 13 /8 blocks plus the /21 this was from). They own a lot more too, just too scattered about for me to bother finding them (Apparently DoD owns 20% of all IPv4 addresses, but this is only about 5%.) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757 - Good call; thank you for doing that. :-) ~Oshwah~ 04:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see a continuation with today's edits. User appears willing to game the system by laying low for extended periods; in this case, going quiet, until today, in the week since the report was posted. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Two edits isn't that much, but even low-level disruption is annoying if it continues over a long enough period. I tend to see this, and I wish there were a nicer way to say this, as a WP:CIR issue rather than deliberate malice. I'm somewhat uncomfortable about reporting employees to to their boss over Misplaced Pages stuff. It could be long-tenured unionized DOD civilian who would face nothing more than a stern reprimand, but it could also be a a subcontracted service worker for any one of dozens of private DOD contracters in the DC area, wouldn't want to have someone lose a job over this. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It's more than a competence issue when the edits have a political agenda and are accompanied by trolling--if malice is too strong a word, 'deliberate' is not. Agree re: job loss, but the user has presumably read this report by now, and rather than respond here has continued trolling today. Perhaps there's some alternative to shrugging and following the disruptive breadcrumbs from a DoD computer, indefinitely. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I take your point, I guess what I was trying to say is that the real issue appears to be meta:MPOV. But you are right in saying that alternatives to shrugging are needed. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Never seen MPOV before. Very good. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The person, or persons, keen to edit Shamsheer Vayalil

I am one of several editors who'd never heard of the name Shamsheer Vayalil until begged to help in countering this or that claimed injustice in its editing. (For the plea I received, see User talk:Hoary#Help.) The article is the obsession of a person, with or without his brother, who uses Bharti Airtel IP addresses that geolocate to Patna, Bihar, and also of User:Ankitroy1997, who has implausibly presented himself as a different person. These pleas for assistance, accusations of unfairness, etc, have gone on for some time and have been very tiresome; but they have hardly been actionable. Recently, however, this person has become more agitated, and offensive (example).

Although I don't consider myself involved (other than as a bemused/despairing onlooker and occasional voice of what I think is reason), others may disagree. And so I turn this matter over to one or more other admins. Do look through Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil and User talk:AlanM1. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Hoary for filing this. Note that the article's talk page has an archive, too, where they've been beating the same minutiae to death since June. The relevant IP addresses are primarily 223.230.128.0/18, though there is some involvement from 106.207.32.0/18 106.207.32.0/19. The 223 range has primarily only one other editor in it (contributing to Indian politics), so a block there might be reasonable. The 106 has a lot more. I'd also suggest a CU, given the overlap between Ankitroy1997 and the IP (careful examination of their edits makes it clear that they are probably either the same person or co-ordinate with each other off-wiki, pretending to be strangers here). Every time an editor gets tired of them, they move on to drag another into this time sink (as recently as today), conveniently not mentioning the wreckage left behind on the talk page in the hopes that the user won't look and they'll just get what they want. I even tried compromising on something that is a close call, and it didn't help. I've asked them to stay off my user and talk pages after today's attacks. —— 03:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

::Not interested in biased wikipedia. I have seen all the rules and regulations which are only for Shamsheer Vayalil article and not for others. I don't want to contribute anything here. Before leaving I'll point out some of your statement: Eagleash: His one of the kind statement: Some of the articles are only perfect on wikipedia. Which are these "some"? Are they Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Jimmy Wales? AlanM1: His statement: Removing degrees from bio infobox is not correct because infobox without degrees is incorrect. For which article it's incorrect? Is that Jimmy Wales article or Mark Zuckerberg article? So, I don't want to contribute to that place where there is biased nature. Keep your wikipedia with you. Ankitroy1997 (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those are quotes or even correct interpretations of our comments, nor is there any rational reason we would have a bias against a respected, successful doctor and wealthy businessman or Indians in general (witness the amount of work I do fixing Indian subject articles while you're picking at nits). —— 06:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 Please don't show baby tantrums. I have read your every explanation or reason which you gave after reverting my edits which shows that you show biased nature. Degrees should not be removed from Jimmy Wales article but it can be removed from Shamsheer Vayalil article. Carefully read your reason which you gave after reverting my edit in Jimmy Wales article. I'll definitely leave wikipedia because it's the place where anyone can learn how to become biased. Ankitroy1997 (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ankitroy1997: I did not remove degrees from the article. —— 13:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to all editors who showed a lesson in WP:Civility. These are the 99 100 IP addresses I collected until now, after I was similarly contacted on my talk page. My match was with User:Royankitkumar, but I see that user is blocked too now. Thank you for the intervention. Wakari07 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wakari07, we must be talking about different people. I haven't sampled any of your collected IP addresses, but are you saying that they appear to be block evasions by User:Royankitkumar? I'm new to this article Shamsheer Vayalil and that's probably why Royankitkumar is a new name to me. I have looked at half a dozen of Royankitkumar's edits. Every one was simple vandalism. The edits are utterly unlike the edits of the IPs I had/have in mind, or those of User:Ankitroy1997. The latter edits aim to present the biographee in the best possible light. (This aim may be honourable; it's the demands, accusations and miscellaneous childishness that are problematic.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hoary: There was a gap in time of almost a year, and then a mis-formatted unblock request in November 2019 that may explain this. I've also corrected the 106 range above for the record (I goofed the subnet). —— 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ankitroy1997 has been confirmed by CheckUser as a sock puppet of Royankitkumar. I'm striking through their edits. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, there were two comments above by Ankitroy1997; you struck through one and I have now struck through the other. -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is all very odd. If Ankitroy1997 is a sock of blocked Royankitkumar, then of course this is very wrong of Royankitkumar, whose activities should be limited to appealing for the end of his block. Yet when Royankitkumar attempted to do just that, he messed up his own attempt. And we know that he did this, thanks to mention above of "a mis-formatted unblock request". Of course what he really ought to do is carefully reread the instructions and make a new attempt; but we all know from experience that plenty of people can't/won't do this. Anyway, I've resuscitated his request. This says in part: Few months earlier I was new to wikipedia I didn't know that how it works,in that duration of time I made various mistakes which lead to vandalism but my intention was not to vandalise wikipedia. If vandalizing truly wasn't the intention, then I diagnose utter incompetence. However, CU says that Ankitroy1997 and Royankitkumar are the same; and if for a moment I put aside other problems (petulance, time-wasting, block evasion....), I have to concede that Ankitroy1997 is neither a vandal nor grossly incompetent. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yamla has already declined the appeal, and I certainly have no objection to that. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: Royankitkumar = Ankitroy1997 = the freshly invented "Alpha Rows" (see for example this appeal of theirs to Arjayay); quickly blocked by Bbb23. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Kazemita1 block changed from indef to 3 months

Through Cabayi's advice, RoySmith recently indef-blocked Kazemita1 for block evasion. El_C changed this from indef to a 3-month block. The case could do with further feedback.

Some highlights from Kazemita's editing history to his current block:

1) For the last several months, Kazemita1 has been a SPA account at People's Mujahedin of Iran, where he has received an increasing number of warnings for edit warring there. () () () () ()

2) The edit warring led to Kazemita1 being blocked several times

3) While being blocked (for two weeks), Kazemita1 uses different IPs to continue edit warring (at which time I file a SPI)

4) The SPI leads to Kazemita1 being indef'ed for socking

5) Kazemita1 appeals the block by citing the US constitution. The unblock request is rejected by 331dot.

6) Kazemita appeals for a second time, this time blaming "lack of proper SPI investigation to at least relate these IPs to me", as well as blaming other editors and not admitting to socking.

7) I point out that the IPs edited the exact same text that Kazemita1 was edit-warring about, which was either an amazing coincidence or block evasion.

8) Kazemita1 removes my post and his claims about "lack of proper SPI" practices, and changes his unblock request now admittig to socking/block evasion.

9) El_C changes Kazemita1's block from indef to 3 months.

Only when it was pointed out that the evidence showed he was the one behind the IPs, did Kazemita1 admit to socking/block evasion. Kazemita1 has apologized in the past for their actions, and yet they continued to edit-war using purposely-deceptive IPs that wouldn't be traced back to them. In light of this, I think that the changing of Kazemita1's block from indef to 3 months, for an increasingly-disruptive editor, merits further feedback from the community. Alex-h (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I secured the permission of the blocking admin to amend the indefinite block. Note that I warned Alex-h against edit warring on Kazemita1's talk page. El_C 10:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex-h: opening this thread may not be a good idea. All behaviors become open for scrutiny. In your case, your edit-warring on the talk page, but further, the subsequent revocation of the user's talk page access which was questionable to say the least. A can of worms, I think it's called. ——SN54129 12:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, yes, El_C did warn me about restoring my post on Kazemita1's talk page, which is when I stopped writing on Kazemita1's talk page. About "the subsequent revocation of the user's talk page access", that had nothing to do with me, although I disagree that it was "questionable" since Kazemita had been canvassing. Alex-h (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex-h: which users were canvassed? El_C 15:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I interpreted Kazemita1's pinging you as canvassing since the actual blocking admin had been RoySmith. Alex-h (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm the admin most involved in sanctioning the user prior to this block evasion incident — a ping to me or to the blocking admin does not constitute canvassing. El_C 15:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam

SharabSalam continues to remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam, most recently Muhammad in the Quran. This user has been mentioned at WikiProject Islam and has been warned multiple times about obvious POV pushing. I've tried to be civil with this user, I've never reported anyone at ANI before, but I feel this is the only way to prevent further disruption. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Please use DIFFS to support each of your claims. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not attempt to discuss the dispute on the article talk page, instead of bringing your content dispute to ANI? El_C 17:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to discuss this and other issues on the user's talk page. This is not a simple content dispute. This user persistently attempts to remove potentially negative information from Misplaced Pages articles. This user is trying to paint their own picture on Misplaced Pages. This user also recently marked a large removal as a minor edit. I will provide diffs soon. I apologize that I do not know how to link diffs. I will try to figure it out. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool and El_C, this is the most recent one that I was talking about. I will provide more. The page is now fully protected, and the information that this user removed has not been restored. Thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

He rollbacks you, you rvv him — it does not inspire confidence. I know it's protected — I'm the one who protected it. El_C 17:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This link ] is the page WikiProject Islam. On point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out. GrammarDamner (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

With this edit ]], the user removed a large amount of information. In the edit summary, the user said that it's not what the source said, but it's actually exactly what the source said. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

With this edit ], the user removed information regarding human rights abuses. GrammarDamner (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. With an edit summary explaining why. And I think the reason given (WP:BLP concerns when citing a webpage that is discussing Kuwait rather then the individual) is at least sufficient to justify discussing the matter on the talk page (or on WP:BLPN). On its own, without any attempt to discuss, it doesn't appear to me to be worthy of raising at WP:ANI. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Usedtobecool, El_C, here are the diffs and what exactly happened, this started when an IP editor removed a content without explaining why, I reverted but I investigated one of the sources which I saw was so uninformed about what its talking about. I did some research about the source and I found that it is famously anti-Muslim. I went to WP:RSN and discussed this there and JzG later removed the whole paragraph because it is sourced to apologists who are not experts in the topic. Here, where GrammarDamner came and reverted JzG saying "not sure why this was removed". I then reverted him and told him the reason why this was removed. He added the content again (with undo edit filter) but with a different source which is also an op-ed by a non-expert person and on top of that, does not source the whole content. I reverted again and said that the content is an op-ed written by a non-expert. He reverted me saying "well, yes, it's mentioning criticism, so it's fine. Thanks!" The source literally says that author personally "don't believe Muhammad's revelations were divine, nor those of any other prophet or religion for that matter." Another issue is that how is this even criticism. I let the content in the article and went to his talk page then an editor posted stuff about me and I didnt want to continue. After 6 days an IP editor removed the content, Drmies reverted the IP but then Drmies probably noticed the source is an op-ed and self-reverted, then Grammar reverted Drmies while making an edit summary about the IP. After 7 days I reverted Grammar and here we are.
• About the post in Islam or Quran wikiproject. There is an editor named Koreangauteng who is probably trolling and also following me during any dispute I am having with any editor he posts a message in their talk page, as a matter of fact, he posted in El_C's talk page and when this dispute happened he posted in GrammarDamner's talk page. He said in a post that because I am a Yemeni, my native language is Arabic, I love my religion, prophet, etc that I have WP:COI. And GrammarDamner also said that I have WP:COI because I am a Muslim. He posted this after a similar issue happened between me and him in Taqiya article, he added some content that doesnt IMO make any sense using a book from LuLu a self-publishing company, I reverted citing WP:SPS and he reverted with a new book that it is again sourced to a christian apologist who is so biased and not expert in any of what he is talking about, the book even shows how biased it is at the beginning saying While there may be millions of peaceful and tolerant Muslims, many of them our neighbors, Islam itself is hardly peaceful and tolerant..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• The source literally says that author personally "don't believe Muhammad's revelations were divine, nor those of any other prophet or religion for that matter." — so? That's a prefectly valid scholarly position. And GrammarDamner also said that I have WP:COI because I am a Muslim — diff? El_C 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  El C, he is not a scholar! and Grammar above that I have a COI just above and cited what that editor said:

  • With respect, for a Wiki Editor self-describing as a "Yemeni !", "with a native language of العربية (Arabic)", having a "Muslim" religion, who "loves Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم very much", who "is impressed by Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم" and edits as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Al-Baqarah&diff=932969817&oldid=932950799

  - suggest he/she should consider WP:COI

  --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

  And not to mention that the editor has said that my edit is vandalism and yet saying that it is hard for him to be civil.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• SharabSalam, please just keep it simple: El C, that ridiculous COI diff, it's this--a really shortsighted remark by Koreangauteng, whose contributions may need further scrutiny, and who shot themselves in the foot with this odd claim. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The removal by SharabSalam of the first section linked by GrammarDamner looks entirely justified to me. It cites a Guardian 'comment is free' piece (questionable in of itself as WP:RS) for quotations which do not appear in the piece being cited, and for other statements not supported by the source. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source, cited in many other Misplaced Pages articles. And just because an editor disagrees with you multiple times does not mean that they are "probably trolling". GrammarDamner (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source, and yet we still do not accept opinion pieces, unascribed, for this kind of content. The IP is absolutely correct and you, GrammarDamner, are wrong. I have not read the Guardian comment, but it seems the IP has and I'll take their word for it. And let me add that in all the cases where you provided diffs, SharabSalam was correct. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

All of those were correct? Is it correct to mark removal of content as a minor edit? Is it correct to mention that a source doesn't say something (when it in fact does and is directly quoted) in the edit summary? Is it correct to remove negative content? Or should Misplaced Pages articles present both sides of an issue for balance and neutrality? GrammarDamner (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The words in quotation marks in this passage beginning with the words "Why must he..." do not appear in the Guardian opinion piece cited. Or are you suggesting that the material is in fact a quotation from the Quran? 86.134.74.102 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I was not suggesting that the material is in fact a quotation from the Quran. When I mentioned quotes, I was talking about this edit ] where SharabSalam removed content and in the edit summary (falsely) said that it was not what the source says. GrammarDamner (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As I previously stated, I was referring to the first edit you linked in the article your raised in your first post (Muhammad in the Quran), after being requested to provide a diff. It contains a 'quotation' not in the source. Accordingly, the deletion was valid, contrary to your claim in your original post that SharabSalam had removed "properly sourced information". 86.134.74.102 (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, wait.. what? how is that even related to this issue? Have you even edited in there? I dont recall seeing you there. Are you searching for an excuse for this ? I have removed the duplicated content and readded it because it was suggesting that the UN report has been released but the source says that the UN report has not been released to public and that it was only seen by Reuters, I did add it to the article with the accurate description from the source and removed the duplicated content. You are obviously trying to change the subject of this thread. This is an obvious case of WP:Boomerang.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that was the subject of this thread. I reported that you continue to remove information that should not be removed. I was asked to provide diffs, so I did. GrammarDamner (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, you are desperately searching for an excuse for this embarrassing, failed attempt to report me, you even made it more embarrassing by searching through my edits trying to find something to report me for. I did add the content as accurately described by the Reuters exclusive report. How is this related to what you reported me for and I quote remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam, most recently Muhammad in the Quran. How is an op-ed/commentisfree and LuLu.com are "properly sourced information"? .--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, according to that diff, you only added some of the content. And as I've pointed out, your edit summary said that the content was not in the source, but it was. As for the op-ed, we're talking about criticism of something, which by definition will often be in an op-ed or opinion piece. Should the Guardian have published a second article stating "Some people feel that..."? GrammarDamner (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't add content in Misplaced Pages about how some ordinary people feel per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, we only add experts criticism. Also, for the Abqiaq thing the Reuters report says that the report was seen by Reuters, the content in the infobox was suggest that the report has been released. I have contributed in that article. Almost all of the content in that article is written by me. Again this is not related to Islam, you said "remove relevant and properly sourced information from articles regarding Islam". I need evidence for this accusation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Expert is a loosely defined term, and I respectfully disagree. I feel that it is not undue. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If a dispute about article content comes down to what you (or anyone else) 'feels', such discussion should take place on the relevant article talk page. It isn't a matter for WP:ANI. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: still waiting for that diff to that COI passage... You are unclear as to its origins. Also, asking GrammarDamner Did you join Misplaced Pages yesterday? was not your finest moment, I challenge. El_C 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, see it now? Look up. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I see it, thanks. But I got the impression from SharabSalam that it was GrammarDamner who made that COI claim. Perhaps I misread, then. That's why having diffs from the outset is really helpful. El_C 18:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, I know, and I thought the same thing initially. SharabShalam is not an L1 speaker of English, I think, but hey, we found it, and that was indeed a crappy put-down. If that constitutes a COI, then we should all stop editing what we're editing. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, totally ridiculous. El_C 18:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C the comment was made by that editor who has also posted a comment on your talk page just mins after I had with you some conversation, I linked it above in my long comment, also this editor has referenced the COI in this thread saying "On point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out". I said that because the editor is ignoring what other editors are saying and editwarring. The editor has reverted a removal of content that was removed by JzG after we discussed this in WP:RSN, saying that he is not sure why the content was removed. Do you think that is true? Nonsense, JzG was absolutely clear in the edit summary when he said that the sources are from apologists not experts. Then when I reverted him, he undo my edit but changed the source with a similar source, an op-ed or commentisfree, from a person who is not an expert.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• I can't help but wonder who GrammerDamner is, and why they make so many edits to change a few little things, all marked as "grammar" when, certainly in this case, none of them are actually grammatical. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What is wrong with that edit? GrammarDamner (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
    • It's ten edits, and it's not about grammar. That's all. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Drmies which edits? The edit you highlighted is just a few grammar fixes. Also, I wasn't being rhetorical with my questions above. I'm actually wondering are all those things correct? Please answer when you get a chance. Thank you. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
        • None of those edits were grammatical. All the diffs I looked at, SharabSalam was correct, particularly the one sourced to that comment in The Guardian. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Drmies, with all due respect, you must be mistaken. In those edits, I added a comma, removed an erroneous word, added a comma, changed a verb tense, added a preposition, corrected capitalization, added a comma, added a comma, added a comma, changed a conjunction (edit summary "wording"), and added a comma. How are those not grammatical? I'm genuinely confused. GrammarDamner (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
            • GrammarDamner, commas aren't a matter of grammar but of style. Changing a conjunction (from "but" to "and") is a matter of semantics. You didn't change any verb tenses or "correct" capitalization. (Capitalization also is not a grammatical matter.) I think your confusion is between grammar and style. Your comma after "22", for instance, is typically mandatory for US students but not in other varieties of English. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
              • Drmies, with all due respect, all of those are matters of grammar. Yes, some of them fall under other categories as well, but they are all grammar issues. GrammarDamner (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

A question for GrammarDamner

In your second post above, you state that you "attempted to discuss this and other issues on the user's talk page". Can you provide a link to the relevant posts? Because all I can locate from you in the history for User talk:SharabSalam is a section entitled 'Persistent vandalism' followed by an ANI notification for this thread. Are you suggesting that these posts constitute adequate 'discussion' by you, or has there been such discussion somewhere else? 86.134.74.102 (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It was also discussed on my talk page. Given SharabSalam's history of edit warring and personal attacks, I felt it was time to bring it here. GrammarDamner (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If the 'discussion' you are referring to is the one here , I suggest that you immediately request that this discussion be closed, before a WP:BOOMERANG appears. That does not even remotely constitute an attempt by you to discuss anything. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I see some tit-for-tat; but nothing I would call discussion – which should have occurred on the article TP. Someone should have brought this up at WP:AN3. But, I think it was a mistake for you to bring this here considering you were both warring. As for Koreangauteng, someone needs to inform them that their COI comment was way out of line. (Or, as I worship of beef bourguignon, I’ll need to remove my edits in that article). O3000 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I brought this to the wrong place. I'm not even sure what AN3 is, but I will look it up now. I'm still relatively new to all of this. As for "my warring", I thought I was doing everything right, not violating 3RR, trying to restore the article. Perhaps I forgot to mention SharabSalam's personal attacks in my first post, but that was part of the reason I brought it here. GrammarDamner (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You have repeatedly referred to supposed 'personal attacks' by SharabSalam. As far as I can see, you haven't however provided links to any of them. I suggest you do so, because repeatedly accusing someone of making such attacks, without providing evidence, may itself constitute a personal attack. And while SharabSalam's "Did you join Misplaced Pages yesterday?" wasn't exactly polite, I don't think that on its own is going to justify sanctions against him. Better phrased, it might even have passed as a fair comment, I'd have to suggest, given your apparent lack of understanding of several key Misplaced Pages policies. Policies such as discussing disputed content on article talk pages, as was suggested in that very post. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that was the personal attack against me by SharabSalam. You can also look at SharabSalam's block log to see the user being blocked for personal attacks before. I'm sorry that I don't know how to post a link to a user's block log. I'm not asking for any sanctions against SharabSalam. I was hoping that someone else could help explain that Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral, meaning the articles should include relevant information, even if it's negative. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, Where is the personal attack? huh? I personally attacked you because I was blocked for personal attack? The content I removed is not negative or positive, it was a mix and I am not the one who firstly removed it, it was removed an admin first and you added it again. Also you edited warred, two admins and me removed that content.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The personal attack was when you posted "Did you join Misplaced Pages yesterday?" on my talk page. GrammarDamner (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

GrammarDamner, What? thats a personal attack? I told you that because you were obviously not informed about reliable sourced and editwarring as well. Thats not a personal attack. That is saying that you are not informed about the wikipedia policies.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm too much of a softie (wouldn't be the first time someone has said that about me, haha), but I felt offended. GrammarDamner (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

What you did was like a new editor. You removed the content saying not sure why it was removed, yet there is an edit summary by JzG saying why he removed the content, you re-added the content using a source from commentisfree source in the Guardian, all 3 months old editors know that content like that, that make criticism should be sourced to experts per WP:FRINGE. We dont just add what an ordinary man said. We would have 1 million MBs if we are going to just write what a random person says. Also, you said that the there is a COI, right? Above you said n point number 4, this user is referenced and COI issues are pointed out. Do you still think that there is a COI issues with me?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thats not even assuming bad faith. You assumed bad faith and called my edit WP:vandalism at first I thought it is a typo when you said rvv but you went to the talk page said that I am vandalising, wow.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. You want to widen the discussion, not narrow it by limiting it to the two editors in dispute. Bring some outside input to the matter under contention. That's what the article talk page is for — and if that somehow stalls, there's dispute resolution and its accompanying requests. El_C 23:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C, I should have thought of that, even though SharabSalam first brought it to my talk page with a personal attack. I have commented on the article's talk page, and I hope others will too. GrammarDamner (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

An issue regarding any Misplaced Pages editor with (any) strong personal belief

I first raised the issue of a possible COI. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles

On 2 January 2020 I made an unreserved apology for the use any descriptor other than a belief system. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam&diff=933696430&oldid=933606413

I believe (note, that is my 'belief') it is not unreasonable to raise potential COI Misplaced Pages editor issues for any editor with any strong, self-identified belief system. Koreangauteng (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that it is ever 'reasonable' to use the talk page of a Wikiproject to make COI accusations concerning a named Misplaced Pages contributor in the manner that you did. There is an appropriate place for such discussions (Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard), and unless there are very good reasons not to, the individual concerned should be notified.

As for your interpretation of WP:COI policy, I strongly believe that the Earth is (approximately) spherical. Do I have a COI if I edit an article on our home planet? I assume not. But in any case, this isn't the place to discuss the limits of WP:COI policy, and Misplaced Pages certainly isn't going to ban people from editing articles on subject matter they have beliefs about. 86.134.74.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El C, what about this editor Koreangauteng who is adding sources like memri and stuff like that to Islam related articles and also following me in every dispute or conversation posting a link to his post which says that I have a COI. This is absolutely unacceptable. I told this editor before that it does not constitute as WP:COI if I love my prophet peace be upon him. Also, now the discussion that it is opened in the talk page of Talk:Muhammad in the Quran is about that link!--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have an issue with Koreangauteng's behaviour, and you can't resolve it by discussing it with him/her (have you tried?), then maybe it should be raised here, but I really wouldn't recommend trying to find a resolution in this particular discussion. It is a disjointed mess already, and I doubt anyone will want to see it develop into a three-way dispute. Hopefully though, Koreangauteng will have realised that naming you in that way on the Wikiproject page was wrong, and won't do it again. 86.134.74.102 (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

well, I have told him that it is not a COI to be a Muslim and that his comment is polemic. After that I just ignored him although he is still following me. Also, I know that he is still adding poorly sourced content and using primary sources in his edits but I dont really want to bother right now.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm on it. As for Koreangauteng consistently adding poorly-sourced content to Islamic articles out of righting great wrongs or whatever impetus, that is something which they may be sanctioned for. But the evidentiary basis for that disruption has to exist (be compiled in a cogent format) first. El_C 02:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Koreangauteng's understanding of our RS policy is fairly flawed.

E.g. where they re-added a self-published (Lulu.com) source called "A 15 Minute Tactical Guide to Islam" by an apparently non notable author (I don't just mean because we have no article, but a search for this author only finds stuff like they also self-published "Islam: Y Tho?"). And used the argument below 'you have to be able to show that they're breaching other core policies because of their bias for it to be actionable' even though it was removed as an unreliable source, so by definition, an argument of a breach of a core policy was made.

They used the same argument when re-adding this . At least that time it was not selfpublished (Thomas Nelson (publisher)) and the author is apparently notable Hank Hanegraaff. Still a quick read of the author's wikipedia article suggests there's no reason to think they has any particular expertise on Islam or the Quran. Anyway at least the argument for reinstatement made a little more sense there since it was in response to the removal reason 'The source is not reliable it is written by a Christian apologists'. But of course the point they seem to be missing is there's a big difference between an editor having a COI, and a RS having one. Although the big issue here isn't so much the COI, but as I said, there's no reason to think that work should be consider an RS for Islam or the Quran.

This case where they used FrontPage Magazine also caught my eye although it's a complicated case since it's someone's reply to criticism of their work. In any event, they're still fairly new, so KoreanGauteng should be given the opportunity to learn about our RS policy before any action.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• No, religious beliefs themselves are never sufficient to constitute a COI (holding a formal position like a priest theoretically could, but I suspect it would generally only apply to things directly related to the religious hierarchy for that religion rather than the faith as a whole.) This is spelled out on WP:COI: Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. The pope's personal aide cannot edit Pope or other pages directly related to the papacy due to personal relationships, but ordinary Catholics can. Imagine if we, for instance, banned every Christian from editing articles related to Christianity - it would not be tenable. As WP:COINOTBIAS says, of course, such editors can still be biased and can get in trouble if they end up consistently falling afoul of WP:ADVOCACY, but note that that is fairly specific itself - Advocacy is the use of Misplaced Pages to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Misplaced Pages's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view, ie. you have to be able to show that they're breaching other core policies because of their bias for it to be actionable, you can't just wave your hands at their strong beliefs and assume it. This is because in many cases (especially when it comes to religion) the most knowledgeable editors and the ones with the most interest in the topic are also going to have biases; we wouldn't want to just ban them all at once. Instead, the important question is whether they can edit constructively and evenhandedly despite their bias. --Aquillion (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Aquillion Thank you. Koreangauteng (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Humans are inherently biased towards humans. Let's ban humans from editing any article related to humanity. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 04:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Ms96 issues with User:SharabSalam

To be concise, I summarize two issues I'm having with him:

1. Persistent teasing: This user keeps teasing others. regarding me: explaining CC for me, explaining the difference between AN and ANI for me. regarding others: Did you join Misplaced Pages yesterday?. I think common sense is the only thing needed to categorize this teasing behavior out of good faith boundaries.

Also see this edit: "not surprised after seeing their comment about "the enemy"". WP:LIBEL

1. Reverting this edit of mine.

• I believe "weight training in local gyms", "practicing Karate", and "being a fitness trainer" are irrelevant issues regarding Soleimani.
• "He was described as having a calm presence and as carrying himself "inconspicuously and rarely rais his voice", exhibiting understated charisma", and "he usually did not appear in his official military clothing" are WP:PROPAGANDA, especially when sourced to a blog in one case.
• Regarding that poll survey, I refer to our conversation on his talk page here (Please read carefully). He says "that doesnt count as a dispute about the content but with the source", well I previously expressed my concerns also about the content as well here.
• He insists that Iranians view Soleimani as a "selfless hero" and love him here and doesn't even compromise on "mixed view" of him among Iranians despite these: (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f). Iranian protesters have actually called him a murderer and tore up his pictures , , , , . I can take tens of other sources. MS 会話 16:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Editor WilliamJE refusal to discuss on article's Talk page

Context: This report involves aviation accident Galaxy Airlines Flight 203, and relates to sole survivor George Lamson Jr. Lamson is notable and has WP:LASTING coverage in reliable sources, but his notability is largely in relation to this accident. Per WP:BIO1E, I believe it's appropriate that Lamson is discussed in this article. (I'd recommend starting with this revision of mine for a demonstration.)

Editor WilliamJE removed substantial, sourced content from the page regarding Lamson, including both his name and the fact that a notable documentary was made about the sole survivor of the accident. I restored the content, added further content and sources supporting notability for Lamson in relation to the event, and added to the article's Talk page. WilliamJE then continued to revert my edits, but more importantly, has refused to discuss on the article's Talk page. He is only willing to explain himself via edit summaries, and he refuses to address the central point I made on the article's Talk page.

Here's a timeline (Edit: Now with diffs) (I omitted my most minor cleanup edits, which I don't believe are relevant to the timeline):

• Flight 203 page: December 24, 2019 - 16:01 CST - WilliamJE removes content on Lamson (Consensus is we don't list, name survivors, dead, or those who miss the plane unless they are WP notable.)
• Flight 203 page: December 24, 2019 - 18:19 CST - WilliamJE removes content on Lamson (Consensus is we don't list, name survivors, dead, or those who miss the plane unless they are WP notable.)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 18:33 CST - I undid last edit (Undid revision 932311233 by WilliamJE (talk) (that's just a general rule; in this case, notability is due to individual being sole survivor. please discuss on article talk page if you disagree.)
• Flight 203 Talk page: January 20, 2020 - 18:43 CST - I created new Talk page section explaining why Lamson content belongs in this article
• Flight 203: January 20, 2020 - 21:57 CST - WilliamJE reverts my edits (See- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:1943_Gibraltar_B-24_crash#Question)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:11 CST - I revert WilliamJE (That does not address WP:BIO1E issue here -- see and discuss on this article's talk page, where I've already distinguished this)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:20 CST - I added more content and sources on Lamson to make notability clear (Aftermath: Adding more on sole survivor Lamson, including references supporting his notability connected to the incident)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:33 CST - WilliamJE both reverts and removes newly added content, still without engaging on Talk page (Reverted to revision 936804500 by WilliamJE (talk): See https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name? (TW))
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:34 CST - I reverted, appealing for discussion on Talk page (Undid revision 936808834 by WilliamJE (talk) (again, discuss on this article's talk page)
• Flight 203 page: January 20, 2020 - 22:35 CST - WilliamJE reverts again (You read. Consensus we don't name)
• My user Talk page: January 20, 2020 - 22:39 CST - WilliamJE leaves a two-word reply on my personal Talk page, linking to an archived conversation from their personal Talk page as if it is a source of policy, still refusing to engage on the Flight 203 Talk page (→‎Also here: new section)
• My user Talk page: January 20, 2020 - 22:40 CST - I revert his attempt to avoid discussing on article's Talk page (Continued refusal to discuss on article talk page will be reported)

To be clear, WilliamJE has (as of the time I'm posting this here) not engaged on the article's Talk page, not addressed or even acknowledged the WP:BIO1E issue I raised, and continued to act like individual discussions on individual other article Talk pages somehow override general Misplaced Pages policies like WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E, which combined suggest that (1) Lamson is sufficiently notable and (2) the appropriate place to discuss him is on the article for the related event, which is Galaxy Airlines Flight 203. Reasonable editors could disagree, but he isn't being reasonable and he isn't disagreeing, instead he's just citing to "consensus" where there actually isn't a policy consensus so broad and rigid it can be explained in edit summaries. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. When you left a notice on the editor's talk page (if it was you who left it), you forgot to leave your name by striking the tilde key four times. You also left the message at the top of the page rather than the bottom, where the most recent messages should go. Would you want to correct those errors? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. I looked at the links you posted above, but unfortunately it is really difficult to ascertain the changes that the other editor posted. It would be far better if you could link to the WP:Diffs that you can get from the History page. Then we could easily tell what the other person did. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're here when the discussion on the article talk page had only been open for about 5 hours when you posted, and even now it's only been open for about 8 hours. This is by no means an urgent situation, so 5 or 8 hours is way too short to conclude no discussion will take place. While I understand it may be frustrating when an editor is reverting but hasn't yet joined the discussion, you still have to give them reasonable chance to respond. The stuff in December is irrelevant as neither of you opened a discussion , so you can both be blamed for the lack of discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to think we need to ask for $20 via Paypal as a deposit before someone opens a new ANI thread. We keep the deposit if the thread turns out to be neither urgent nor about a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. This is a simple content dispute.

PROBLEM ACUTE!

CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION

"CONTENT DISPUTE"

Burma-Shave

– creffett

EEng 08:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• WilliamJE has not edited since he referred OP to the prior discussion. I don;t think it's reasonable to bring this here when the user in question has tried to discuss, albeit in a manner OP dislikes, and had not edited since OP reverted that attempt. Recommend we close this as it goes nowhere and OP should seek WP:dispute resolution. -- Deepfriedokra 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Deepfriedokra The reason for no reply? I was asleep. Anyone who studied my editing will see I rarely make edits between 2100 and 0600 Eastern standard time. Last night I was up later than normal because I played bingo like normal on Monday nights.

The original poster of this thread has been referred to three different talk page discussions (There is also a guidelines page which I didn't refer them to. Something about me wanting to go to sleep) on the topic they are complaining of. Two of which took place in the last 6 months and one of which was absolutely on target in relation to their edits. They are whining (Take a look at their absurd reply here). about consensus and took it here because they don't like what they are reading....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Exactly. I don't feel it was reasonable of OP to report here when you had not had time to reply. ANd I do feel like you have been responsive, even if they don't think so or like the manner of your replies.-- Deepfriedokra 12:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

And if you don't know who posts like this you can't have wiki'd very far Eeng/creffett-- Deepfriedokra 12:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

All -- I apologize if this was the wrong place to bring this up; I originally wanted to request dispute resolution, but when I selected that I hadn't yet discussed on the article's Talk page, it said "It's best to discuss your concerns with the other users on the talk page of the article before seeking dispute resolution." When I went back and put that I'd tried to discuss on the article's Talk page, it then asked if the issue was about another editor's behavior, and then it said to come here. That's why I posted here. Since it appears he's finally stopped refusing to respond on the article's Talk page, I'll take it there... Shelbystripes (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Shelbystripes: To be blunt, I don't think there was need to start any form of dispute resolution either. Let me repeat what I said above. You waited ~5 hours before coming here. We are all volunteers. It's completely unreasonable to expect editors must just the discussion right this minute. Especially when there is zero urgency on the issue. This applies even if they reverted you. So your comment "it appears he's finally stopped refusing to respond on the article's Talk page" is inappropriate. I'd even say offensive and almost if not crossing the personal attack line. You should stop expecting editors edit according to your schedule and instead give them reasonable time to respond to any discussion. And you should only try to use some form of dispute resolution when it's clear you cannot resolve the situation just with whoever joins the discussion on the talk page. This generally means you should give it a few days. Definitely not 5 hours. And you should only bring behavioural complaints when it's clear there is a intractable problem with an editor's behaviour and not simply because you are demanding they respond to you in 5 hours! Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, I take your point about giving things time (days), which I promise to take to heart. I'd also like to offer an apology to @WilliamJE:, for inappropriately handling my frustration. I am sorry, to everyone, for wasting your time posting here. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

AT ANI

LESS STURM UND DRANG

HELPS AVOID

THE BOOMERANG

Burma-Shave

Guy (help!) 18:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't work if one pronounces Sturm und Drang in accordance with the proper German pronunciation. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Well then don't do that. DUH. Modification: AT ANI / YOUR STURM AND DRANG / MIGHT GET YOU / A BOOMERANG / B-S EEng 04:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Moaz786, eh? The "ang" of Drang is pretty much the same as the "ang" of boomerang. At least in the Hochdeutsch I learned as a singer of Schubert liede and the English I learned at my thousand-year-old school. Guy (help!) 08:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, well, did they teach you that the plural of Lied is Lieder? EEng 09:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC) We must protest this treatment, Hubert / says each newspaper reader / As someone once remarked to Schubert / "Take us to your Lieder"

I can spell just fine, but I can't type for tooffe. Srsly. Guy (help!) 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

AND IF YOU HAVE

THE ADMIN TOOLS

JUST WHIP THEM OUT

AND BLOCK THE FOOLS

Burma-Shave

Ritchie333 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet needs blocking please

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

Could someone please block Arr1333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ars3nal311/Archive for background. No point wasting time waiting for SPI to deal with this, since the account is active now and making their usual disruptive edits. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked, tagged, made a report to SPI, edits may need cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if that domain needs to go on the blacklist...it's on a number of pages, and might or might not be a decent source (I haven't actually read any of it yet), but this behavior is not okay. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: The domain used to be owned by the Gay & Lesbian Times (magazine). I'm guessing at a certain point of time, the magazine closed and someone took over the domain to sell their alternative medicine (read: bs) products. Either way, case archived. An edit filter can help probably (also to keep track of the socks and whitelist older links which use Wayback Machine or smth). --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

IP tagging articles with poorly written custom templates

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

See especially . Note that they are edit warring over their tag at Criticism of postmodernism. Here's a weird edit summary and here they're using a talk page as a soapbox. They have no edits besides adding template tags and that talk page comment. Bringing this here because they have a suspicious familiarity with templates and the abbreviation "rv" for "revert"; they may be a sock or LTA that someone here can recognize. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Similar occurrence on MissingNo. as seen here where they argued weasel words, bias and a lack of 'negative reception' while also demanding The Cutting Room Floor, a wiki, be used as a source? They're also familiar with 'deletionists' on the site too.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Bbb23 and Berean Hunter - this appears to have fallen through the cracks. Is this IP an LTA? They are continuing with adding poorly written custom tags, being suspiciously familiar with and using WP:NOBITE as justification, misusing talk pages, adding poorly written synthesis to an article, and so on. Even if they are not an LTA, there are major WP:CIR issues here. Something should be done. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Deliberate well orchestrated tactics to spread pov and fringe theories.

• Dalhoa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Land of Punt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Horn of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I would like to report a group of people who deliberately spread pov and fringe theories to undermine the Encyclopedia. The IP 2601:405:4A00:75F0:AC96:7624:1296:CA55 recently vandalised Misplaced Pages and I reverted the vandalism but the Land of Punt vandalism was not reverted, this was the second time this happened and editor Doug Weller using it. The tactics are not only vandalism 1 and 2 they also use stalking, threats of report, stonewalling, repeated edits meant to make editing very difficult for others to improve the Encyclopedia and probably others. I would like the committee to revert that vandalism as mainstream scholarship and science locate Punt in the Horn of Africa and do something about their tactics which undermine the improvement of the Encyclopedia. Thank you.Dalhoa (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to the IP who told me about this thread. There's clearly no vandalism here but a content dispute coupled with lack of good faith and personal attacks by User:Dalhoa. When they reverted sourced material at Land of Punt I started a discussion at WP:RSN#Are these apparently reputable Egyptologists used at Land of Punt fringe? where it was agreed that at least some of the material he calls fringe was well sourced. I commented there that I thought this was a POV problem, pointing to two ANI discussions starated by User:Skllagyook. and - note the focus on the Horn of Africa. Dalhoa, although notified and indeed urged to take part in both ANI and RSN discussions did not. I'm pinging User:EdJohnston who tried to get Dalhoa to reply to the ANI discussion and User:Flyer22 Reborn who also participated there. I rose some conduct issues at the 2nd ANI discussion which I'll repeat below:

"I see some conduct issues here. At Talk:Horn of Africa Dalhoa created Talk:Horn of Africa#Jebel Irhoud in Morocco obsession (the title itself is not civil) and accused Skllagyook of promoting/favoring a particular region. They accused User:Nezahaulcoyotl of the same thing although he hasn't edited the article although he did edit Jebel Irhoud in Sept/Oct. here they accuse Skllagyook of bias and lack of objectivity. Then Dalhoa (who I just noted has made only 215 edits) wrote "Your changes are not in good faith, your are mixing deliberately the fossils and spreading inaccurate and erroneous information around. The only reason you wanted to keep that section is because the article mentions Morocco and the dating coincides with your Jebel Irhoud dates, you were not adding it to mention East Africa and South Africa coalescence, the quote I added from your academic paper mentions coalescence of South and East-African source populations but you are not interested in that," and more in the same vein until the thread stopped in November. Dalhoa then started a new thread asking "if there are any Editors/Administrators doing editings in the background?" and then "If there are Admins with their own political agenda using this page as their playground we need to know." This seems to be about an accusation that the history of the article had been tampered with. Admin User:Maile66 tried to explain the protection but their explanation wasn't accepted.

This month there have been similar problems at Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans. Here Dalhoa accuses Skllagyook of stalking and deliberately spreading misinformation. Then here of spreading misinformation and "clearing(which seems to be a typo for "clearly" attempts to inhibit accurate information,". Further examples of this sort of comment followed but I won't bore people with them. ... Doug Weller talk 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If you look at User talk:Dalhoa you'll find continued personal attacks on editors and lack of good faith and at least one more example of him calling an editor vandal when User:Arminden made this edit. Looking at Dalhoa's edit summaries you can see he uses the accusation of vandalism for content disputes several times. Doug Weller talk 10:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The Land of Punt talk page was archived today for the first time for some reason but if you go look at the archive you would find that it is you using the word fringe for Sri Lanka and then it is added as a location along side Arabia, indeed both are fringe and they should not be there, I am not a lawyer, I am just trying to improve the Encyclopedia using mainstream scholarship and science, pov and fringe theories should not be promoted through vandalism or any other tactics to misinforme the users. Dalhoa (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to review how Misplaced Pages defines vandalism, specifically what is not vandalism. This appears to be a content dispute that others have made attempts to resolve, some ongoing. Throwing around the word "vandalism" when the edits clearly are not vandalism is disruptive in itself. You may also want to read WP:BOOMERANG. OhNoitsJamie 14:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

And I've made it clear to him that I'm not particularly concerned about Sri Lanka, but but reliable sources do discuss Arabia, whether or not they think it's the likeliest location is beside the point. But my main point is Dalhoa's personal attacks - his battleground attitude makes it impossible to have a collegial discussion and he seems unwilling to compromise or unable to understand our policies. If this continues I think he'll need a topic ban from articles discussing the Horn of Africa, which seems to be his passion. Doug Weller talk 15:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug with all due respect I've had a collegial discussion with Skllagyook but it deteriorated with his pov pushing of Jebel Irhoud and even now if you try to make any change in a line in any Misplaced Pages page around that topic you are hounded down, you are doing the same thing as Skllagyook and pushing a pov not supported by mainstream scholarship and science and please people need to stop making threats and character assassination with boomerang and others, as for Arminden edit, if I had written in the Jebel Irhoud wiki things like For supporters of the concept that Jebel Irhoud represents .... I would have probably gotten a warning on my wiki page. I think people need to accept at certain point mainstream scholarship and science and not pushing pov. If you want to say Punt had trades with Arabia in the Horn of Africa section I have no objection, you can even say they had trade with Sri Lanka or even mention the spice trade but people need to accept mainstream scholarship and science and stop pov pushing Arabia and other places as location. Dalhoa (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There's the problem again, accusing me of pov pushing for suggesting that the various locations that have been suggested in reliable academic sources should be mentioned in the article - not as the definite location, simply as suggestions made in the past. Meeks is a reliable source but looking at it further we need statements such as this quote "Based on the textual evidence, other recent suggestions about the location of the land of Punt include Kenya (Wicker 1998) and Arabia (Meeks 2003), but there are problems with these arguments (see Kitchen 2004: 29—30)." But that depends on Dalhoa dropping the stick. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Again with all due, if everyone uses the reliable source claim to insert a fringe or minority view in articles then it would create a dangerous precedence, it is the reason WP:NPOV has the word significant in it: All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Dalhoa (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have warned Dalhoa on their page that they will be blocked if they post any further aspersions and personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC).

@Dalhoa: I don't know what you think "significant" means. Could you explain if, for instance, Meeks' view on the Arabian Peninsula is significant in your eyes and if not, why not? Doug Weller talk 09:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Meeks view is fringe on the topic, the only reason his is kept on the wiki is because there is a bias for the Middle East, Kathryn A. Bard and Rodolfo Fattovicht looked at all the sources including Meeks and they concluded that a location of Punt in southern Arabia seems less probable. If people want to claim his view is significant for Arabia and the Levant they can maybe create a Disambiguation page for a Land of Punt in the Middle East and cite Meeks but when it comes to the topic at hand, mainstream scholarship and science put the Land of Punt in HoA and Kathryn and Rodolfo in their 2018 book Egyptian Seafaring Expeditions and the Land of Punt: Long-distance Trade in the Red Sea during the Middle Kingdom confirm that again as per the consensus. Dalhoa (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone else please explain to this editor that they have misunderstood the word "significant' and that it is not a "bias for the Middle East" that allows the use of a minority (Dalhoa calls that "fringe" viewpoint but its discussion in clearly reliable sources? I agree that we need to include for instance Kitchener's rejection of Meeks and Bard's discussion, but I'm not going to try to add those until Dalhoa agrees to stop removing due to their misunderstanding of NPOV. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's a quick google definition of significant: sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy. I can find many reliable sources on Creationism but if I go to the Human wiki and insist it be mentioned as part of the origin of humans I won't be allowed even though that view is significant, using the reliable source claim is not a carte blanche to insert fringe or minority view. There are other clauses in the NPOV that are being violated here but going through all would drag the issue, the point remains that mainstream scholarship and science locate the Land of Punt in the Horn of Africa, if Arabia had half the evidence HoA has, no other location whether it is Tamraparni,Put,Havilah,Kenya would be mentioned, even the only location that can challenge HoA which is Sumatera would be mentioned.Dalhoa (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A significant difference is that libraries and museums are full of testable evidence for evolution while scientific literature supporting creationism is hard to find. That situation does not apply to conjecture about the location of the Land of Punt. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

HoA has mainstream scholarship and science the conjecture would apply to other places.Dalhoa (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Akshara Reddy

Deva Sangeeth (talk · contribs · count)

This article is not ready for mainspace (ie. Shouting, empty sections, ect...). I moved it to draftspace and the user moved it back. Not what or if anything can/will be done. The user account is over 4 years old with 128 edits, but the editing pattern is that of a newbie. Just want to bring this to some admin's attention. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Also the editor is editwarring over infobox images with no proof of permissions. - FlightTime (open channel) 06:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I went through and cut out all the various YouTube, IMDB and Instagram "citations" as non-WP:RS, as well as the entire Early Life section which was unsourced WP:BLP content. Which... basically leaves us with three cited facts. The infobox also has BLP material that either needs cited or cut, but at this point, I don't think there's enough sources to sustain an article. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Masquerading user pages as articles: continued

• User:Battle of Sherpur
• User:Battle of Moga
• User:Battle of Mansa

This is a continuation of this previous request.

User is still creating accounts with userpages disguised as genuine articles. They attempted to insert a link for one of the previously created userpages into an article so as to mislead readers (as they had done previously). Later did the same with an article draft regarding a fictitious event.

I believe the three above accounts are created by the same person since all of them have edited this draft.
Alivardi (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: You might want to file at WP:SPI. They are better suited for this sort of thing and have magic glasses.-- Deepfriedokra 12:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Dealing with it now. Doug Weller talk 12:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Block of User:MikaelaArsenault on Terry Jones

I have just blocked MikaelaArsenault (talk · contribs) from Terry Jones after they continually changed his date of death without any source or edit summary, despite being reverted by multiple editors. I did this because the article is being updated rapidly (as you might expect from a very famous person who has recently died) and their edits are trampling over others right now. As I have been editing the article to clean it up, I would consider myself WP:INVOLVED, and hence I am bringing the block here for review. Ritchie333 14:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, Auntie has it now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51209197

It does piss me off when people race to be the first to add a death to Misplaced Pages. Guy (help!) 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: They're called WikiJackals. Narky Blert (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I dont see why "People rushing to update wikipedia" can be a problem, we actually want people to edit. If they are doing so without sources or edit warring then it is a separate problem and that problem should be addressed. DBigXrayᗙ 14:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, because we keep getting edit wars with unsubstantiated rumours that persist for half a day or a day and then finally the announcement comes from a reliable source. Guy (help!) 16:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the block is OK, but I would have preferred a direct warning before blocking. Letting the user self-correct their behavior by telling them they will be blocked is always preferable to just blocking them. They were clearly in violation of WP:EW, and it looks like they went over the 3RR limit, so technically the block is fine; I don't think we have any reason to unblock them yet. However, you SHOULD add the block template to their talk page so they know how to properly request an unblock. If I were the one doing this, I would have warned first, but I also don't think there's any reason to unblock them as yet. --Jayron32 14:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, this is a partial block from that article only. In other words, they can come to this thread and appeal, as well on their talk page. By "block template", if you mean Template:uw-block, that is not appropriate because they are not site blocked. Ritchie333 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

They have more than exceeded WP:3RR. While I have also, the BLP exception applies on my part. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that it is a partial block. Yes, then they can come and appeal. Have you yet notified them of this discussion, so they may do so? --Jayron32 14:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Ritchie333 15:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"Now, you listen here, Threesie! You're not the Messiah. You're a very naughty boy!" Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Since it looks like we're still shaking out the partial block policy - it would be helpful to have a partial block warning template (per the Jayron32/Ritchie333 discussion above) to formally notify editors of the block. I can slap something together this evening if nobody wants to do it sooner. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

QEDK has put together Template:Uw-pblock. It's not quite ready for prime time yet; the page parameter doesn't seem to work - in this case I want to write "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours from Terry Jones". The reference to WP:GAB is misleading, as is the suggestion to appeal on the talk page. Ritchie333 15:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware of that - I'll have a look and see if I can help get it working as expected. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Just use the |area= parameter and put in all the kind of blocks imposed (so the template will read: blocked from <area paramter content here>). I never got around to updating the documentation (my bad), but the rest of template is wired to work on the functionality per {{Uw-block}}, hence also, the GAB links and the suggestion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good example of sensible use of partial blocks.Deb (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too keen to use partial blocks until Twinkle let's me, to be frank. That doesn't mean I won't, but the extra work... Doug Weller talk 15:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, May be you can make a request at WP:TWINKLE. This can be of good use and I am sure you are not the only admin not using it due to the extra work. DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A request to add functionality to Twinkle is here. Ritchie333 15:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

And User:Amorymeltzer has responded to a request at WP:TWINKLE. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Should be up in a day or two. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"We must respect the historical sources" mantra

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

Mikola22 for some reason is sure that he is allowed to edit warring if he endlessly repeats “We must respect historical sources” or something like that: . And he just repeats the same thing on the Talk Page: .--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you here to work in good faith then it would not be a mantra. On the talk page you came up with one word as a problem. If is information from the historian's book or scientific paper then we have to respect it. If you have any problem feel free to bring it out on talk page. I don't even know why you are editing this article because you did more edits for no purpose which could be interpreted as vandalism. Let's respect the sources and discuss each issue at talk page. Why you bother people with irrelevant things. Mikola22 (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

On the talk page you came up with one word as a problem. - Anyone can check this statement (diff) and decide whether there is "good faith" in Mikola’s words.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears there are two issues here. The first is that neither editor is a native speaker of English, which makes it a bit difficult to understand each of the parties. (And I expect this makes it more difficult for each to understand the other.) Otherwise, I have no reason to doubt both are editing in good faith.The second issue is that a primary source is cited here -- a census performed in 1712 -- which presents a challenge in interpretation. Normally there is little problem with citing a primary source: historians prefer them over secondary sources because one is reading an account that is more reliable & less filtered than what a secondary source provides, & often provides facts clearly to all readers. However, every primary source has portions that is problematic, & this appears to be the case with this 1712 census. I will not go into the details -- for one thing, I'm no expert in Balkan history beyond knowing that ethnic-based strife has existed there for centuries -- but instead of fighting over what the 1712 census means (& both have violated the WP:3RR rule), what needs to be done is to find a reliable secondary source that explicates this portion of the census. Or -- & this would be the simpler solution -- both should drop this dispute & find other articles to work on. -- llywrch (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest! I want to clarify my position. The article already has a secondary source. It is in Croatian, but it is available online and I can check it. This source analyzes in detail the census of 1712/1714 and there is, among other things, information on Smiljan. In this paper of Croatian historian, part of the population of Smiljan is quite directly called the Serbian Orthodox minority. If it is necessary to conduct any talk of what is "actually" written in the primary source - I would send all this to a footnote. Obviously, this is out of WP:WEIGHT to the article on the village.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The book of Austrian historian is reliable secondary source and he mentions the Orthodox Vlachs or Schismatics Vlachs members of the Greek church. The Croatian source(paper) also mentions Vlachs ie Schismatische Wallachen but he calls this Schismatische Wallachen as Serbian Orthodox Vlachs. Since the book of the Austrian historian does not mentione Serbian Orthodox Vlachs we must also specify that original record mentione Schismatische Wallachen, both sources cite this. For another group of people Bunjevci is used term Catholic Vlachs and today they are Croats but this must be written in an article which talks about them. This is history, there is no extra reliable secondary source. It is a Vlach population which migrates to one part of Croatia. Sources call these people Vlachs Catholics and Schismatische Wallachen etc and they are called that in the book of Austrian historian. You can come to the talk page if you you want and we'll edit the article together. Mikola22 (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was talking about - all this shit should be discussed in a footnote.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You cannot put the history of some people and a village in footnote. This is some citation from Bunjevac article "In 1788 the first Austrian population census was conducted – it called Bunjevci Illyrians and their language the Illyrian language. It listed 17,043 Illyrians in Subotica. In 1850 the Austrian census listed them under Dalmatians and counted 13,894 Dalmatians in the city... Austro-Hungarian censuses from 1869 onward to 1910 numbered the Bunjevci distinctly. They were referred to as "bunyevácok" or "dalmátok" (in the 1890 census)." It is historical information that is significant, this information will probably not be put in footnote. These are facts from the history of some region and its population. Mikola22 (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You cannot put the history of some people and a village in footnote. -- What a beautiful Straw man.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nicoljaus Mikola22 Stop arguing here. ANI is not a place to discuss content. The bottom line here: you need to keep discussing the issue at the talkpage. If that fails, use Dispute resolution. Oh, and don't edit war, either of you, regardless of whether you think its justified. Making more than three reverts in 24 hours will get you blocked. And don't make personal attacks. If you can't keep civil about it, just don't edit the page, or ask for dispute resolution before it gets to that point. I will try to chime in at the talk page to see if that can't help smooth things along. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. We are waiting for you. Mikola22 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Tmayerferg101 Part II

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

This disruptive user was brought to ANI previously by myself but sadly due to inactivity, the report was archived. Now 3 months later this person continues with their unsourced additions to Depeche Mode articles despite a multitude of final warnings on their talk page, personal pleas by other editors such as SnapSnap to refrain and to date shows zero indication that they ever intend to communicate. Please could an admin look into this. Thanks. Robvanvee 16:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for one month, pending a response to any concerns on their talk page. Any admin can unblock once the user acknowledges the problems. Notably, the user has zero edits outside of the article space, and has never communicated with anyone ever. If they fix that, anyone can unblock early. If after the block expires, they return to the same issues, drop me a line on my talk page, and I'll reinstate the block. --Jayron32 19:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated Jayron32, Robvanvee 19:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Pederasty trolling - possible LTA?

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

• 1.251.20.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Do these edits look familiar to anyone? I don't follow the pro-kiddie porn trolls much. Guy (help!) 18:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you only enacted a partial block from a specific set of articles; I would have simply blocked them from all editing; pedophile advocates are not compatible with collaborative editing at Misplaced Pages writ large. Misplaced Pages:Child protection recommends such users are permanently blocked from the project. --Jayron32 19:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, fair Guy (help!) 19:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Leucosticte, maybe? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I went with a 3-month sitewide block, which as lenient as I could stomach (lenient in terms of mitigating other individuals who may end up using the IP, that is). Simply put, these users are not welcome on the project and the risk of missing an article in a partial block is too great to wager on. The reputation of the project is at stake when it comes to how (unequivocally) we deal with these sort of users. El_C 21:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't Leucosticte. El_C, it is a static IP and the editor has been on it since at least August 8. No one else is using that IP and no named accounts were on it. You could double that block time based on his persistence there and I would support it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Understood and  Done. El_C 21:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Adenekanfauziyah reported by Ar2332

• Adenekanfauziyah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I became aware of this editor today when they "fixed" a with a source that looked superficially reasonably, but in reality had nothing to do with the topic at hand, in a way that only an expert familiar with the material would be aware. I looked at this editor's history, and a high fraction of their edits seem to have been reverted, and of those that remain, some of the ones on non-Nigerian topics seem to be questionable in the same way as the one that I had to revert. It is not quite clear to me if this editor is making their problematic edits in good faith, or else is a particularly subtle troll. Either way, I think their edits need to be checked en masse by someone familiar with the topics at hand, and the misleading ones removed. Ar2332 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I too have come across this editor, and reverted some of their edits where they have replaced {{cn}} tags with citations from Misplaced Pages mirrors. They seem to have poor understanding of what actually constitutes a source, and should be directed to read our policy on this before making any further such edits. RolandR (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Pauley Perrette

More eyes are needed at this talk page for an actress who tweeted what I see as an ambiguous comment about asexuality. The most lengthy and contentious section by far is "Coming out on Twitter" but the controversy is discussed in other sections as well. I am being accused by Neutralhomer of an overly strict interpretation of BLP policy and would appreciate feedback here and input on that talk page. Thank you. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I wouldn't say overly strict, but more wearing blinders. But more eyes are needed....lots more! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:49 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

• As expected, Cullen is correct at Talk:Pauley Perrette. Apparently the article subject tweeted "Aces, it is actually me" and the tweet was used to reference "Perrette came out as asexual on Twitter on January 20, 2020" (diff). If a secondary source comments on the significance of the tweet, information on that might be added. Sorry to those who believe aces is unambiguous but Misplaced Pages needs a reference that does not need interpretation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, So we can't use sources that say 'ace'? They have to say 'asexual'? Adam9007 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Now, maybe I will get an answer to this this time: Ms. Perrette followed 11 asexual accounts on Twitter extremely recently. She has "Ace" in her bio. "Ace", not "Aces" is a common slang term for "Asexual". With that, and using WP:TWITTER, an extension of WP:V, is that enough? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:44 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

Not to be overly bureaucratic, but shouldn't this go to WP:BLPN first, this does not appear to be a chronic and intractable problem. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

shouldn't this go to WP:BLPN first it has been. Adam9007 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam9007: So naturally in addition to being the wrong forum, the discussion is now being forked between at least three different locations, seems like a good idea. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

An admin action on a fully protected article was taken (to remove a category). That is why this discussion was started. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

meh, disputes over admin actions needn't automatically come here, often concerns can be resolved on a user-talk page. Admins do of course sometimes post to have their own actions reviewed by others for propriety when contentious, but usually that is done at WP:AN, I know, I know, bureaucracy. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

So, copy the thread over to AN (or BLPN) if you want, IP editor. I am asking for feedback and I think my request is legitimate. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen (twice in one night, I'm as shocked as you are), can we just stick to one forum and go with it please? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:44 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No, more moving would just make this worse at this point, it was more a general observation for future reference. Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the editing through full-protection in the BLP context to restore a pre WP:EW version, no opinion on the merits of the content dispute itself. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It is at a pre-edit version now. Just so everyone knows, the page is available to be edited. It is not page protected. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:57 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

• I'm done for the night, if anyone has questions or concerns for me, I will be back up after 12 Noon EST (I work tomorrow, 1/23). I will check this page and respond to what I can before I leave. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

Just for everyone's information, this drama has extended to Emilie Autumn, Janeane Garofalo, and Mary Cagle. Adam9007 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

And fer the benefit of those wishing to participate in the drama, the appropriate venue is a thread I started on WP:BLPN 165.120.15.119 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe NedFausa's actions and language in these discussions aren't helping matters. He displays a clear disregard for WP:NPOV and is showing a bias against those who identify as asexual. I would like to also point out that his account is brand new. Started on December 13, 2019 and, as of this writing, he has 708 edits. But he has a clear understanding of Misplaced Pages structure, policy, stuff that a brand new editor shouldn't. I believe that NedFausa isn't a new editor, but a sock of a blocked editor. Too many red flags there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

• If a secondary reliable source commented on the fact that a verified Twitter account had followed 11 asexual accounts and had "Ace" in her bio, an article on the person might mention that she had followed 11 asexual accounts and had "Ace" in her bio. For the article to assert that the person was asexual, a strong self-declaration would be required (a declaration that did not require interpretation), or a clear verification in a secondary reliable source. The RS would have to say that the fact that this specific person had "Ace" in her bio means she is asexual. Another point is that there is no requirement for Misplaced Pages's article to have every detail knowable about a person. Anyone wanting their Misplaced Pages article to describe them as asexual only needs to make a clear self-declaration of that. Further, there is no rush—the article can wait for secondary reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN behaviour at 2020 Irish general election

This case pertains to users Bastun and Wikimucker.

To put things within context: this initially started out as a content dispute on 14 January when, right after the date for the 2020 Irish general election was confirmed, Iveagh Gardens and Number 57 boldly attempted to split the opinion polling section into a separate article, as is standard for election articles throughout Misplaced Pages (diff1 diff2). This was twice reverted by Bastun (diff3 diff4), under the only grounds that these had to remain in the main article "until the election is over" but without providing any sensible reason why. The issue rose up again on 20 January when a third uninvolved user, Aréat, attempted to remove the information from the main article to avoid repetition (diff5). Wikimucker then reverted them on the grounds that not all polls were in the sub article (diff6). Aréat then promptly went to update the sub article to fix the issue (diff7 diff8) but they got reverted again by Wikimucker, this time under a different reason, calling to "Seek consensus before removing this". Both parties attempted to engage a discussion on the issue at the talk page (diff10 diff11). So far, seven people have intervened in the discussion(s) (counting both #Opinion Polls. Main Article or not. and #Polls table: the aforementioned five users, as well as Bondegezou and myself. A clear consensus has emerged in favour of the split (which received unanimous support from all involved users), the main point of friction being the "when": Bastun and Wikimucker pleaded for the split to wait until the election was held, whereas all others saw no reason for this to be delayed (this is, a 5:2 consensus).

However, and despite there now being a clear consensus, both Bastun and Wikimucker have seemingly taken a scorched earth-policy where they would simply team up to keep reverting any attempt to implement such consensus (diff12 diff13) while threatening anyone who opposes them (diff14 diff15). Bastun in particular has adopted an aggressive ownership behaviour in the article, which is revealed by claims such as "It's been here since 2016, and we (who have been here for those four years) would like it to stay for the remaining three weeks", "this reader, and plenty of others would would like to be able to see everything to do with the next Irish general election, on 8th February, on the one page, thanks. It's been 4 years. You can wait 17 days", and threatening with edit warring should anyone try to implement the reached consensus, in what seems to constitute an overall WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Worth noting, in particular, is the 3RR warning issued by Bastun to Aréat (diff19), allegedly on the basis that "we're supposed to warn users that they're potentially about to breach 3RR"; this comes in clear contrast to Bastun's own approach towards Wikimucker, who did actually breach 3RR (revert1 revert2 revert3 revert4) yet received not a single warning from them; probably because they were just enforcing Bastun's version of the article. Further, they have both persistently accused others of WP:TE without any evidence, just because of disagreeing with them (diff21 diff22).

Bastun has also been trying to bog down the process by resorting to wikilawyering and unnecessary bureaucratization, arguing that the split was done "out of process" in the first place because of not abiding to WP:PROSPLIT (diff23 diff24). This is not true: PROSPLIT allows for any split to be done boldly if criteria for splitting are met (in this case, opinion polls account for 2/3 of the article so it seems reasonable) and no discussion is required (considering that this is customary practice elsewhere in Misplaced Pages and even in previous Irish election articles, I understand that Iveagh Gardens acted with the sincere conviction that no discussion was required when they created the sub article). Bastun has also repeteadly called for deleting the sub article only to have it re-created within 17 days (diff25 diff26), in what seems an unnecessary waste of everyone's time and effort responding only to their personal wishes. Ironically though, they are seeking such a deletion out of process themselves, as they were asked to open an AfD if they seriously thought the article should be deleted, to no avail.

Finally, both Bastun and Wikimucker have adopted a somewhat mocking and personal behaviour on me almost right from the beginning of my intervention in the discussion, just because of me asking for respect to consensus and to the other involved users: firstly, with unfair accusations of text-walling (in a clear case of WP:COTD), then with some random and entirely unnecessary mocking (diff29 diff30 diff31), and now the revelation that they may be acting like this because of some personal grudge on me from some discussion that took place three years ago (diff32). This despite repeated pleas and warnings from myself for this personal behaviour to stop (diff33 diff34 diff35 diff36).

I'm inclined to step down from the discussion because the content case has been made and because they are getting it so personal as to make it uncomfortable, but this does not preclude the fact that the 2020 Irish general election article has been hijacked by two people who are preventing any third party from making any significative or substantial modification that does not go their way. I am basically asking for input on what to do here and how to unlock this behavioural-based stalemate. Impru20 12:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Just adding my opinion; what should have been a simple and short discussion about whether the opinion poll table should be moved to a separate article (as is done for virtually all elections) has turned rather nasty, largely due to the unreasonable attitude of the two editors Impru20 highlights. At the point the discussion reached a reasonably clear consensus (5 in favour, 2 against), Bastun made the claim that proceeding with the change would be WP:TE. I'm not sure if any action is required beyond a reminder about conduct, but it would certainly help to have some more eyes on the article to prevent further reverts. Number 57 12:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Bastun has reverted it again and is suggesting the content to be split into a page under a different title than the one already existing (something which could be accomplished through a mere move; they are obviously not moving it because they don't care about the title, all they want is to delay the enforcement of consensus until their preferred date). We can officially add WP:POINT and WP:GAME to the list of ongoing policy breaches. Impru20 14:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, Impru20 thinks I am to be available 24/7 to read and parse huge walls of text and to compy with their wishes about how I follow processes (or not), while they simultaneously admonish me for issuing a 3RR warning to someone who had reverted three times (and made no other contributions to the page).

This is possibly related to Impru's last time spent on the page, some 3 years ago, where they had to be warned to stay off Wikimucker's talk page (and refused to do so) and I was subject to battleground behaviour and walls of text, akin to what is happening now (where they have added some 19k to the talk page in less than 24 hours, but no substantive content in approximately 3 years). The bottom line is the page was split, without preserving or noting the page history, just over 2 weeks out from the election to which the polls refer. The current placement interferes not at all with the page - the section is at the bottom of the article so if someone doesn't want to see the poll information, they can just stop reading. I asked that if the page was going to be split that a proper discussion take place and process be followed. Apparently less than 24 hours discussion and only 7 people participating, with no notice on any related articles or projects, is enough to satisfy Impru's railroading. Frankly, I'm at work, and don't have time to respond to the above wall, so this will have to do. FWIW, I've added the appropriate split template to the article now and will notify involved users and appropriate pages/projects in a few hours. Bastun 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear; all of your behaviour during the last days is based on a personal grudge you have on me! I intervened in the discussion in good faith. I obviously do not have to ask you for any permission to do so, nor does the fact that I haven't become involved in the article within the last three years give you any leverage or superior right over my own opinions. It was you who kept ignoring my arguments, keeping attacking me and mocking me to the point of stress just because you couldn't get consensus your way. You have even accused others of WP:TE just because of their arguing in favour of the enforcement of consensus, and you do not have the "three years ago" excuse there.

Nonetheless, I remind you of WP:UNCIVIL: to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has changed their approach, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, are in themselves potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated. Even if we were to take your version of facts of three years ago as true (it isn't, but I sincerely don't have the time to re-live what you and Wikimucker did to me nor is it in any way related to this), you have no right to keep repeteadly bringing it up in an entirely unrelated discussion years later just because you can't bother to read others' comments and reply with constructive arguments.

P.S. Just because of being a prolific editor in an article does not make you exempt of 3RR. You chose to warn only the user who disagreed with you, and not the other (and more obvious) violation. Ask yourself why. Impru20 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Funny that. This complaint starts with a wall of text.

A perusal of the archives around the Admin parts here shows that Impru is a regular user of Administrator appeals.

If I were myself a perennial in this part of the wiki it would be because I was clearly unable to reach a civil accommodation with my fellow editors and to respect their work and our occasional differences, which differences are clear on the self same talk page that is the subject of the complaint(albeit further down). It is incumbent upon us, as editors, to manage these differences without battering each other with a soup of policies and obtuse e walls of text. WP:WeAllHaveBetterThingsToDo comes to mind. I would find that embarrassing to be honest.

But I am not such a perennial, am I??? Craven apologies in advance to any poor Admin who has read this far down. Wikimucker (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Firstly: abusing of WP:TL;DR to try to dismiss legitimate evidence and valid rationales is disruptive by itself.

No, it's not true that I am a "regular user of Administrator appeals". The only recent time I have come to ANI has been a couple days ago because I was directly insulted and intimidated at my talk page (it obviously led to a quick block). Within the whole of 2019 I have only come to ANI twice: one in February 2019 and another one in July 2019. Both were obvious and extreme cases of disruption which were summarily blocked. The only other time I got mentioned in ANI throughout 2019 (thus, one of the results you'll get from the archives) was in June, to put me as a positive example: A user who has given a sensible explanation and has acted constructively is Impru20 . They gave an actual rationale instead of going completely defensive which RaviC has done. RaviC should talk a leaf out of Impru20's playbook.

Nonetheless, Wikimucker, it happens that my name shows up at the ANI archives 22 times. Bastun's name, ironically, shows up 69 times (). It would be nice as well to determine how many of these are because of Bastun/myself coming here on our own volition and how many of these are because of us being reported, but it's nonetheless ironic that you dub me a "perennial user" of ANI just because of the sheer historic number of results in the ANI archive, yet you ignore Bastun's own count, which triples mine. Not that I really care, but your own distorted argument would actually damage your cause, not help it. Impru20 18:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You really don't want to make all this any easier for the admins to follow Impru20, do you??? Wikimucker (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I do make it easier by providing evidence. Another one would be this one: Wikimucker removing the 3RR warning on their talk page dubbing it as "Impru20 shite". So, it's cool for Aréat to be warned of 3RR in order for them to be intimidated from conducting any further edit on the article, yet when it is you the violator such a warning becomes "shit"? Interesting. Impru20 19:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You were told 3 years ago to stay off my talk page permanently, that order is a unique one on my talk page and will likely always be. Don't expect any thanks for breaching that order. Wikimucker (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I won't be wasting my time on grudges any of you have because of a discussion that took place three-years-ago; your "wish" for me not to comment in your talk page is not a justification to ignore a WP:3RR warning on a clear breach of such rule and dub it as "shit". You have also removed the ANI notice from your talk when I am required to post it under Misplaced Pages rules no matter your own preferences, but somehow you think you are above all of it. Nonetheless, and as I told you, I warned you out of pure courtesy despite your straight violation of 3RR. Probably next time you should get a full report at WP:AN3 and get a straight block so that you stop short on your impertinence. Impru20 20:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

If it has your name on it you know it you know it will go Impru20. Nothing changed in 3 years. Wikimucker (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The main issue at hand is what you are doing at Talk:2020 Irish general election, not whatever grudge you may have from 3, 5 or 10 years ago. If you are not going to read or address the commented out evidence, I'd politely ask you to stop posting placeholder comments, so as to give admins a breath. Thank you. Impru20 21:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please. That is quite enough Impru20, thank you in advance for stopping now. 21:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimucker (talk • contribs)

It wasn't Wikimucker who posted a 3RR warning on Aréat's page, it was me, so WM's opinion of my doing that is irrelevant. You accuse WM of breaching 3RR, but according to the 4 diffs you posted, they haven't. Three is not four, but one of the four diffs you posted was not a revert of the opinion polls. Ironically, WP:SPLITTING has this to say: "A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." Between this page and Talk:2020 Irish general election, you have added just shy of 40k, within 36 hours, on this one topic. While maintaining that you are not adding walls of text and that others saying you are is a personal attack. I'm done... Bastun 22:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

JAYSUS Bastun please stop, please. There is quite enough here already with no further input required from you or from Impru20 . Let this be an absolute end to it the pair of you. Wikimucker (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bastun, I concur with Wikimucker here and I won't be taking your bait, as most of what you say has either been already replied or is just a repetition of the same mantra on attempting to minimize myself and my contributions. Everything I had to say has been said. However, a small consideration on this new statement of you: one of the four diffs you posted was not a revert of the opinion polls So, does it look like you are issuing 3RR warnings without even knowing what WP:3RR is?

Four edits of any kind that reverts content added by other user or users, whether they are the same or different users, and which involve the same or different content, are a violation of 3RR. They do not even need to be tagged as actual reverts, just being edits that undo any other editors' actions. Now this is enough; thank you for your input, but if you can't provide anything else I'd just call for any uninvolved admin to review this. Impru20 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Aaaaand Stop There. :( Wikimucker (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside the tangential issues for now, I support Impru20's observation that we have a sufficient consensus to make the article split, but two editors are blocking that. This is not helpful editing. Bondegezou (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The article has been split. Number 57 did it, asserting that process had been followed (it hadn't, as far as I can see - they removed the split discussion template from the article page and moved the content, which has now lost the history and according to WP:PROSPLIT doesn't meet WP's licensing terms.) That aside, Iveagh Gardens has said they've no problem having the split page deleted and created with the edit summary required by WP's licence. Bastun 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to have any clue on how WP:PROSPLIT even works. The page's history is not moved into the new article in the split process, and just because an edit summary is not filled properly does not mean the whole splitting must start anew. Much to the contrary, you can easily solve it by using Template:Copied at both the parent and the child articles as per WP:CORRECTSPLIT, as I just did here and here, to keep attribution on the parent's page history.

You two have been wikilaywering and blocking further action based on random excuses in order to unilaterally delay the split, despite overwhelming consensus for conducting it right away (something that even Iveagh Gardens asks for in the diff you provide!). But worst of it is that, as a way of accomplishing that, both you and WM have launched a full smear campaign on myself personally just because I contested your actions, by casting aspersions on me both at Talk:2020 Irish general election and here at ANI without even caring to provide any evidence while trying to discredit my valid rationale by dismissing it as "text-walls" despite the essay on it expressly stating that doing so is disruptive. The split is now done with, but the intractable behavioural problems still remain. As Number 57 hints, probably some action should be taken against the perpretators of this embarrassing episode to discourage such a drama from being repeated in the future. Impru20 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Impru20 Please withdraw that gratuitous ad hominen directed at me, I will accept your simply editing it out, less being more here. Wikimucker (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not a "gratuitous ad hominem". We are at ANI; evidence is everything here, unsupported accusations are of little use. Now please, do not talk to me ever again. Cheers. Impru20 17:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

God, and that talk section on that page only started off as an attempt to seek a quick consensus, what! Wikimucker (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

An "overwhelming" consensus? ;-) Impru has now addressed the licensing issue and hasn't been in any way condescending about it - good lad. As the main issue raised seems to be the size of the table and the first world problem of having to scroll lots to get to the footnotes, I'm amazed nobody just used the table's 'hide' function, but hey, I guess not everyone can know everything about every aspect of Misplaced Pages, and that's no sin. Every day is a schoolday, as they say. That being the case, the inclusion of just this years's polls won't be an issue, as we're likely to see only one or two more after this weekend, plus RTÉ's exit poll. Bastun 14:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack from User:DBigXray

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

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

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

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

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

The requirements for the ongoing section of WP:ITN is "the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information". Removal is done with a nomination at WP:ITN/C to build consensus that the article either meets or fails to meet the criteria. I read the Citizenship Amendment Act protests article, determined that at the time it no longer met the criteria and started a good faith nomination for its removal. User:DBigXray made several updates to the target article -- this is wonderful. User DBigXray then posted their updated content in the nom at ITN/C and used that as evidence that "you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove". Being called a liar, especially when using fraudulent evidence meets the criteria of a personal attack. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here asking for bans or sanctions or anything of the sort, just for someone who is uninvolved to point out to User DBigXray that such conduct is inappropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

^^^Yet another reason, if we needed it, to just blank the main page. ——SN54129 14:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:You are so right. WTH, @DBigXray:, you didn't call someone a liar, did you? You are far too experienced to do such a thing. Very disappointed and saddened.-- Deepfriedokra 14:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray called BS on LaserLegs' claims, which he backed up with evidentiary diffs. Grandpallama (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ahem, as an ITN regular can I please ask that this not turn into a "bash the Main Page" thread. Also is it just me or does the first diff point to a 2006 version of Jennifer Hudson? Plus I don't see any attempt to discuss this with DBigXray before coming here.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray supported his concern with a series of diffs (declaring them "fraudulent" puts you in the same category of DBigXray, so consider the irony). A personal attack usually involves unsubstantiated claims. I'm unpersuaded by the evidence here, and actually a little more concerned with the behavior of the OP at the conversation in question. Grandpallama (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

And a link to the "calling a liar" edit would also be helpful.-- Deepfriedokra 14:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 To be precise, DBigXray didn't call someone a liar. DBigXray said, "you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove". This is not like saying someone is a liar or that someone is lying. There is no evidence that DBigXray attributed the verb "lie" to LaserLegs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The "evidence" DBigXray used to support their claims was added to the target article after I nominated it for removal from ITN. That's the whole point here. The link in which I was called a liar is here --LaserLegs (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"you have now resorted to lies that are quite easy to prove" is quite clearly attributing the use of a lie to me, thus calling me a liar. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: Dif, please.-- Deepfriedokra 14:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The word "liar" appears nowhere in that diff. Moreover, DBigXray was responding to your current claims that nothing had happened since 1/17, which were, indeed, BS. You can't simply ignore changes to the article that occurred between now and the time you nominated it. This is getting close to a boomerang situation. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Actullay, the word is ";lies" in the dif. @DBigXray: C'mon, man.-- Deepfriedokra 14:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Which...eh. If you provide diffs to support that someone is being less than honest, it might not be great to label them as "lies," but it's different than slinging allegations of dishonesty without providing evidence that someone appears to be deliberately presenting an inaccurate portrayal of events to support their own position. Grandpallama (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The criteria is continuously updated with new, pertinent information, not continuously edited. It's a real struggle explaining the difference. Pasting a mountain of diffs which contain ref fixes and content tweaks is not the same as new information. I actually read the article and evaluated the updates as visible to our readers, and found it lacking. It's ok for me to be wrong there. It's not ok to ignore the distinction between updates and edits and call me a liar. No boomerang at all. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you should probably let the matter drop. As noted above, you are at least as guilty of every accusation you have leveled against DBigXray, for example where they used the word lies, you used a similar term "fraudulent". Instead of running to ANI to gain some sort of "first move advantage" in what is ultimately an inconsequential and petty dispute, you should probably have just walked away and left the matter alone. Coming here first has only brought your own behavior in the matter under scrutiny as well, and I can't say it makes you look particularly good either. DbigXray should have probably not used the word "lies" that one time. Other than noting that, there's absolutely nothing useful to do here. Recommend we close this thread, WP:TROUT both of you, and get on with our day. --Jayron32 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Per Jayron-- Trout bouth and close' OP merely wanted admonishment for DBigXray. That is given. Nothing more to do.-- Deepfriedokra 14:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, TBH. I'm not here to re-hash the removal discussion, or explain how ITN works. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There once was a laser with the audacity
to accuse the x-ray machine teh Big X of mendacity'-- Deepfriedokra 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)'
called mendacious in turn
it too felt the burn
both trouted for alleging a lack of veracity incivil capacity-- Deepfriedokra 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
+1 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

--2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There once was a limerick with potential

Which unfortunately didn't really scan because it had too many syllables

Or sometimes too few

And anyway -- who knew?

But it does have potential with some work.

EEng 16:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Sarcastic Sid, over there. I thought it was very good. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There once was a droll engineer

who's rhymes were known without peer

his limericks though

had some room to grow

last to write owes the other a beer.

2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Since the thread was closed quickly while I was away, without allowing me to comment, so I will exercise my right to respond as a defendant here.
  Firstly, LaserLegs made no effort of bringing this to my User talk page before bringing this trivial issue to ANI.

DBigXray called BS on LaserLegs' claims, which he backed up with evidentiary diffs. stated above by Grandpallama is a perfect TLDR; of what I have to say.

The situation is quite simple. WP:ITN says

Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status.

Looking at the updates in the article for the last 7 days until the time when LaserLegs nominated it for removal, shows that more than 43 KBs of updates were added in past week (diff) and then LaserLegs went ahead and claimed it as "No update". If this is not a blatant lie ("untruth" / "outrageously wrong") then what else is it? I showed why that is a lie with evidence in the form of a collapsed summary of content that was added in past week. To be clear, I did not call anyone a liar, I commented on their statement that their assertion that article received no update recently was a lie. (There is a difference.) If you hate your statement being called a lie, may be consider not making outrageously wrong statements. (In hindsight, I could have used "outrageously wrong" instead of "lie" and avoided this sily mess, for that I take the trouting)
Regardless of the content that was added 'after his nomination', there was already enough update to pass the ITN Criteria for ongoing event. Yet LaserLegs continued to speak "untruth" here on ANI claiming that all the said updates was added after he nominated it", going as far as calling the evidence "fraudulent" and it seems no one bothered to check the timestamps and called out the obvious BS in this.
User:Deepfriedokra, I note that you failed to do this simple fact check/timestamp checks on claims by Laserlegs before making a conclusion.
Other than this it appears to me that there are some WP:CIR related issue in LaserLeg's understanding of WP:ITN#Ongoing event criteria and a discussion over it is taking place at WT:ITN --DBigXrayᗙ 20:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you got to share that. Closing again. --Jayron32 12:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

PunjabCinema07 and Gurbaksh Chahal

The Gurbaksh Chahal article has been the subject of long-term efforts by various meatpuppets to shape the article with a POV favorable to the subject. There have been 5 prior ANI threads related to this disruption, with this one being the most recent. PunjabCinema07 (talk · contribs) is the latest meatpuppet to have a go at the article. So far, their efforts at BLPN have been unsuccessful, but they are a threat to our neutrality and should thus be neutralized. At both BLPN and Talk:Gurbaksh Chahal, they have made false accusations of trolling and vandalism against the editors who have fought hard to keep this page from becoming a PR puff-piece , , , . This is the same kind of rhetoric employed by prior meatpuppets on that page, so it would seem that there is a connection between PunjabCinema07 and prior troublemakers (on this page, hit Ctrl + F and type 'vandalism'). Moreover, PC07 has admonished me that I should always assume good faith, which is quite rich in light of their history of making wild accusations. This individual is both NOTHERE and deeply incompetent. Please deal with them appropriately. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

My suggestions have been in good faith and I have made no changes to Gurbaksh Chahal. I have alerted the BLP Noticeboard of your behavior and the other two editors Chisme (talk · contribs) and Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) that continuously vandalize this page. I would encourage editors and administrators to look at the last few vandalized edits made from November 24, 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gurbaksh_Chahal&oldid=928084378 and compare it to how much it was just vandalized today. It's clear you have personal bias to this page and have some ulterior agenda for it be written in a negative and libelous manner turning this into a WP:Attack_pages. I have reviewed the history and whenever any other editor such as Joydeep ghosh has tried to help write this article to WP:neutral point of view, was attacked with the page locked and further being vandalized. I urge others to look at the edits made by Winged Blades of Godric,Lepricavark, Chisme and hold these three editors responsible for vandalism. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I rest my case. Lepricavark (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

After the sheer amount of vandalism made today on Gurbaksh Chahal. I rest my case. It's abundantly clear you are working in conjunction with Winged Blades of Godric and urge you to disclose if you are getting paid to vandalize this page. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• The account is near-confirmedly an UPE account, whose sole editorial activity has been limited to Draft:Rubina Bajwa, rumored to be in a relation with G. Chahal. Somebody block this account, please. ∯WBG 15:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Unsupported allegations of paid editing, vandalism and meatpuppetry, combined with general tendentiousness = WP:NOTHERE. Or almost. Be mindful, I beg you. ——SN54129 15:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@PunjabCinema07: This is a content dispute, and you have already reported at WP:BLPN. calling edits with which you disagree vandalism is not something you should be doing.-- Deepfriedokra 15:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, this is a clear UPE account with the task of main-spacing Rubina Bajwa. Three separate NPP reviewers (me, GSS and Satdeep, who accepted it once on wrong premises) had draftified it, asking for an AFC acceptance but he has reverted all of us. Note this comment by a fourth editor; further, the Joydeep ghosh, PC07 refers to in the BLPN has been since blocked for spamming. ∯WBG 15:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: You are not helping yourself.-- Deepfriedokra —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: - What on Earth did I do? I did not entertain him any; there's a reason as to why the page is ECP protected. ∯WBG 15:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@PunjabCinema07: These are long term, established, trusted editors, who have shown they are here for Misplaced Pages. You might want to reconsider your words.-- Deepfriedokra 15:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry if I offended here. But, I request you to take a look at the vandalism that is taking place on Gurbaksh Chahal today and try to stop it from further damage. PunjabCinema07 (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note I returned this to Draft:Rubina Bajwa and move protected. It should be reviewed via WP:AfC.-- Deepfriedokra 15:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• This is a content dispute. Please discuss competing versions on talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. If unable to attain consensus, please seek WP:dispute resolution. For violations of WP:BLP, please discuss at WP:BLPN. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra 15:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  The content dispute can be discussed elsewhere, but PC07 is a NOTHERE editor and ANI is the appropriate place for discussing behavioral issues. Lepricavark (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• @PunjabCinema07: I have received your email and am not inclined to intervene in this matter. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Add me to the above. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ad Orientem, this seem to be some kind of mass-canvassing-attempt given the comments by DBigXray, Anachronist and 331dot over this thread. Given he was already warned by Anachronist to not admin-shop (hours back), can you kindly check whether the email sent to you post-dates the warning? ∯WBG 15:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: It predates Anachronist's warning and was probably a mass mailing thing. But it does not violate the warning given the time stamp. Beyond which there are enough cooks in this kitchen. No need for me to join the crowd. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Query has user been template:PAID warned?-- Deepfriedokra 17:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

   Done-- Deepfriedokra 17:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

  And they deny it. Can't say I believe them, given that 1) they are an SPA on an article with a history of SPAs and 2) they believe everyone who disagrees with them is being paid. I think we're giving this user way too much leeway. After all, they still won't stop with the false accusations of vandalism . They don't get it and they aren't going to get it. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have again suggested PunjabCinema07 stop accusing other editors of vandalism.-- Deepfriedokra 18:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

PunjabCinema07 wrote, “I urge others to look at the edits made by Winged Blades of Godric,Lepricavark, Chisme and hold these three editors responsible for vandalism.” An objective look at my contributions to the Gurbaksh Chahal article will show that my contributions are well-sourced and fair-minded. The problem here is that friends and paid friends of the subject want to bury his past as a domestic abuser. Chisme (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Chisme I suggest you assume good faith on my suggestions and not enter personal attack territory by labeling me as a "paid friend." I've seen from the talk pages how you have bullied other editors on this page and I won't tolerate the same abuse. One objective read on my thread would suggest that I am ONLY helping to neutralize this page to BLP standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gurbaksh_Chahal PunjabCinema07 (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • You accused me of vandalism. You're wrong. I never bullied anybody. I only prevented this page from being white-washed. End of story. Chisme (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Chisme, this tells a different story. Mysteries Abound? https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gurbaksh_Chahal#Mysteries_Abound:_Dating_in_Encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed Draft:Rubina Bajwa at AFC in response to a request by User:Deepfriedokra. A previous article on the subject was deleted in 2017 after AFD. This draft does not show any new notability after 2017. If the draft is resubmitted again without new evidence of notability, I am prepared to nominate the draft for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite Block

PC07 has been give more than enough WP:ROPE. We've seen repeated accusations of vandalism (which required numerous warnings to stop); mass-canvassing of admins via email; pointing to a blocked spammer (joydeep ghosh) as the editor they want to imitate (which should be a NOTHERE version of the duck test); repeated accusations that other editors are paid and/or editing in concert; telling other editors to AGF while blatantly assuming bad faith of those same editors; the list goes on. This behavior is IDHT and NOTHERE, in addition to being reflective of an individual who is entirely out of touch with how Misplaced Pages works. They've learned some basic Wikiterms, but they can't/won't use those terms correctly. This is exactly the pattern of behavior that I have previously observed from other meatpuppets on the Chahal page, which leads me to strongly believe that this editor has some undisclosed connections to the article subject. Enough is enough and it's time to show them the door. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Lepricavark (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support after this post with continued aspersions and personal attacks directed towards WBG. I do admire the courage to remind others to WP:AGF about their edits while they WP:ABF about others. They have no idea on how to handle an editing dispute and aren't interested in learning how - they've had warning after warning JUST TODAY and continue. Enough. Ravensfire (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

They've been blocked for 72 hours for their disruptive actions, had ECP removed after gaming the system and been warned by a variety of admins, plus have more watching their talk page. Some WP:ROPE here may be worthwhile to see if any of this is absorbed. They were still tossing around asperions and showing zero faith while demanding it be shown towards them, which is not helpful. Reverting to their preferred version while demanding others use the talk page is also signs of a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor and while they've denied a COI, given the whitewashing on Gurbaksh Chahal and their (re)creation of Draft:Rubina Bajwa who just happens to be dating Chahal, I'll hold my suspicions. Striking support for indef, for now. Ravensfire (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Obviously, ∯WBG 02:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Also, he's trying to game ECP. ∯WBG 02:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Winged Blades of Godric, noticed that too (poor IaBot is getting overworked tonight!), wonder if this is Bothiman's latest sock with Vijay (actor) under ECP. Ravensfire (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not the first time, I am seeing gaming via IABot. There needs to be some kind of anti-abuse measures. ∯WBG 03:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support very likely an undisclosed paid editor per this comment by Satdeep Gill who was contacted by Gurbaksh Chahal to whitewash his page and to upload images. I guess we need a CU here to check if Gchahal2019 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has any connection with PC07. Gchahal2019 made no edits on en-wiki but uploaded a couple of images to commons-wiki. GSS  04:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support a block for personal attacks. Neutral as to whether it should be for 72 hours or indefinite. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor so these personal attacks need to stop. When does personal attack territory apply to all of you? Or is this there when anyone tries to disagree with you, you bully them by trying to ban them? Apparently, assume good faith doesn't apply here, and you can harass new editors like me at anytime? Winged Blades of Godric, Lepricavark, Ravensfire? PunjabCinema07 (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Paid or not, you won't be any kind of editor for much longer if you continue down this path. If you wish to continue editing, you would be wise to disclose whatever connections, financial or otherwise, that you have to Gurbaksh Chahal. You are not going to convince anyone that you just randomly happened across Chahal's article. Clearly, you got there from somewhere. Lepricavark (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Not that we need further evidence to support an indef, but now that PC07 has gamed their way into having ECP, they are causing disruption in mainspace despite the fact that any reasonable person would realize that such edits haven't got a chance of standing. Lepricavark (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm going to bed. PunjabCinema07, enjoy your temporary 'victory', but I'll be astonished if you're still around when I return. Tell Gurbaksh I said 'Hello'. Lepricavark (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, when will the personal attack territory stop from you? I believe the editors here have made it very clearly that this behavior needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PunjabCinema07 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• I gave them a 72 hour block for disruption Please feel free to unblock if you disagree. @Bishonen: could you check my work if you are about?-- Deepfriedokra 12:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not comfortable being the only admin looking at this. Somone else should opine.-- Deepfriedokra 12:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm not an admin, Deepfriedokra, but I've put a lot of hours in here, and it looks completely fair. I would have closed this, but there it s a question on the table about a NOTHERE indef. (IMO, you'd have been good on that, too). John from Idegon (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details here, but if the disruption was limited to that one article, why not partial block or pull the EC user right? Both would have worked. I see that you've done the latter, but then reversed yourself (?). El_C 13:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Cause I'm not comfortable being the only admin looking at this-- I'd I feel I was acting out of emotion. Someone with a fresh look should decide a course of action.-- Deepfriedokra 13:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if that article is the only source of problems —is that the case?— in which case we have two mechanism of equal usefulness to employ. El_C 13:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The editor was engaging in personal attacks, calling other editors vandals. The personal attacks were both on talk pages and in edit summaries, which are more problematic because they are difficult to redact. A partial block would not have been sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, good to know. But their block will expire in three days — what do we do then? And again, is this all about this one article? El_C 15:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved admin (other than having been canvassed in email, as noted above). I've been following the developments here, and I agree with the 72 hour block. The user has not attempted any of the WP:DR methods available. I will remove the EC right to encourage PC07 to do that once the block expires. If I see a good-faith effort at dispute resolution and understanding of the policies and guidelines here, I'll restore the EC right. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Or we could partial block them just from that article (not including the talk page), leaving them with the EC right for other articles. Although the manner in which they gained that user right does seem to be somewhat suspect, so maybe that point is moot. El_C 15:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

ECP has been removed from them by Anachronist.Ravensfire (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support I know it's too late as PunjabCinema07 has been blocked for 72 hours, but I wanted to add my 2 cents to say he should be permanently blocked. His insults to others, his mysterious background knowledge of this article in spite of being a newcomer, and his bot-gaming of Misplaced Pages demonstrate rancorous bad faith. A prediction: When his 72-hour sentence expires he'll be back for more. He can't help himself. There will be another round of what to do about PunjabCinema07s on the notice boards, after which he will be blocked permanently. Why not get the job done right and early? Why not block him now? Chisme (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry, Deep, I was AFK when you asked. I'm actually in favour of an indefinite block of PunjabCinema07 as an obvious undisclosed paid editor, and generally disruptive with it. AGF is not a suicide pact. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC).

  @Chisme: FWIW, it's never too late to extend a block. I have not looked at his reply to my block notice, if someone could look at that. I will not be likely to be around till Tuesday. And I think it's important that this be clearly a community decision and not a rogue admin going of the rails.20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)-- Deepfriedokra

• Support. This is clearly not a good-faith member of the community. Guy (help!) 11:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Has anyone started SPI yet? We have a sock or meatpuppet I guess see M.A.K. Writers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GSS  12:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support and we need an SPI. They are either paid or the person themselves. Happy to send some evidence to whomever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• And now the meatpupupet ring is back to trying to completely remove all references to Chahal being a woman beater . The attempted addition of puffery was bad enough, but the whitewashing is completely intolerable. There's no reason to waste time negotiating with such blatant meatpuppets. Lepricavark (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:RyanRReider7795 editing radio station article he/she is employee of

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

I would like to bring to your attention, User:RyanRReider7795 who extensively edited KDSJ on 22 January, 2020. This user is an employee at the radio station, per edit. The edits to the page broke formats and removed citations. The edits also inserted a bit of original research. The edits were generally disruptive. I would say this justifies a conflict of interest. Thanks! ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 04:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree on this. Radio station articles are kinda my field. These edits removing standard information from the article, that veers wildly into vandalism territory in my book. There is no reason for the station's tower location, an FCC link, an FCC history link, and a South Dakota station stub template to be removed. None. Clearly the editor is only here for advertising and possibly vandalism reasons. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:24 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

Also, this edit by RyanRReider7795 is a complete copy/paste of the "about" page from the KDSJ website. He did not write that himself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Milonica and Neutralhomer: Looks to me like a new user who does not have any knowledge about editing or policy, I put a COI notice on RyanRReider7795s usertalk page, seems to have stopped editing for now, so hopefully, they will start to engage there, and this can be worked out amicably. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D: You would be surprised, see Misplaced Pages:Lamest_edit_wars/Personal_involvement#WNRI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:59 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Yeesh, I would be surprised. Well I'm still going to try and assume good faith, this already feels a tad too WP:BITEy for my taste, even if it was too some degree deserved. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC) didn't anyone ever tell you pings don't work on IPs :-)

We have a few accounts that are named after their IPs, so I wasn't sure if you were one of those, so I played it safe. :) I guess I'm a little jaded at the moment from the whole Pauley Perrette et al. discussion and it's shining through a little. :S - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:12 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

Good call Neutralhomer. I didn't even catch that. A long time ago, this used to be a permanently ban-able offense. I guess times have changed. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 04:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I just warned them about that, and also dropped off the required ANI notice. Hopefully they'll start to engage soon. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The user has apologized and is being helped, I suggest we close. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer off-wiki attacks

On 22 January 2020, in connection with a BLP content dispute, the following incidents transpired. I list them in chronological order.

• Editor Neutralhomer stated at Talk:Pauley Perrette that he was "actively trying to communicate with the asexual community on Twitter right now to help them understand the goings-on here at Misplaced Pages."

• I cautioned Neutralhomer at his User talk page that such off-wiki activities might be seen as an attempt to influence a Misplaced Pages community debate by recruiting new or existing users to support his point of view, and reminded him that WP:STEALTH discourages stealth canvassing.

• Neutralhomer acknowledged at his User talk page that he had been "contacting multiple groups on Twitter (along with Ms. Perrette) who are in an uproar over this." He also said he had "outed" his own Misplaced Pages account on Twitter.

• Neutralhomer then tweeted a public attack against another editor involved in our BLP dispute, Schazjmd. By quoting her comments made at Talk:Pauley Perrette, Neutralhomer left no doubt whom he meant by "people with hard heads and closed minds."

• In response, I warned Neutralhomer at Talk:Pauley Perrette: "Off-wiki personal attacks against another editor are unacceptable and may lead to sanctions against you."

• The next day, Neutralhomer attacked me by name, tweeting: "I believe, by NedFausa's behavior and knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy and structure, he is likely a sockpuppet of a blocked user."

I request that an administrator admonish Neutralhomer to immediately stop using Twitter or any other off-wiki medium to publicly impugn his fellow Wikipedians. NedFausa (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

First, yet again, nothing I have done has been in "stealth". I have outed my own account here on Misplaced Pages on my own Twitter account. So, not stealth. I reached out and I have explained how things are done here on Misplaced Pages to those in the Asexual Community via my Twitter account (as no one else was). I explained on Misplaced Pages first that I believed that NedFausa was a sock because he has a knowledge of Misplaced Pages that a two-month old member of the community just wouldn't have. So, if he would like me to follow up on my belief of him being a sock and do an SPI, I can. I was waiting for an admin's response. It's Ned's choice...wait for the admin's response, or I go to SPI. Personally, I'd rather go to bed, I gotta work tomorrow (some of us have real lives). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:10 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

I have started that SPI because 1) I'm tired, 2) I'm not in the mood for this nonsensical bullcrap, and 3) I gotta work tomorrow. Good night. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:21 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

As the IP named in the SPI, I can only concur that 'nonsensical bullcrap' is an appropriate description for it. It seems to be based on no evidence of a link between NedFausa and myself beyond the fact that we both disagree with Neutralhomer's attempts to use ambiguous Twitter statements to justify definitive assertions regarding the sexuality of living persons. I'm not NedFausa. I am apparently on the opposite side of the Atlantic from NedFausa. The only thing we would appear to have in common is a proper understanding of Misplaced Pages policy. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Given your editing behaviors, your editing styles, and your bias towards Asexual people, I disagree. Plus, I don't know where you live (could be using a VPN) and anyone could say they live anywhere. That's what we have SPIs for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:51 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Your above comment is quite negative. I looked at the SPI, and you can read my comment there, but as of right now this is not going anywhere given the evidence so far provided. It also appears based on the above that your struggling with WP:CIVILITY right now. I would urge you to back-off for a moment and try to gain some perspective, or if that's too much to focus any continued discussion on policy based arguments for inclusion or exclusion of data, IOW comment on the content and not the contributer. I also urge you to keep in mind that it is not vital that Misplaced Pages contain every new piece of information as soon as it becomes public, there is rarely harm in waiting for things to become more clear, recalling that Misplaced Pages is not news. If you do have solid behavioral evidence of sockpuppettry, please bring it to the attention of the SPI clerks right now, and confine such claims to the investigation page, elsewise it will appear whether intentional or not, that you are just casting WP:ASPERSIONS, thanks for reading. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is an ANI thread about me and I have been attacked by Ned, FlightTime, and the IP on a couple different threads, so my civility is out the window. Plus, getting them to listen to anything is basically like talking to a wall. You bring anything to their attention and it's like "nope, don't want to talk about it", but they love to sling that "you are repeating yourself" line. Damn right I am, cause no one is listening. A community is watching, they are hurt, upset, a little pissed, and we are ignoring our own policies for reasons I can't even begin to understand....and for what? I don't know. I honestly don't. So, forgive me if I'm not civil, it's gone. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:24 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I do understand, it's just I think you needed a reminder that ultimately that kind of behavior is not going to help your case. We all lose our cool from time to time, it can happen, and when you see yourself doing it I think it's best to recognize that you're not in the best mindset to handle the situation and step away for a moment. I also agree that there has been some incivility all around, without assigning blame to any one actor in particular over any others. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear the above remark should not be taken to imply any incivility specifically on the part of NedFausa as I have not examined the conduct of any one individual editor in any detail, it should only be construed as referencing the larger set of discussions more generally, if anyone feels there is an inappropriately veiled reference to any specific users that a reasonable observer would construe as such, I will strike it upon request. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I get your point and I am considering a step back, but I got a little more fight left in me. I am just trying to get those hardheaded people to understand what I am trying to say. So far I would get better results head-desking. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:26 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Misplaced Pages is not a battlefield. I notified you of the BLP DS. Please take this as a warning that I will topic ban you if you continue down this path. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Meta email use by blocked sockmaster

I have once again received a Meta email from blocked sockmaster Zenkaino lovelive regarding his block:

"Dear SlitherioFan2016, I'm Zenkaino lovelive. I'm blocked indefinitely because of abusing multiple accounts, but block evasion is occurred because of someone's misjudgement about 175.223.3.71. This is mobile IP which I didn't use. Block evasion is misjudgement. How can I appeal the checkuser decision that was made and what is the best way that I can do? If you want to reply, please respond via talk page or email."

After receiving this email I went to check for a sockpuppet investigation on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenkaino lovelive/Archive and rather interestingly, found nothing about this particular IP. Furthermore, the only edit I found linked to this address is this edit to a UTRS bot page.

As a side note this user sent me Meta emails a few months ago regarding their block for sockpuppetry and changing WP:SO's period to 2-3 months, so I filed a thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive309#Note regarding WP:SO to discuss this. The result was for this user to appeal to the Arbitration Committee should they wish to appeal their block. --SlitherioFan2016 (/_Contribs) 07:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually if you look at their talk page, User:Berean Hunter did say they used that IP based in part at least, on their own mention of using that IP. From what I can tell, given the obscurity of that edit and that it seemed to be intended to try and speed up their appeal, it seemed to be accepted that it was Zenkaino loveline. Frankly I think they're their own worst enemy. Their evasion seems to be fairly minor and pointless mostly arising because of their impatience. If an unblock request came to AN or ANI, I would probably have supported an unblock, if it had been 6 months since they last socked, they stopped denying their socking (the IPs aside, last time they used a lame my sister did it excuse), and they were not bugging people all over the place for an unblock or about how to get unblocked. None of these should be very hard, I mean maybe there's more than meets the eye since I'm not a CU but AFAICT they're done almost nothing on en.Misplaced Pages for at least 6 months. But instead their own impatience has ensured they have no chance of an unblock. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} I went to take a look at the discussion and found that Zenkaino denied using either of the IPs to make the edits, denying it once again in the email he sent me. However there should first be a check-user and then we can advance with this discussion. Interestingly I found that the user’s talk page and email access had been pulled. --SlitherioFan2016 (/_Contribs) 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Check declined by a checkuser. Per the access to nonpublic information policy, checkusers will not publicly associate a user with an IP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

They gave their permission to disclose their IP addresses after I asked them. SlitherioFan2016, ST47 is a checkuser who also looked at this when he denied the last request on their talk page. Are two checkusers not enough?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Yes, two Checkusers have given sufficient information that Zenkaino was the one evading their block. However the issue is if Zenkaino continues to resort to cross-wiki attempts to evade their block (in this case, misuse of the email this user function) then they are only pushing the date of their possible unblocking back. I would see a global lock for 6 months with the right to appeal to the Arbitration Committee so that they can take WP:SO --SlitherioFan2016 (/_Contribs) 21:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You can ask a steward to lock the account, but we can't do that here. Only stewards can lock or unlock accounts, and English Misplaced Pages has no authority over that process. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@SlitherioFan2016: you could try asking a steward now, but it might be easier if you just post on Zenkaino loveline's talk page making it clear that they are not to email you any more. IMO if you do so and they email you again, it should be easy to convince a steward to lock the account, and any future accounts they use to email you. Nil Einne (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Disney1999 and DisneyMan1999‎

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

Hello, I'm not sure where exactly to take this as I have a number of concerns so please redirect me if necessary. I spotted Disney1999 yesterday when I was doing pending change review and, as they had edited an article about the Disney company, I raised a WP:USERNAME concern on their talk page (qv). There has been no response to that.

Subsequently, Trivialist has reverted several edits by Disney1999 and has spotted a similarly named new account called DisneyMan1999‎ operating in the same area. It seems obvious that these are by the same person and, as they work exclusively on Disney-related articles, I think there is a conflict of interest. I have another, wider, concern that the edits are those of an experienced site user because there is nothing careful about the way they have leaped in. I suspect that these accounts are clones of each other and also of some master account operating elsewhere or previously blocked.

I'm advising all parties of this on their talk pages. Please let me know if I should do anything else. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The 'Birth name' given on User:DisneyMan1999 matches that of an account recently blocked for vandalism. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked DisneyMan1999. I expect Disney1999 is a sockpuppet, too, but leave that to another admin to take action. --Yamla (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, Disney1999 is clearly a sockpuppet, too, given the deleted draft, Draft:The Richardson Company. I'll block. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted by 165.120.15.119 and thank you, @Yamla:. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

All socks blocked, and tagged, nothing more to do here folks, suggest we close. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Block review

I am submitting a recent block I made for open review. The blocked editor is questioning whether or not the block is appropriate, so I am seeking further input. On 17 December, Alex Devens was warned for violating the NPA policy, based on comments calling another editor "asshole" here and "creep" here. He acknowledged reading that warning here. Yesterday, he called an editor an insane TDSer. Since he persisted in using personal attacks, despite being warned, I blocked him. Today, he responded, questioning the legitimacy of the block. I will also leave a note for him to put any comments he has about the matter on his own talk page so that I can copy his responses here. I submit here for review the block without further comment. Thank you all. --Jayron32 14:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• If TDSer means what I think it does then he got off lightly. This screed suggests we'd be better off without him altogether. Guy (help!) 14:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Are we supposed to guess what TDSer is? Because I am at a loss. El_C 14:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  This provides some context, as does this. --Jayron32 14:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm familiar with Trump derangement syndrome — I just did not pick up on the Engrish. El_C 14:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  As for the block, seems to be within the parameters of what I, at least, would have done in response to an NPA violation after warning. El_C 14:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  As a non-admin I'm not sure how much my opinion matters but here it is. I think the block was reasonable, perhaps a bit on the long side since it was a first block. I think sometimes the warnings aren't really heard and the block is useful. The question is how long should the warning be to get the message across. I would think a week would have been sufficient in this case as the user might get the message after calming down. Also, I think some people, especially new editors, don't understand the difference between NPA and FOC. If I call another editor an A-hole, that's a pretty clear personal attack. However, I think people may not get that saying, "All of your comments are stupid" or TDS in this case, is still shifting from discussing the content to the editors. That distinction is easier to miss if you are a newer editor or are new to contentious topics. While I see Guy's concern regarding the Gamergate comment, I can see how Misplaced Pages doesn't always seem to be welcoming POV that are reasonably widely held but often not supported by sources that are readily accepted here. Anyway, I personally think 1 month was long but within the range of reasonable. More importantly would be did the editor really understand the difference between discussing the content vs the editors and can that be explained to them (without wasting too much time)? Springee (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse - clearly appropriate block, but I would have made it indef and let them explain why we should allow someone with such a poor attitude to edit at all. I predict we'll be there before April. That being said, Mercurywoodrose is hosting some clear WP:BLP violations on their user page, and ought to clean it up before someone does it for them. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 15:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  I had not looked that closely, but have now. I concur, and have left a warning for them. --Jayron32 15:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• If it had been a week, I'd have been endorsing. But I'm afraid I do feel a month is too long, in all the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 15:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Just as a response on the length, since a few people have questioned it. I based the length on the frequency of editing, I tend to give shorter blocks for users who are more frequent editors and chose a longer (1 month block) here for this user given that their editing history is more sporadic; a shorter block may have expired without them even noticing it had been placed, given that this editor can go over a week at a time without coming to Misplaced Pages, I felt 1 month was long enough to get their attention. --Jayron32 15:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Now you've undeniably got his attention, you have the opportunity to consider shortening it.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  And I could. And I am always open to doing so if 1) there is consensus here to do so and/or 2) if the user in question shows that they have the intention and ability to adjust their behavior to match policy and expectation. Seeking that consensus is the purpose and intent of a thread like this. Lets see where it goes. --Jayron32 15:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Good block, but it should have been indefinite. A large proportion of this editors contributions have been disruptive: . - MrX 🖋 15:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good Block. Agree with MrX that it should be indefinite; the user has shown only that they are here to promote their agenda and will continue to come in conflict with others. --Jorm (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good block – A block for NPA after warning seems like a reasonable preventative measure. Initially I'd have thought a month was long for a first block (I'd expect 24hrs), but I find Jayron's explanation above for the duration to be very persuasive. I hope the blocked editor takes Jayron up on their offer above to shorten it. – Levivich 19:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block I disagree with those suggesting it should have been indefinite. Only very rarely do I support indefinite blocks right off. Beyond that the length of the block generally falls under admin discretion. Neither the block nor its duration strike me as unreasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good block No problem with the length. Miniapolis 00:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Good block - Clearly appropriate and, in some sense, the more lenient option. The next time such behavior occurs should be occasion for an indefinite block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Response from Alex Devens

• I am posting the response from Alex Devens below without comment. This was copied from his userpage. --Jayron32 15:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I actually appreciate all your consideration in this. When I left that comment on User:Mercurywoodrose's talk page, I wasn't thinking at all about the previous warnings I had received for personal harassment. In fact, I was barely thinking at all. I just saw his user page and was so taken aback by what I saw that I felt as though I had to say something, although looking back on it, it's clear to me now that I didn't really have to say anything. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and they should be allowed to express those opinions however they please, even if it's in a way that I personally think is over-the-top. That being said, I think there should be consistency regarding what are and aren't personal attacks on Misplaced Pages. The user page of the person in question included, in particular, a statement strongly implying that all members of the Republican Party (of which I am one) are "idiots." He also explicitly said "FU" to me in response to my message on his talk page, a far less than subtle euphemism of "fuck you." If, however, the powers-that-be at Misplaced Pages decide that my comment was over the line and his weren't, then I'll just shut up and take the ban for a month. This isn't the outcome I want, but it's certainly the one I expect the most. I can only do so much to defend my character, but I'm just one person (a person with a history of anger-fueled lapses in judgement, no less), and if enough people come to the conclusion that my character is not welcome and my behavior is unacceptable, I will begrudgingly accept those results. Alex Devens (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some kind of essay on Misplaced Pages, if there isn't already, that basically says "Just because someone else acts like an asshat without being warned, that does not give you the right to act like an asshat." WP:CIV might be a subjective policy but there comes a certain point where one should apply best judgment instead of trying to take a sample of what does and does not cross the line.--WaltCip (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

There is, actually. See Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks, specifically the section WP:NOTTHEM. --Jayron32 19:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Also WP:ASSHOLE. Narky Blert (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

UniSail2 personal attacks

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

UniSail2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has made a lot of personal attacks against me and I think this is enough. Even after he got unblocked he is still making personal attack.

• However, it seems that you are chewing so much Qat right now that is making you half-blind and acting with no sense at all !
• I do not blame him, he is still 21 years old ! I would like to reach an understanding or a compromise here, not a personal conflict. ...  please so I make sure that you are not deaf or something! Because I am really worried about you with the Qat daily consumption !
• @SharabSalam: I do not think the minister was talking about your grandfather,
• a kid is warning me while chewing Qat! Go take care of the Yemeni Civil War related articles, here is not a kindergarten where you swing around with adults!
• A civil discussion with a chewing Qat kid ! However, I hope that someone with authority and common sense removes you from here, because it seems at least three editors find you nothing but a pain in the ass !
• I do not an edit war with a kid talking about mental capabilities while chewing Qat which make humans act like animals. I only feel sorry for your parents or anyone who can bear dealing with you in real life, because you are rude and a liar !
• You are simply rude and a liar!
• You are simply delusional !
• After that he got blocked for 48 hours, his first post in the that talk page was,
• It seems that one editor tries to create a biased documentation of all the topics related to this man. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable, it is clear that he has a middle eastern mentally, where they worship what they like without taking objectivity into consideration
• You could not even hear a basic Arabic conversion, maybe you put the earphones in the wrong holes !.

-You can see all the discussions in this talk page Talk:Qasem Soleimani. I have been civil to this editor all time except that time when he mentioned my grandfather or my parents, I told him that he is not mentally capable of having a civilized discussion that time but that's after he said all of these insults to me. The editor got blocked but is still making personal attacks. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought we talked about attaching diffs to excerpts, SharabSalam, that way we can see if any of these occured before or after I blocked the user for personal attacks... El_C 15:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, there are too many diffs and I am using my phone right now but his comments like the last about about "wrong hole" made me report without any delay. Here are his comments after he got unblocked --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not mobile diffs — so green! El_C 15:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I modify mobile diffs all the time. I remove Mobile and the .m. part for those who can't read mobile diffs. I learned that when the admin Drmies said long time ago too much mobile diffs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(EC) You can actually fairly trivially convert mobile diffs to diffs which will work as normal diffs on a desktop device. Just remove the m in the URL. Or scroll to the bottom of the diff and click on 'Desktop'. Anyway, the first one is particularly troubling, not just for the personal attack but also for the bigotry "it is clear that he has a middle eastern mentally, where they worship what they like without taking objectivity into consideration." BTW I had a quick look and don't think there is anything else since their block. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Man, closing this report is proving difficult! Yes, I am aware of how to convert the awful green-highlighted mobile diffs to normal diffs.  Already done. El_C 15:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I understood his last comment to be personal attack when he said maybe you put your earphones in the wrong holes. I thought by wrong holes he meant something else. But anyway, after the ANI notice he said that he feels bad about my parents.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:WALEED3030

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

• WALEED3030 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. Please could someone take a look at this editors contributions. Their talkpage is full of warning messages, and I get a strong feel of both WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE from their edits. Their last batch of edits was to revert edits by User:Spike 'em, with no apparent rationale for this. Thanks. Lugnuts 16:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

They seem to be deliberately inserting factual errors with pretty much every edit. I had reported them at WP:AIV a few days ago, but no action was taken. Dee03 16:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I also reported them at AIV today, which was removed without action because I later logged an SPI (I was not aware of the potential socking until further checking their edits). Even if the SPI fails, the AIV should still be actioned as they are disruptively editing and ignoring large numbers of warnings. Spike 'em (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to add my agreement to all of the above. There are pretty major problems beyond someone not knowing the basics. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to be a bit of a contrarian here for a moment and pump the brakes. I don't see any obvious vandalism or bad faith editing scanning a bunch of random edits in their history, and the warning messages aren't for things I would consider egregiously blockable. If we're going to build a case to block someone like this, we're going to need to see some diffs "look at their contribs" isn't going to cut it. I'm looking at their contribs. I don't see it. I mean, it looks like they're writing a lot of sports statistics, probably running a bit afoul of being excessively detailed in doing so, but they're a new editor and it doesn't look like anyone has tried to explain anything to them. Just a lot of random boilerplate warnings with no follow up and no one reaching out to work with them. No, I'm not comfortable blocking them based on this, unless there's something I missed in my analysis of their contribs history; and there may be, but please provide some diffs for what I may be missing. --Jayron32 17:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This is just plain vandalism. This, this and this (adding Babar Azam as ODI captain on Pakistan national cricket team) are all speculative / unsourced. There is borderline edit warring on creating Babar Azam statistics in International Cricket. He added the same content to Babar Azam a number of times but was reverted. Spike 'em (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Please take a look at the contributions at Afghanistan Premier League and 2018–19 Afghanistan Premier League, with the diffs I posted on their talkpage. There's also been this unexplained date change, and a batch of edits at the 2020 Asia Cup, which were reverted Lugnuts 17:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI:The SPI has been done and user blocked for a week. Let's see how they get on when it expires. Spike 'em (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

IP vandal cluster

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

• 195.246.108.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.246.108.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.246.108.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Are all recent (active in the past two weeks, anyway) vandal-only IPs. Could someone check to see if they, and others, are a sufficiently coherent block to warrant an IP range block. Two of them vandalized the same article in my watchlist, and the third vandalized the same article as one of the other two. (I've made similar requests at WP:AIV, and they've been ignored.

If anyone cares how I discovered this, one of the IPs vandalized an article one my (short)-watchlist. I sometimes check when there is obviously vandalism, whether they also vandalized some articles where it wasn't caught. The first IP's edits were all caught, but some of the articles were vandalized by one of the other IPs. WHOIS reports "Bristol City Council Children & Young People's Services".

And, no, I haven't notified the IPs. The odds of any particular IP returning in the next day is minimal. Do we really have to notify obvious vandals? (Not to give the Vandals a bad name.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I see .227 is already blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, WHOIS says that those IPs belong to the range 195.246.108.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), but the only recent activity I see in that range are the above IPs + .224 (who is also doing the same vandalism), which (if you want a really targeted rangeblock) corresponds to 195.246.108.224/30. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(edit conflict) @Materialscientist: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

A /24 range block out-to do it, it wouldn't surprise me, given how network DHCP settings are often configured that cause end users IPs to hop automatically within a range if this was all the work of one person, but I'll take a closer look when I have time, I do agree that for IPs the ANI notice is mostly a formality, but it's usually best to place it anyway just in case even at the risk of being overly bureaucratic. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Update, while placing the notifications I noticed that the entire /23 is registered to Bristol City Council Children & Young People's Services, see here. Anyone who is on the network will almost certainly hop between different IPs in that range periodically. Hard to say if it's one or several users, but I suggest anon-blocking the whole range if disruption continues. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The logged-in edits aren't any better. I range blocked the /24 for a month. If it starts up again, or if the range block turns out to not be wide enough, you can leave a message on my talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Tonight's episode of the ongoing battle in gender-related articles, what is this, S04E19 I think

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

(moved from my userpage (), courtesy ping all participants: @Flyer22 Reborn, WanderingWanda, JBW, SMcCandlish, Crossroads, and Newimpartial:) Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I never did personally thank you for what you stated in that ANI thread against me. So thank you. Looking at my response here shows the type of drama and ridiculousness I have to deal with at articles such as Lesbian erasure. It shows what I was speaking of in that ANI thread and here at El C's talk page when noting issues with one editor in particular to El C, you, Johnuniq, Cullen328, and JBW. And while I appreciate the support of editors such as Betty Logan, Girth Summit, Montanabw, FlightTime Phone, John B123 and others who supported me in that ANI thread (and on Misplaced Pages at large), editing articles like these really takes a toll. Yes, I could just walk away (just like I did with the Feminist views on transgender topics and TERF articles thus far), but that leaves these articles more prone to POV-pushing. I don't just focus on one side when editing articles like these. I look at all sides (unless it's WP:Fringe material that shouldn't be included) and go about implementing WP:Due weight. When I do that, and yet I still get one or two people implying or outright calling me transphobic, it's a stressful matter. And I'm wondering what else I can do except walk away or endure it. For me, being called or implied to be transphobic is worse than being accused of having some type of POV on a sexual topic when I'm simply following the rules appropriately.

Anyway, El C is helpful, but an article like the Lesbian erasure article could probably also do with your moderator skills. If you'd rather not keep an eye on it, I obviously understand. If you'd rather ignore this post, I also understand. I am venting, even though I'm also seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about me I'd appreciate a ping, thanks (talk page watcher). WanderingWanda (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, no! I deal with your nonsense enough! If I had directly named you and wanted another discussion like the one I had on El C's talk page, that would be different. I clearly framed this section as one where I am venting and "seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas." And you can't even let me vent in peace or seek advice in peace. Your claim that you are one of Ivanvector's talk page watchers to escape me referring to WP:HOUND is dubious when your comment above is your first comment on this talk page. I could have emailed Ivanvector about this, but I chose to comment on Ivanvector's talk page and ping others to discuss with. Nothing good happens when the two of us interact with each other. You are on a course for ANI. And if you think nothing will happen, you should think again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, people who often accuse others of dishonesty are often projecting. I have always been scrupulously honest on Misplaced Pages. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In my experience (on and off Misplaced Pages), those who go on about their supposed scrupulous honesty are not scrupulously honest. In my experience (on and off Misplaced Pages), those who continue to try and interact with people who have been clear that they don't want to interact with them (unless necessary) for valid reasons and who continue to try to get a rise out of the people who do not want to interact with them shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages. In my experience, those who are only on Misplaced Pages to push activism shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages. Yes, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but it doesn't tolerate editors forcing themselves, or trying to force themselves, on others. It knows that not all editors are going to get along, which is why WP:IBAN exists. It doesn't tolerate the repeated sly or direct aspersions you cast my way. But keep testing the waters. You'll learn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You've cast far more WP:ASPERSIONS my way than the reverse. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I refer people to the aforementioned discussion on El C's talk page. Regardless of whatever supposed aspersions I've cast your way, you keep going and going after me while I keep trying and trying to avoid you. I never go out of my way to respond to you, and certainly not to make a jab at you. That is why Crossroads recently stated, "WanderingWanda, enough with the snipes at Flyer. There appears to be some special grudge there, but I'm feeling left out." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads' joke about "feeling left out" is actually pretty telling about our relationship. :) Crossroads and you are bosom buddies, I have never seen the two of you disagree, about anything, ever, Crossroads backs you up completely whenever you attack me unfairly or accuse me of "activism", you two are always at the same pages together, at the same time, you two openly email back and forth about contentious articles, you two have all the same interests, etc. In fact, for a while I thought he might be another one of those pesky brother accounts (Crossroads even used to have a 1 in his name, just like user:Halo Jerk1.) Ultimately, tho, I lean against that: Crossroads has a pretty different writing style from that most bizarre of brother-sister duos.

Anyway, in spite of the fact that you and Crossroads are basically twins, he doesn't perceive much in the way of animosity between us, and he is correct, I don't really care about Crossroads. It takes a lot for someone to get under my skin, but you have pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and yeah, you got under my skin. Which is probably what you wanted to do. Congratulations, I guess.

In any case, it is not my intent to "hound" you. I'll call you out if you're up to shit on an article I follow, sure, or are pinging a bunch of people to gang up on me behind my back. And sometimes I'm more snarky than I probably should be. I'll try to dial it back and play nicer. Fine. But I haven't, don't, and won't follow you around. I've never once edited an article or a talk page because I saw it on your contributions list. Not a single goddamn time, in spite of your repeated accusations of hounding, which, to me, seem like attempts to claim WP:OWNership over articles.

Anyway, hope you're doing well. I don't mean that sarcastically. Sincerely. Take care. I don't want to keep this back and forth up so this will probably be my last reply unless you really goad me.

(I guess I should ping user:Crossroads since I mentioned him, though pinging him to a discussion that Flyer is involved in is rather redundant.) WanderingWanda (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

More of the same nonsense from you, I see. Once again, you have confronted me to air your imaginary grievances and to make false claims...such as never seeing Crossroads and I "disagree, about anything, ever." Yeah, with the way you watch these articles like a hawk, I'm sure you missed me disagreeing with Crossroads on this matter. And you surely missed this discussion showing Crossroads disagreeing with the inclusion of material I added. Crossroads and I agree most of the time, but we have also disagreed several times. He can point to more examples, because I'm not going to. He is also interested in topics I'm not interested in. I'm usually in agreement with Doc James as well, but I don't see anyone stating that Doc and I are socks or are "basically twins." Sure, Doc and I don't share as many article interests, but still. You have no proof that Crossroads and I "openly email back and forth about contentious articles." And I'm not going to respond to that assertion further since I'm not on trial, even though you keep trying to put me on trial, despite the way the aforementioned ANI thread against me went. A number of people have accused you of activism, and that includes Johnuniq. And not unfairly either. I have "pushed and pushed and pushed" you, you say? Yes, I am aware that I have repeatedly pushed you by adhering to this site's rules and rejecting your activism, and that you consider this ownership on my part.

You stated, "In any case, it is not intent to 'hound' . call out if up to shit on an article follow, sure, or are pinging a bunch of people to gang up on behind back." Yes, you hound without knowing you are hounding; no one buys that. Yes, I'm "up to shit" on the articles you watch. Appropriate shit, as made clear by several editors in the aforementioned ANI thread. And as for "pinging a bunch of people to gang up on behind back"? To repeat: "I clearly framed this section as one where I am venting and 'seeking thoughts about how to continue editing in these areas.' And you can't even let me vent in peace or seek advice in peace." You unnecessarily showed up here to cause drama, expecting me and others to believe that you just so happened to be watching Ivanvector's talk page. You once again have unnecessarily pinged my brother, as to try to cause more drama. You don't care one bit about "different writing style." If you did, you would accept the fact that, despite my brother having copied my writing style in the past (as he's copied others, as also noted on his user page), several admins and CUs have noticed that my brother writes differently than I do in a number of ways instead of continuing to state or imply that he's my sock. That you keep bringing up my brother to try and sling mud my way and as though it helps your argument or as though you are conducting a WP:SPI is just one aspect of your problematic behavior. That is you trying to get under my skin. And then you act surprised when I type up an "essay" about your problematic behavior.

If you are hoping for a two-way interaction ban between us, I think it is likelier that you get a one-way interaction ban...and in your direction.

You stated that you "never once edited an article or a talk page because saw it on contributions list." I don't believe you. And I never will.

As for hoping I'm doing well and me goading you? More nonsense. And do you expect me to just let your accusations go unchallenged? If you truly did not want "this back and forth," you would not have engaged in your usual antics in this section. And that includes your "anyone with a heart" comment. It boggles my mind that you keep trying to play the victim when you keep going after me the way that you do. Boggles the mind. And whether or not I talk with Ivanvector about this here out in the open or via email, the way I've talked to other admins about your problematic editing and behavior via email, your baiting will be stopped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Conduct issues

@WanderingWanda: Your persistent pestering of Flyer22 Reborn has to stop. You have contributed nothing to this talk page section other than expressing your dislike and distrust of Flyer22 Reborn. Your involvemant here was totally unnecessary; nothing would have been lost had you ignored it and got on with some useful editing instead. However, what turns this from just a few critical comments that weren't really necessary into harassment was your totally gratuitously bringing in your perpetual innuendo about Flyer22 Reborn's brother and Crossroads. Flyer22 Reborn knows all about your thoughts in that area, and your repeatedly bringing it up, even when it is irrelevant to what is being discussed, is a deliberate policy of harassment. Flyer22 Reborn is not always diplomatic, and unfortunately at times she hands you enough ammunition to prevent the problems between the two of you being entirely one-sided, but as time goes on it becomes more and more clear that while her behaviour is not always perfect, she never does anything resembling your gratuitously jumping in and attacking her every time you can see an opportunity for doing so. I wonder how many times you have said things similar to "I don't want to keep this back and forth up so this will probably be my last reply unless you really goad me", as you did above. On this occasion she did not "goad" you: you jumped in when you didn't need to. Having done so you brought up your usual stuff about "those pesky brother accounts" and "that most bizarre of brother-sister duos", despite the fact that they had no relevance at all to anything that had been said. Calling her and her brother "most bizarre" serves no useful or constructive purpose whatever, and amounts to a personal attack. In my opinion both of you would have been better advised in this discussion to just drop the matter and ignore one another, but that does not mean that the situation is totally symmetrical; Flyer should have refused to take your bait, but she would have had no need to do so unless you had baited her. I do not follow either your or Flyer's editing, so the occasions when I do see what is going on between you are fairly infrequent, but even so I have seen enough, and if I see you harassing or baiting her again I am likely to block you from editing. JBW (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Less fortunately (for myself and the community) I have been loosely following this personality conflict for some time, and Flyer is indeed correct above when she says "nothing good happens when the two of us interact with each other". I am more inclined to serve you both a no-fault interaction ban under WP:ARBGG in the interest of allowing other interested editors to edit these topics free of your conflict, one which would permit you to edit the same pages as long as you strictly do not interact with each other, but I tend to dislike broad-topic interaction bans and JBW has given me more to think about. I'm also very busy today, so WanderingWanda, this is your opportunity to disengage. I would anticipate it being very unlikely you will get another. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel myself periodically drawn into these things, by what I watchlist and whose disputes/dramas I run across and what examining them further leads to. I neither disagree all the time with WanderingWanda (even WW says so! ) nor agree all the time with Flyer22_Reborn. I've had lengthy discussions with both in e-mail. I don't feel I need to take back what I said in detail in Nov. 2019 about this conflict. I do have to add, though, that a few editors' frequent accusations of "transphobi" simply because someone doesn't agree with some particular highly activistic socio-political positions being advocated on Misplaced Pages (but are instead seeking neutrality in our coverage and our WP:P&G material regardless how they personally feel about such matters in their off-site lives) is continuing to be problematic. In a sense, it's become more problematic because we know this isn't the first time it's been pointed out that it needs to stop. I don't think this is a WanderingWanda and Flyer22_Reborn matter in particular. Rather, there's a "gender-issues and language-reform warrior" camp active on the site, and it's sometimes difficult for people who agree with some or all of its message to avoid getting drawn also into its verbally abusive and character-assassinating tactics. The larger behavior set needs scrutiny.

This subject area is under WP:AC/DS for a reason, and those discretionary sanctions need to be applied judiciously but reasonably until the topic area becomes tolerable again for everyday editors who are here to write balanced coverage of subjects (from the broad topics down to specific bios like Genesis P-Orridge, etc.). I've long opposed the use of indefs and lengthy topic-bans when it comes to such unhelpful behavior in contentious topics, when short-term T-bans (e.g. a month, then escalating to 3 months, then a 6 or a year if really necessary) tend to be effective without costing the project all of an editor's more constructive participation. And that goes for both sides; if one were to, say, cast aspersions about someone's motives because they have a transgender family member, that would be actionable no less than calling someone transphobic because their view of neutral interpretation of the sources differs from one's own.

I'm not going to get into a pile of diffy specifics right now. That's what AE and ANI and RFARB and ARCA are for, and I don't feel that someone in particular needs to be banned/blocked at this point (well, not among this pair). Frankly, there are two flat-out drama mongers who need noticeboard examination more urgently, for entirely unrelated reasons (one is a "style warrior" pushing an obsessive pro-government/bureaucratese PoV, and another is engaging in extreme nationalism, IDHT, and OR about animal breeds, both of them being attacky about it all the time). I'm just making the general point, since a bunch of admins have been pinged to this thread.

While a two-way I-ban of WanderingWanda and Flyer22_Reborn might "conveniently" and situationally reduce a small amount of sporadic drama, it will not address the underlying problem, that this is a highly contentious area with a near poisonous level of strife, and much of that is outright programmatic (from one particular side of it). A two-editor I-ban would verge on scapegoating, and at most would be putting a Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound. So would leaping on one editor or the other for a comment if it's not part of continuing pattern of verbal abuse. At worst, it might actually encourage WP:GAMING by others (less WP:HERE that WW) in that socio-political viewpoint space: entrap opponents in circular, overly-personalized debates until I-banned (but with low risk of oneself being sanctioned beyond that, out of admin fear of being called foo-phobic for going any further); then go right back to working with the rest of one's WP:FACTION to PoV-skew all our topics on lefty subjects with near-impunity, having locked out most criticism). I've been saying for years now that the real threat to WP in the long term isn't vandals, it's "slow-editwar" and "civil PoV-pushing" tactics by email-coordinated camps who are here to enforce an external viewpoint in our content. Much of it even means well. While we may have in front of us two editors in a superficially silly personality conflict, it's rooted in something more serious and it's not about personality but about WP:ENC. I'm well aware that various editors claim there's some kind of far-right putsch to malign the transgendered, to undermine coverage of GLBT+ topics and feminism, and otherwise push right-wing extremism. But there's no evidence this is actually true, and when random Trumperinos pop in and push such agendas they're shut down fast. We do, however, clearly have ongoing mass-scale activism from the far-left, which is mostly unchecked except by neutral/centrist editors with thick skins, and even they get hounded away pretty quickly by censorious "progressive" and "liberal" indoctrinators who aren't really either of those adjectives. The ability of that camp to inspire otherwise awesome editors to slip across some important lines for politicized reasons sometimes is, well, kind of disconcerting. PS: I say all this as a classic-liberal, anti-fascist, sexual-egalitarian, LGBT-positive, sex-positive, center-left, agnostic anti-authoritarian (and former professional civil-liberties activist), who takes few solidly right-wing views on anything but gun control (I grew up mostly in the US Southwest, where shooting ranges and hunting are something you do even as a kid). I'm the furthest thing from a transphobe or a right-wingnut. If even I'm seriously concerned about what the far left are getting away with on WP these days, then we do have a genuine problem.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Just for posterity: in spite of the opinion SMcCandlish expressed above, there is in fact a good deal of evidence that "gender critical" individuals gathered in Reddit (r/gendercritical) and on Twitter have worked in coordination to align trans-related articles to their "external viewpoint", a kind of brigading that progressive/mainstream editors on LGBTQ topics have not engaged in, to my knowledge. I also think it relevant to note that SMcCandlish's views on "gender issues and language reform" have been found, through site-wide discussion on WP, not to reflect site-wide policy-based consensus here. While I respect ideosynctatic individuality as much as anyone, I do find it important to remember who is speaking at all times. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Since Newimpartial has showed up here, I would like to point out to the admins by far the most disturbing comment from that talk page, which was made by Newimpartial: I will be happy when the last self-avowed "homosexual" is dead and buried and only we queers, fags, dykes and non-binary people remain. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't intend to engage in further discussion about myself or Flyer, but I will comment on this. Newimpartial's remark was intemperate, but it's worth putting in context why the word "homosexual" can provoke strong feelings. GLAAD says: Because of the clinical history of the word "homosexual," it is aggressively used by anti-gay extremists to suggest that gay people are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered. The term has also been co-opted by some hardliner anti-trans activists. Out.com says: By 2018, the TERF Movement had reached its tipping point. In July, a group of lesbians charged the front of the London Pride march with banners reading "Lesbian Erasure" and "Lesbian Female Homosexual."...In a video posted by a group called "Get The L Out," one woman said, "A man who says he’s a lesbian is a rapist. Transgenderism is destroying lesbians' bodies." WanderingWanda (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One clan of trolls trying to affect our content and failing badly at it because we shut that shit down fast is nothing like an ongoing and tacitly accepted overwhelming dominance of Misplaced Pages coverage on certain topics by a particular circumscribed set of viewpoints, due to WP's strongly left-leaning demographic agreeing with the content of "the message". (Cf. what I said below in response to Crossroads.) It has to do with actual effects. No one has ever suggested there are no transphobes nor that they never try to PoV-push here. We just don't let them do it. So why do we let the TG/NB and general LGBT crowd do it? Continue to take that route is going to bite our ass right off.

As for that last bit, Newimpartial is blatantly fabricating. What really happened is that a humor essay I wrote primarily about self-aggrandizing, religious, and commercial language manipulation was misinterpreted as "transphobic" by some editors who assume that anything at all ever critical of non-encyclopedic writing that involves pronouns must necessarily be an attack on TG people, which is of course nonsense. At MfD, there was a consensus to keep my userspace essay, but to blank the version that ran in The Signpost since in that house-organ context it was controversial and likely to offend, not because of the intent of it but because it was poorly written enough that the intent wasn't clear. Most importantly, the "leader of the charge" (Fæ) against me and that crappy joke page escaped sanction for false "transphobic" accusations and canvassing of them and against the essay (across multiple WMF sites) only by retracting the accusations with an apology, and was nevertheless topic-banned shortly thereafter for more of such aspersion-casting against other editors in the same topic area. If there's any "writing on the wall" to be read from that old episode, I think we know exactly what it is. After the actual (not your imaginary} MfD results and the actions to ban Fæ, and after I've many times made it abundantly clear where I am on TG/NB matters and LBGT+ ones (being under the B in that myself), I have to say it's extremely ill-considered of you to continue implying transphobia on my part, or anyone else's, in a thread leaning strongly toward "final warning" for someone else doing the same thing. When it comes to the actual specifics of my views on TG-related language usage in Misplaced Pages content (including pronouns), the "site-wide discussion on WP" resulting in "policy-based consensus" reflect exactly the same position as mine, specifically what we've codified at MOS:GENDERID, which I helped write. So thanks for your input, but maybe you need some coffee to wake up before you comment here again. LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC); rev'd. 20:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that any unbiased reader of the discussion about your essay and related conduct would regard my conclusion that SMcCandlish's views on "gender issues and language reform" have been found, through site-wide discussion on WP, not to reflect site-wide policy-based consensus to be fabrication, blatant or otherwise. I would prefer that we all refrain from personal attacks here, especially now that the discussion is at ANI. Also, I hope you don't have a professional interest in producing minutes or summaries, because the account you gave above is a pretty poor summary of the discussion as it actually unfolded, since it basically just restates your position as expressed within the discussion without a modicum of critical reflection or listening. Newimpartial (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

That's just more creative revisionism. There was no "related conduct" of mine under discussion; you're just making stuff up now. There were two MfDs against two copies of the same essay, one kept in userspace, the other blanked but not deleted because The Signpost was an inappropriate venue for something controversial. Just go read the MfD's, FFS: "There are boundaries of acceptability and user space content that crosses them can be deleted, but the consensus of the discussion is that SMcCandlish hasn't crossed them in this case." And: "... eep the page blanked as it is now. ... he humor page  ... offended many editors. This was not an appropriate page for the Signpost, because the page generated bad will between editors." (plus some additional observation that serious discussion of the underlying subject was needed rather than humor pieces not appropriate for professional-level discourse). It was certainly a mistake to allow Signpost to use that piece, and possibly a mistake to write it, at least without more context (a point CurlyTurkey made in the userspace MfD). That doesn't make me transphobic nor does it mean there is a consensus on WP against my views. The exact opposite is the truth, since my views are MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DOCTCAPS and MOS:TM. The essay did not express my views on GENDERID matters, it made fun of individual and idiosyncratic language usages by our subjects being misinterpreted by editors as a requirement that Misplaced Pages use them in its own voice. To date, not doing so remains the overwhelming consensus on Misplaced Pages and is unlikely to ever change, whether the topic in question is a person, a religion, or a commercial enterprise.

But this ANI isn't about me, it's about two editors engaged in a dispute that has underlying broader implications. And you're implicating yourself more and more as you continue in battlegrounding manner to try to paint me as your "enemy" (or as TG people's or as Misplaced Pages's), not only without evidence but simply fudging the real evidence, which is easy enough for me to just diff to dispel your strange finger-pointing. Please see the first law of holes, which would suggest you stop now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

After defending Newimpartial I'd also like to defend SMc. I agree he's not transphobic or some kind of enemy of trans people (not that Newimpartial said he was). I also, incidentally, don't think there's anything to be gained by talking about the Signpost essay, which has already been discussed, well, quite a bit. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, pro tip: don't pick fights with nice people who have orders of magnitude more experience and goodwill here than you do. See also: WP:AGF Guy (help!) 00:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason I brought up the Signpost fiasco (before the discussion was moved to ANI was that SMcCandlish had offered his overall opinion on the state of "external" interference in LGBTQ article POV (without offering evidence, mind you, just his opinion) and I wanted to point out that his understanding of the state of "public opinion" on this topic has been questionable in the past and remains questionable. The misrepresentations he has made of my posts since the move to ANI, as well as his questionable characterizations of those previous interactions, have only underlined the point I was making initially. Of course I would not accuse him of any kind of "*phobia", but his judgement of these issues has been (and continues to be) dubious despite his best intentions. Newimpartial (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

But you clearly have no understanding of my understanding of anything. And a user-talk thread isn't an evidentiary venue. If you want evidence of the kind of PoV pushing that's been going on for years, start with this near-endless firehose of ranting, then this other textwall in case you're a glutton for punishment. And there's just so much more, and even more, and that's before getting out of WP-wide forums and into places like knock-down-drag-out battlegrounds at article talk pages, and various wikiproject talk pages, plus numerous ANI and AE and RFARB and ARCA threads. There's a frequent pattern in them of editors suggesting a reasonable and respectful but still encyclopedic and mainstream-English approach (especially with any eye to not confusing readers or rewriting history, and also noting that not all TG/NB people have exactly the same views on these matters), being met with insinuations and outright accusations of transphobia, and a whole pile of doctrinaire venting (mostly from cisgender "allies", not actually TG or NB people). It's mostly in loco parentis noise from various TG-issues and language-reform activists, consisting of lots of strident advocacy of more extreme positions (including from obvious meatpuppets in some of the larger threads), but producing a community response that was very (too) tolerant of it all no matter how far afield it gots in NOTFORUM, NOTSOAPBOX and NOTBATTLEGROUND terms. By contrast, there's nearly zero far-right input in any of these threads (despite alarmist beliefs that there just must be, somewhere, because some twits on SlashDot or 4Chan were up to something at some point). When something even faintly right-leaning rarely pops up, it is shouted down, often in very hostile terms but with no repercussions for the incivility. This is not new. It's been this way for years, and at enough length that even wordy editors like me are exhausted by it. The problem isn't the message being advocated, it's that WP is being used as an advocacy venue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, am I incorrect in my understanding that you believe trans*-related articles are subject to POV-pushing from self-described "liberal" or "progressive" editors, and that WP doesn't notice or respond to this form of POV because too many editors agree? Because that's what I understood you to he saying, and I think you are empirically just wrong about that.

I am well aware of the MOS:IDENTITY disputes, have cited their resolution often and respect your work in trying to bring them to consensus. My concern is with your tone deafness about interacting with other editors on these issues (amply illustrated on the Signpost fiasco) and your claimed asymmetry between what you are calling left- and right-wing editing bias.

The asymmetry that concerns me is almost exactly the opposite of what you perceive. What I have seen on LGBT2Q topics is (1) avowed CANVASSing planned on Reddit and Twitter, intended to move WP articles towards less inclusionary language and (2) frequent attempts on a number of articles to promote FRINGE "gender critical" positions. These positions deny trans existence, reframe gender identity as a ploy or a disorder, construe trans people as a violent, threatening other or - most often - promote FALSEBALANCE between well-informed current understandings of trans* issues and prejudices, old or new.

The "mainstream" is not neutral between these positions. The medical, scientific and linguistic "mainstream" recognizes that trans people exist, that their rights need to he protected, and that their preferences should be protected in everyday language use. There is opposition to each of these, but it represents a social minority - whatever may be the case with other issues, on these topics the WP community reflects social attitudes and does not notably distort them, but organized minorities that disagree with the majoritarian view do repeatedly try to push POV on trans* articles. This tends to rile up those who are most personally invested in these articles, with downstream effects we see here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And Crossroads has inserted my diff quite out of context, it followed this and was responded to in turn by this, both of which comments (by Pyxis Solitary represented rather more "activist" forms of queer erasure than any reasonable interpretation of my intervening comment. Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Then you should be extra-sensitive to what it feels like to have something you've written be implied to mean something it clearly does not, yet you are doing precisely the opposite. I find this intensely ironic, given that your only input at both MfDs was off-topic rambling about me being too poor an ironist for your tastes, in a pretentious and condescending mini-lecture on dialectics . The MfD input combined with your behavior in this thread strongly suggests a goal of "sport debate" to make a WP:POINT, to WP:WIN. With that in mind, I refer you to WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and this classic xkcd cartoon: .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, you clearly have not looked hard enough to find where I have disagreed with Flyer. Standing out in my mind was one lengthy discussion (lengthy because the issue was complex and there were other participants, not because of Flyer's comments) about comparing animal and human sexual behavior, and an IP and two accounts that added likely-COI content about it. I've had disgruntled people follow me on that matter before, so none of that. I can think of others which I am not listing. As far as being at the same pages, yes, we have overlapping interests, so what? Editing at the same time - not that much. The "openly" thing is unsupported nonsense, and I have edited several topic areas that Flyer has not, and vice versa. The old "1" in my name was because "Crossroads" was not available when I got an account - I usurped it later. And I never interacted with nor ever heard of Flyer until a year after I got the account. As for often agreeing, well, you'll find that, for example, editors who focus on fringe theories agree on a lot too. In all these cases, it is about representing the relevant scientific consensus and not putting undue weight on personally liked theories. And yes, WanderingWanda does have an activist mentality, as seen most obviously at this discussion, but here's another for good measure.

I hope that any admins participating will look at the discussion at El C's talk page.

WanderingWanda, you also stated above to Flyer, "I'll call you out if you're up to shit on an article I follow..." What "shit" has Flyer been up to? What does this mean?

When I stated I was "feeling left out", I was only half-joking. WanderingWanda does seem to have a special animosity towards Flyer, which is puzzling to me, since many others (like myself) have also opposed the very same proposals. But this stuff at the Lesbian erasure talk page is just unacceptable. The comment "Flyer, who likes to go on wearying five-hundred-billion-word-long off-topic rants" added nothing to the discussion and is a blatant personal attack. And the sermonizing about "What extremist anti-trans groups have to say about trans women is offensive to anyone with a heart." was in response to Flyer's "I toned down the language others would find offensive", obviously trying to imply Flyer 'lacked a heart' for not saying it directly was offensive (but as was noted, we're not supposed to edit on the basis of personal feelings, so why should she say it that way?). And WanderingWanda showing up here was an obvious WP:HOUNDing. As another example of their weird focus on Flyer, here in the 23:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC) comment, you can see that WanderingWanda was cutting out parts of Flyer's comments, for which they were admonished by an ArbCom clerk.

I very much agree with JBW's comment, especially the apt description of "gratuitously jumping in and attacking her every time you can see an opportunity for doing so". I don't think a mutual I-ban would be good, because there is not a symmetry here. I've observed that Flyer has a long history here with a reputation of neutrally representing relevant POVs in the article content, which crucially includes actually writing content. WanderingWanda seems to have too much focus on changing terminology and images so as to right great wrongs.

I humbly suggest the following. I think Flyer should be advised not to take the bait when feeling provoked; I myself advise that if nothing else. I think WanderingWanda should be warned about personal attacks and harassment. As far as a one-way I-ban or a short term block, maybe; that's up to the admins and their experience in these sorts of things. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) updated -Crossroads- (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Another striking difference to me is that (so far as I've observed) Flyer22_Reborn, like me, takes issues with viewpoints being pushed not on the basis of what the views are, but simply because they are viewpoints being pushed, while the TG/NB (and LGBT+ and leftism more broadly) activism cluster are very much taking an issue with the content of the viewpoints they disagree with while doing nothing about, or even directly advocating, views they agree with coming to dominate the content (as well as the WP:P&G material that pertains to the topic). So, this is another thing that's not parallel, though I don't think it's WW in particular, but rather a large and nebulous segment of editors, many of them fairly recent, who manage to peer-pressure editors who really know better to partake in it. I don't mean this to sound like some kind of conspiracy theory; it's just typical human politics and group dynamics at work. We have policies in place to restrain that, but they don't work if admins don't apply them. We really have to take an anthropological, culturally relative view about such matters. The difference between objecting to PoV because of its PoV versus because is is PoV is central to this entire topical range of dispute on Misplaced Pages. Until that is wrestled with, interpersonal conflicts like this will continue to arise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I don't think I can agree with this, though much of what you said above is wise and good. Or rather, carving out leftist editors for this is wrong. The facts do indeed have a well-known liberal bias. Culture wars fights are about entrenched privilege kicking back about what was tactily tolerated, becoming a right. Maybe I am misreading you. Guy (help!) 00:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot in here already. See my "I say all this as a"... bit above: It's not that I'm against the left side of the matter, is that WP isn't a platform for advancing that or any other agenda, yet the community is being excessively tolerant of left-wing agenda pushing, specifically because such a majority of our editors are firmly on the left. The far-right PoV pushing ranters are already dealt with swiftly. The culture war needs to happen out there, while we bite our tongues (and maybe our nails) and neutrally report on the results of those external societal conflicts. That's going to be a slow-moving target (but definitely a moving one), which will never at any moment satisfy everyone at once, even to the point that some of them will be outraged, on all sides, no matter what. Given this reality-of-the-matter condition, it's upon us to try to restrain the excesses of bringing the culture war to WP content and talk pages and policy venues, and push the war back outside when the guns are blazing in WP itself. We need to not be falsely accused of X-phobia every time we object to PoV-pushing from certain quarters on certain topics. Fortunately, I think this is remediable in most cases (because our editors are largely intelligent and capable of separating emotion from facts, distinguishing taking positions from coverage of positions. The one case I thought someone badly needed to be indefinitely topic banned, that's already happened (and even then it was reinstatement of an old T-ban from years ago).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as an aside, the only editors I've seen who feel that "the majority of our editors are firmly on the left" seem to be U.S.-ian, with the random Australian. And just as clearly, none of the editors I've read on the topic who are on the actual left (U.S.-based or otherwise) see any "leftist" majority here. Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI opened

• This all belongs at ANI and now it is. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) My inclination here is to topic ban everyone under WP:ARBGG for repeatedly and gratuitiously disrupting this topic with their POV wars: whether you're editing in good faith or not, your behaviour (all of you) is disruptive to other editors who just want to edit and not participate in your character assassination war. But I've also been pinged and got an email notification 38 times about this (one ping and one email for each edit on my talk page about it), all since 1am my time and many of them coming while I was sitting in a fairly important business meeting (my own fault I suppose for not setting my phone on silent), all of those ignoring my page notice and talk page edit notice saying basically "I'm not here, don't come to me with urgent problems". So perhaps I'm not in the best frame of mind to be moderating things today. So y'all can deal with this, and I'm going home to where the beer is. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 20:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you got caught in the crossfire like that. All I ask is that outside participants review each person's behavior as individuals, as justice requires, rather than the whole crowd getting condemned. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm exhausted and am off to bed with little time tomorrow, although I'll take another look in the morning. But I definitely think it would be a bad idea to treat them all the same. Doug Weller talk 21:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Somewhere along the line I was pinged to this debate and am rather late to the party. My take is that there needs to be an admonition that hounding and making personalized remarks is not the way to manage a dispute over article content. IMHO, i-bans and t-bans are pretty useless. Doing the “both of you are equally at fault” is a bit lazy, and punishes both the perpetrator and the victim, where the 25% contribution of the victim is considered equal to the 75% contribution of the perpetrator. Here, Flyer was seeking some third party input, was followed to that page by WW, who made a personalized attack, and then we are off to the races. As the tl;dr above indicates, there are many highly contentious topics on WP, and none of them are improved by a toxic editing environment that starts going after individual editors. I suggest WW be admonished to stop hounding, stop baiting, and stop casting aspersions. Flyer needs to be reminded that they are a highly experienced editor who knows better than to rise to the bait. Everyone else needs to work on making articles as NPOV as possible, and where NPOV is difficult, then to accurately and fairly present each of the major positions or factions, with extensive sourcing, and to factor in due and undue weight based on objective, third party criteria (professional polls can be useful, where they exist). Focus on content, not agendas. Montanabw 21:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The trouble with "WW be admonished" is simply that if that were going to work it would have worked long ago. JBW (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Everyone else needs to work on making articles as NPOV as possible, and where NPOV is difficult, then to accurately and fairly present each of the major positions or factions, with extensive sourcing, and to factor in due and undue weight based on objective, third party criteria (professional polls can be useful, where they exist). Focus on content, not agendas.

I strongly agree with all of this, and it's what I try to do (and if I ever don't succeed, and I'm sure that I don't always, I ask folks to remember that even if I try and act like a seasoned old-timer, I'm not: I've only been active here about a year, and just have a few thousand edits. In addition, the areas I've been working in are sensitive ones where tempers often run high. I ask for help and patience, things I try to give to others when I can).

I do take slight issue with this statement: Flyer was seeking some third party input, was followed to that page by WW. Perhaps it's an academic point, and perhaps (probably) I shouldn't have commented, but I do want to reiterate that I was there because Ivanvector's page happens to be on my watchlist. I don't recall why it is, but I follow a lot of people for quasi-random reasons (which of course is a bit silly, it just means my wachlist gets spammed with newsletter announcements and stuff). I might've followed him because he weighed in on the last ANI I was involved with. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• My proposal:

1. All parties take a deep breath. Maybe it's not personal?
2. WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Reborn warned that the first to fire in any subsequent exchange of shots will be blocked.
3. WanderingWanda and Flyer22 Reborn warned that continued personalisation of disputes will lead to one-way or two-way IBANs depending on how obviously each can demonstrate that they are not the problem.

WP:AGF is a thing. Operate on the assumption that if $EDITOR looks like an angry idiot, it's because you haven't understood what they are trying to say and why. A polite exploration of differences fixes many issues, an exchange that is polite on one side and not the other makes it easy for us to identify the source of the problem. Guy (help!) 00:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I laughed at your statement about us knocking six bells out of each other. For my part, I can't promise to forgive her for some of the things she's said to me, but I can promise to not personalize things between us on any article talk page again. I'll stick to the content, and I'll be a hardliner about that. If I have a problem, I'll take it to ANI, or another appropriate venue. I hope Flyer will do the same in the future. I also think, incidentally, it would be helpful if she gave me permission to post on her talk page again, as I think it makes it harder to cooperate without communication. But that's up to her. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, that's the way. Assume good faith and chill. Guy (help!) 00:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Conditional support I think Guy (JzG) is on the right track here, but if Montanabw's 25/75% distinction is correct, than that should somehow be taken into account. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Legends Football League rebrand

User:Yosemiter is trying to start an edit war. They are continually reversing my edits on Legends Football League with no valid justification. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Content dispute, not behavioral, two reverts, I asked you to discuss per WP:BRD, and I gave justifications: neither one is WP:RS and the league is calling 2020 "inaugural". The BroBible one is mostly there to show there is a perception of continuation (and even mentions it as a "new" league in its body). We can take it to the talk page if you want, but unlike the Lingerie to Legends rebrand, you will not find any references to the LFL on the current website. Also it is "mostly" in the same locations (7 of 8). If the league mentions their history with the LFL in the future, then we can fix it". Content disputes should first be discussed at the Talk Page. I have shown I am quite willing to talk about the content, this is not the place for it though. Yosemiter (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yosemiter, I urge you both to familiarise yourselves with the policy on reliable sources. Guy (help!) 23:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I am familiar. The two sources that are mentioned in the content dispute is the WP:PRIMARY league website and a non-RS blog. A blog that you have since rightly removed, although I did explain on the Talk Page and Edit Summaries that it was only there because it was the only source at the time to make the connection between the two leagues (there is at least one better one now). I feel I both responded to the editor's statements of my "continual" reverts (which actually was one content edit based on a balance of the Primary and the non-RS in order to not be WP:SYNTH and one direct revert that I then edited into a rephrase) and I am definitely not trying to start an edit war. They then opened this ANI six minutes after taking the dispute to the talk page, which is not nearly enough time to discuss or respond. ANI is simply not the place to discuss content disputes, especially on a subject that gets very little coverage (pun intended) in the first place. cue to all those the Burma-Shave limericks in the sections aboveYosemiter (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yosemiter, IMO most of the sources in that article are unreliable. Guy (help!) 00:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Agreed, but that is the existence of being niche minor sport or event. For example, there is another separate discussion about the lack of good sources on my talk page about another minor football league. This league has some RS sources mostly covering the oddity of it, enough to pass GNG at least. But as for the comings and goings of the league business, its primary or non-RS only. If we deleted every single thing on that page that could only be referenced via primary or non-RS, then it would either be very dated or have about two paragraphs of prose. Yosemiter (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yosemiter, we don't relax our sourcing standards in order to allow inclusion of things because we like them. If minor leagues are not covered in reliable independent sources they shouldn't be covered in Misplaced Pages. Guy (help!) 10:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I commented here, but felt the topic is better at my talk page as it is about editing minor leagues in general and nothing ANI related. Feel free to respond there. Yosemiter (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Peramburkumar

Apart from an early interest in SEO, User:Peramburkumar's entire history has been to insert links to promote what are presumably his own businesses. On the other hand, the activity has been infrequent and low-volume. I have warned him on his talk page. Block now or wait for another occurrence?

1. Perambur Kumar Blog Consultant Services, Oct 2014.
2. Link to PeramburkumarInc on G+, Oct 2014.
3. Links to promotional page by R. K. Kumar with photos captioned "Perambur Kumar @ ". Nov 2018.
4. Citation to another promotional page with same characteristics, Nov 2018.
5. Modified URL of reference to point to same real-estate web site as above, whilst retaining the previous displayed text. Nov 2018.
6. Another link, same as (4), June 2019.

Pelagic (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Pelagic, as far as I can tell the editor last edited on June 2019, and your warning on their talk page is the first one they've gotten since 2014. Since this is a stale issue, just leave it and file a new report if they come back and continue. creffett (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Multiple accounts and inexplicable edits

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

A series of users, who are all obviously the same person, has been making inexplicable edits mainly in List of Indian intelligence agencies. The accounts include: Anti13931 (talk · contribs), Use4012 (talk · contribs), Use4011 (talk · contribs), and Use4022 (talk · contribs). The edits repeatedly insert the text ==Anti Crime Organisation== information by Ministry of Home Affairs and similar, as well as non-functioning links and templates to those. I'm not aware of anything by the name of "Anti Crime Organisation". I've left several messages on the article and user talk pages, but they don't respond, and just keep creating new accounts and making the same apparently-nonsense edits. --IamNotU (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Use4012, Use4011, and Use4022 are  Confirmed to each other, but Anti13931 is more likely to be WP:MEAT. I'll block them and semi-protect the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Sandxan

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

Sandxan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Legal threats here and here "stop trolling his page, its vandalism and is punishable by law" by single-purpose editor at Nav (rapper). Magnolia677 (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I chose to indefinitely block based on disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

User:JonathanX0X0

I want someone to pay attention to suspicious activity of this user: JonathanX0X0

His pattern of contributions shows he is a paid editor who hasn't declared he is not. Most of the user's contributions have been spam about the companies and were subject speedy deletions processes in the past. --199.79.46.44 (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Piu Eatwell

Sort of a long story here. Apparently, Piu Eatwell (an author) paid for Wikiprofessionals Inc to make this page for them. The page creator (User:Lee-aam) did not disclose this, and has since been blocked. Then an IP prodded the article, which I contested since I believed it met WP:AUTHOR (this was when I first got involved with this article). At that point, User:Corretions removed the UPE tag and stated on my talk page that they are in fact Piu Eatwell. There is now a declaration on the article's talk page that a paid editor made the page. User:Corretions objected to the UPE tag, so I placed a COI tag on the article. In my mind, the COI tag should stay on until someone takes a good look at the article and references (I even offered to do this - when I get the time), but User:Corretions keeps removing the COI tag. In their latest removal, User:Corretions stated their next step is to contact their lawyers. Help would be appreciated. Thanks, P. D. Cook 04:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Pdcook, I've given them a warning about the "no legal threats" policy, and will talk to them about the COI rules. Friendly reminder - you need to notify them about this discussion. My preliminary WP:DOLT read here is that this is not an okay time to be making legal threats, since the dispute is over the application of the UPE/COI tag, not about actual article content. creffett (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder - I got side-tracked. I added a notice to their talk page. P. D. Cook 04:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

WHEN YOU POSTTO AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-shave

(edit conflict) For ease of reference, the user referred to seems to be Corretions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("corrections" without the second "c"). Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I changed it above. Must be time for bed... P. D. Cook 04:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for their baseless legal threats. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your assistance. I'll work on the article in a day or so. Regards, P. D. Cook 13:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Help with understanding why my edit was deleted

Hi folks, I'm a new user and made an edit which I thought was important because it rectified a serious misrepresentation. And also met all the criteria - was accompanied by a proper 3rd party source that has been around 25 years and has a wide circulation etc. I was correcting an unsubstantiated claim for which there was no source. But it was deleted by a user then sent me a message telling me all about what I should not do, etc. etc. And offered no reason for his edit. I think his person wants there to be a slant in the page. Would appreciate help. Thanks Jp7311 (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Jp7311 This sort of question would be more appropriate for the Teahouse or Help Desk. This page is for discussing the conduct of other users- and you must notify any user you are discussing here of the existence of this discussion. If you are accusing someone of a conflict of interest, that should be brought to WP:COIN. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay yes, I do think their action was wrong so I will inform them now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp7311 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jp7311: There's a message on your talk page about not copying from copyrighted sources. As a result of your plagiarism, you introduced promotional material onto the site, which we don't use.

That's why your edits were reverted. You are in the wrong here, don't try to sugarcoat it or turn it around on other users. Learn from this experience because keeping up this kind of behavior will not turn out well for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, one of my edits was deleted because I made a mistake - not realizing that a quotation (even with quotation marks) from a newspaper would qualify as copyright violation. Point taken and lesson learned. But that's not why I'm here, that's your assumption. I'm here about another edit. Am I not entitled to be here? Also, I don't really appreciate the threat "this kind of behavior will not turn out well for you". May I ask what specific behavior of mine has been objectionable and what exactly the consequences are that you threaten me with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp7311 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the edit in question. But there are others that establish my claim further. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=prev&oldid=937269030 Jp7311 (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

They did the same thing to someone else also recently - deleted their content and the perfectly reliable 3rd party source. In my case the source they deleted is from mainstream news media that's been around as I said 25 years. And in both cases no reason was offered. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=prev&oldid=924355224

So attempts by people to bring fact to the page are not acceptable. But when they want, they can bring the most dodgy of sourced material such as below, and somehow that's okay? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?diff=prev&oldid=919727242

Please also pay attention to the content in Harshil169 edit via the 3rd diff - and how it is negated by the user contribution in the 2nd diff. There seems to be a strong bias here and they are seriously lacking a neutral POV. Anyways, I'm here about my edit. Would love to know what people here think. I'm a newbie yes, but this seems plain wrong. Thanks much! Jp7311 (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Jp7311 (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Russian vandal adding Saibogu Drakon to credits

Somebody using Russian IPs has been disrupting music articles by adding a false entry in the personnel section listing a musician named Saibogu/Drakon. The Russian IPs have also been doing a lot of genre warring, and they sometimes add dates and (curiously) times to video productions. Should we add a vandal filter or rangeblock the IPs? Below is a list of IPs that I know about. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• 85.140.0.218 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.1.148 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.2.228 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.3.131 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.4.162 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.5.10 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.5.30 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 85.140.7.162 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

User attacking AFD nom

XeroxKleenex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been accusing S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of having a "vendetta" in several AFDs of Indian organizations the latter nom'd. DBigXray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has provided the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, so I won't hash everything here. ミラP 16:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I've posted an only warning, and will block if it happens again. Thank you for reporting, ミラ. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

Thanks Miraclepine . I did not wanted this to ANI at first so I left a note at their user talk, but looks like XeroxKleenex have never responded to anyone on their talk. I would recommend reverting all of these personal attacks at these AfDs that they have made in a matter of few seconds. This is an obvious WP:TROLling behavior by XeroxKleenex. DBigXrayᗙ 16:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, DBigXray. Blame me if you get flak. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC).

Done, Bishonen. I have reverted all their NPA violating comments.DBigXrayᗙ 17:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards