Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • 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)

Start a new discussion

Incivility help

There is a lengthy discussion that has persisted on talk:DC Extended Universe. Editor @Darkknight2149: has recently decided to start accusing users that disagree with them of WP:SOCKpuppetry as well as WP:BLUDGEONing. They may or may not bring such accusations in another thread, but the user continues to contradict themselves simply to further along their proposed argument. Trying to be collaborative and civil with them is not working. Can we get some assistance, please? Thank you.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You were warned about bludgeoning because, even as the discussion was winding down and we were waiting for others to comment, you kept replying over and over to every single comment (often with two comments at a time) restating your position. As the discussion died down, you were told by both me and TheJoebro64 that there's no reason to keep going in circles and we need to allow others to comment, and you still kept trying to burying the thread with your replies because the discussion wasn't going your way. As soon as Joebro mentioned something about an RfC and I stated that I was about to open a fourth Arbitrary Break to wrap up the discussion and gather final comments/votes, you immediately rushed to open an Abitrary Break yourself [1], [2], [3] [4] just to restate your position (for the umpteenth time) and rant about how "But consensus is not based off of votes!!!"

• Popfox3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Then, almost immediately after you opened the Arbritary Break, Popfox3 shows up to the discussion and becomes the only user to strongly support you in that entire thread. This user only has six edits to their account. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and they're all recent. Every single one of the accounts edits are at Talk:DC Extended Universe, taking the same position as DisneyMetalhead in discussions. The only two exceptions were from yesterday, when the account came to defend DMH and then added a space [11], [12] to their username and talk page, to create those pages and get rid of the redlink (in order to look less suspicious).

@DisneyMetalhead: Not only were you guilty of WP:BLUDGEON and opened an ANI report as soon as you were warned to stop, but give us one good reason why we shouldn't open a WP:SPI. Your only defense so far for bludgeoning has been "just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm bludgeoning", which immediately falls apart under scrutiny. DarkKnight2149 18:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As if that wasn't evidence enough of WP:SOCKing, DisneyMetalhead's account was registered in September 2016 [13]. Popfox3 was registered only a month later in October 2016 [14]. So far, Popfox's only defense has been "actually I'm not a sock because my account was registered in 2016 and I simply didn't use it until recently." [15] In other words, "I didn't use my account until I needed to support DisneyMetalhead at Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions." DarkKnight2149 19:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

While that does appear suspicious, you need to be clear, DK - are you stating, without equivocation, that DMh and Popfox3 are the same user? If so, you need to come out and call for a SPI investigation and file the report. I get how, if it is true, it is infuriating (I've had the same accusation made about me as well, and it is a stain that - if not specifically debunked - remains forever), but you cannot even make the accusation as part of an argument without having created an SPI report. As upset as you might be at DMh, tainting their reputation is completely unwarranted without a truckload of proof. Submit the report, await the results and frame your argument accordingly. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: It is not just DisneyMetalhead's reputation that is being tainted. I finally have time to attempt to contribute, and I immediately have accusations hurled at me and a potential investigation into my account, all because I agreed with a user in a discussion. I am NOT a sock puppet, and it is infuriating and humiliating that I have to go through this and have my reputation tainted before I even really do anything. I actually welcome an investigation if that's what it'll take to get Darknight2149 to stop. This is ridiculous. Popfox3 (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I understand that, throughout the discussion, you have tried to be the middle man of the discussion who has tried to find a middle ground between everyone involved. However, there is no middle ground here. DisneyMetalhead's behaviour fits the exact parameters of WP:BLUDGEON. My point is that there is overwhelming evidence that Popfox3 is a sock puppet of DisneyMetalhead. I'm waiting for administrator feedback first, but I probably am going to have to open a WP:SPI at some point today. I'm not clairvoyant, but from what I can see, this more than warrants a checkuser. DarkKnight2149 19:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, I would strongly recommend that DisneyMetalhead stop reply-spamming at Talk:DC Extended Universe, and give others a chance to comment. For the moment, unless someone addresses me or something I said, I will be doing the same. DarkKnight2149 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Popfox3 - I am not going to reply directly to your comments as, at best, you are an SPA, and not really worthy of comment. At worst you are a sock, and I literally will not waste any further time (apart from this single comment) to interact with you until you either build a more diverse set of edits and an SPI comes back as unrelated. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 I myself have been accused of BLUDGEON (even before the term came into fashion); it comes from being young and unwilling to consider other viewpoints; a person doing so is absolutely convinced that the other editors suffer from anterograde amnesia and won't remember the previous comments make. Its rather disrespectful and I cringe at the fact that I used to be that way.

Understand that DMh is likely young and needs a bit more marinating in the Stew of Life before being taken seriously. If they are socking, they deserve every single awful thing that Wikipedia can do to them (please forgive my draconian view on this, but it will not be softening or changing - socks deserve the Swift Sword of Icky Death, imo). I would have suggested on their talk page that they give other the chance to respond before addressing the comments en toto and not piecemeal. If that failed to work, get an RfC; don't wait for it, just start one. Lots of eyes will come to the page and if DMh keeps doing that, their comments will likely boomerang back onto themselves.

I think an ANI is bit much (as you skipped a step), unless you are seeking help on how to correct the problem. If you came here seeking punishment for DMh and Popfox3, you've done this incorrectly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I didn't skip a step. I actually did leave DisneyMetalHead a message asking for them to cool it down, and they retaliated by filing this report. I didn't file it. This is a WP:BOOMERANG scenario.

To be honest, I don't buy Popfox3's story at all. When I was a newbie, I didn't even understand what a talk page was or the discussion process until a few weeks or so in. Yet his/her supposed first (and only) order of business is to only reply to Talk:DC Extended Universe discussions? And they happen to take all of the same positions as DisneyMetalHead? And they happened to show up to the thread just as DMH was growing more and more desperate and overzealous, and the thread was seemingly leading to a close or a RFC? And as soon as they supported DMH, they created a blank userpage and talk page to get rid of the redlink and make their lack of activity less obvious? And their account was created just a month after DisneyMetalHead's? Yeah, everything about this smells fishy. I already have a WP:SPI tab open. I will alert this thread when the report is filed. DarkKnight2149 20:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you you following the necessary steps, Darkknight2149 dotting your 'i's' and crossing your 't's'. Maybe hold off on talking any more about your suspicions regarding the connections between DMh ad Popfox3 until after the SPI. The ANI is to deal with tendentious editing behavior or personal attacks, which DMh correctly did; accusing them of being part of a socking is a PA unless proven, as the lack of AGF is apparent. Others will offer far more wise advice than I. I am suggesting you don't make any further comments regarding the SPI until it is complete. Focus on what you feel is DMh's disruptive editing behaviors as you see them, because I can guarantee that the user is doing the same here.

The hardest lesson I had to learn in Wikipedia is that trying to verbally annihilate another user in an edit summary or in talk is counterproductive; how can you even wrap your head around working with someone like that ever again, hating them that much? The short answer is that you cannot. You have to just walk away for a while and let them dig a big enough hole for themselves, jump in and start throwing dirt on themselves. You can sit by the side an eat popcorn or whatever. Just stay above their personal implosion. The point is that you point out a problem, and allow the larger contingent of very smart people here figure out how to resolve that problem. Anyone is prone to mistakes, but not a larger group of thinkers, like you see in Wikipedia. Give the system a chance to work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Darkknight2149 your vehement beliefs that User:Popfox3 is me through WP:SockPuppetry is humorous. File your WP:SPI and you'll just come to find that you were wrong. I'll wait patiently for your apology. User:Jack Sebastian, I awarded you on your page for being a mediator throughout the discussion and for trying to stay neutral. I've appreciated those things. I would point out that your response to Popfox3 is not the most welcoming comment to a recently registered editor, but your opinions are your own. It's unfortunate that Darkknight2149's behavior requires admin input. I will continue to provide input (with their reliable sources) in any discussion that I'm a part of. Regardless of whether DK2149 likes it or not.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "It's unfortunate that Darkknight2149's behavior requires admin input." You mean asking you to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, or alerting the discussion to the indisputable suspiciousness of the Popfox3 situation? (I have around 10 notifications from you just from the last few days alone...) I'd say at least of those certainly requires administrator input. It just might not be the administrator input you want. The SPI will sort that out regardless, so there's no reason for me to keep harping on it here.

I hope you and Popfox3 aren't bluffing, because if this turns out to be a coincidence and Popfox3 really is just a single-purpose account, that's one heck of a coincidence (or rather, multiple coincidences at once). So far, two other users have backed up the suspiciousness of the situation, so I'm not sure what result you're expecting by filing this report. DarkKnight2149 23:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, by their own admission, Popfox has been here for several years; they aren't a "recently registered user". I have little respect for SPAs and far less respect if they are indeed a sock account. As per BEANS, I'm not going to point out why Popfox3 is a red flag. I am giving them the consideration of not bothering to talk to them until the conclusion of the SPI.

As well, you should hold off on commenting after every. single. comment. in a discussion. People are not stupid. Given folk a chance to compare your clearly stated view with others. No one is going to assume that you have magically dropped your objections if you don't say anything for a day or two. Let others weigh in. That is the advice I would give you on preventing friction in the discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: As stated before, I will continue to wait for the apology. Funny thing is, there's one editor here who is jumping to conclusions and "pointing fingers" - and it's not me. Meanwhile I remain calm, and simply would like some assistance from an admin with the entire discussion. I have continued to respond to comments/placed input/and added new sources to the discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe. Though accused of WP:BLUDGEONing, that has not been my intention. I have simply attempted to respond to statements, and contribute to the article with reliable sources. As a sidenote: any and all users - whether non-ANNON/new/old/etc, can constructively contribute to articles. No one should discourage them anyhow. @Jack Sebastian: I'll be hot-tubbing in your Stew of Life with the Swift Sword of Icky Death, waiting for the WP:ANI to prove that User:Popfox3 is not associate with me at all **emphasis on humor intended**. I wonder however, what you think of the recent sources in the discussion - since you contributed to the discussion earlier. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn elsewhere, DisneyMetalhead. I think that others can get involved in the discussion. I made my opinion known and that should be enough. I am sorry of you took offense at the 'Stew of Life' comment; I see a lot of how I used to act in your behavior, and I am not trying to shame you into being better, but I think its fair to say that the vibe you are putting out there is not having a positive effect on other editors. You don't need to respond to every comment. You just don't. Sit back and let the collaborative discussion happen without you having to reiterate your points (unless directly challenged or asked). There is no hurry. And I've said about Popfox3 all I am going to until the result of the SPI.

Darkknight2149, please include a link to the SPI request, for the purposes of discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Sorry for the slight wait. It will be up soon. DarkKnight2149 03:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian The Stew of Life comment I just made, was meant to be funny. To clarify I did not take offense, and I believe that some of my comments are being read/taken in a sinister/argumentative nature when they are not intended to be. I appreciate your candor and your peace-keeping angle throughout the discussion. I have no ill-will towards anyone on WP, and simply am trying to preserve the integrity of an article. I know that I don't have to response to every comment, but when I am the sole input out of 3 editors, stating why I disagree with the notion (up until @Popfox3: that is) - I was merely attempting to provide all the resources that support my argument. I will wait for that SPI 'investigation' to be over with, and I hope at that point there are some apologies that go around. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Continued bludgeoning from DisneyMetalhead

The SPI hasn't even filed yet and DisneyMetalhead is continuing to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion [16]. Both myself and Jack Sebastian have warned them about it at this point, and advised them to drop the stick and wait for others to comment. Even when the consensus is stacked against them and when everyone has explained why repeatedly, DMH insists on replying to every single comment to aggressively hammer the point in some more. I guess DMH thought that by filing a retaliatory report and spinning it as an incivility report (all because of this message and this notice, by the way), they would get some kind of "get out of jail free" card to continue exactly what they have been doing. I have well over 20 notifications from DisneyMetalhead from the last few days alone, and they're all from the same discussion at Talk:DC Extended Universe. DarkKnight2149 07:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User:DK2149; your anger is evident on each thread. However, an ongoing discussion that has not reached remotely any consensus, can/should/will be continued with new and updated sources. There was no WP:BLUDGEONing in a message that was my attempts to ping various/additional users who have contributed to the article. I have not replied to "every single comment" nor has there been any "agress[ion]". If you choose to read my comments as such, that's entirely in your error. My attempts here are to preserve and article. I've already stated why I submitted this request to admins. It has nothing to do with the reasoning you just said. In the meantime, @Popfox3: and I are still waiting for you to file your SPI...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No one here is "angry" and WP:BLUDGEON is defined as "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for Deletion, Request for Comment, WP:ANI, an article talk page or even another user's talk page. Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view." You have absolutely been doing this in spades. There also has been a consensus so far, which you are trying to change by replying constantly with the same arguments over and over, while also trying to argue why the standing consensus isn't valid because you don't like it. Every time you have provided "sources", they have either failed to justify your point or failed to contradict the majority viewpoint in the discussion (for the same reasons explained repeatedly). Your more recent sources are no exception.

The discussion is going in a literal merry-go-round. And as the thread died down and as soon as opening a RFC or wrapping the thread up by taking final comments/votes was mentioned, you immediately jumped in with a new section just to espouse all of the same points all over again and create excuses for why the consensus isn't a consensus. Everyone there understands your position perfectly well. Trying to burying the thread in comments (often at least two comments at once) to try and get your point across is highly disruptive. We get it. Until other users have had a chance to comment, you need to drop the stick and lay off the discussion. As previously mentioned, I have well over 20 notifications from you just from the last few days alone, all from the same discussion. Do I need to post a screenshot? DarkKnight2149 19:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

Main page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisneyMetalhead

The sock puppet investigation has been filed.

• @DisneyMetalhead: You are currently under investigation for suspected sock puppetry.
• @Popfox3: You are currently under investigation for suspected sock puppetry.

DarkKnight2149 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

To note, the users have been found unrelated by a check user. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted (and I myself pointed it out at the SPI even before the CU was requested) that this could be a likely outcome of any CU as it seems that different IP addresses would be in use for each account in purpose to avoid detection, as per DisneyMetalhead's own acknowledgement that they knew Popfox3's IP address was "nowhere near mine" (sic) despite WP:WIA barring any user sort of a Checkuser from knowing such details, and their repeated taunts for a SPI to be filled – they simply knew any CU wouldn't work. Impru20^talk 00:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I have also left an inquiry for Bbb23 on this topic. The evidence tells me that there is too much here for this to be a coincidence. The fact that others were able to dig up even more damning evidence of a connection (such as DisneyMetalhead being telepathically aware of Popfox's IP address) means that this has to be a WP:MEAT situation at the very least. DarkKnight2149 00:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Prefall just noted they've gotten away with socking while logged out in the past, so I have a hard time believing that there's genuinely no connection between DMH and Popfox. JOEBRO64 00:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

All that I can say is that I do not know DisneyMetalhead and was actually taken aback by their IP Address comment because I wouldn't even know how to go about checking that (and from what I am gathering, is in fact impossible without Check User privileges). I took the same position as them in a discussion, it is as simple as that. All the "evidence" used to attempt to prove otherwise is completely coincidental, and nothing more. Popfox3 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like even more evidence is unravelling about DisneyMetalhead having possibly behaved similarly in the past, this time while logged out ([17]). This would correlate to them having acknowledged themselves in a past discussion on 24 January that "I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames" (sic). Aside of the presented evidence, any claim of editing with alternative accounts would forcefully require them identifying as such on their user page—or not trying to actively deceive other editors in the case of editing while logged out—which does not seem to be the case here. Impru20^talk 01:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Popfox3: You were "taken aback" by DisneyMetalhead's IP address comment at 17:33, 8 February 2020, yet still said nothing about it until now, came to this ANI thread in their defense at 19:52, 8 February 2020 without making any mention at such circumstance and even replied by thanking them for their "kindness", "courtesy" and "warm welcome" at 05:22, 9 February 2020? I would surely not be "looking forward to work" nor would be so excited with someone with whom I am "taken aback" because they somehow know about my IP address. Seems odd to say the least. Impru20^talk 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course I would defend and be excited to work with Disneymetalhead, because they are the one user who have attempted to make me feel welcome at Wikipedia. Try looking at it from my point of view. I contribute to a discussion and am immediately attacked and accused of being a sock puppet account. Multiple times in this ANI thread I have endured personal attacks against the credibility of my account and explanation for the coincidences and was told by one user that I was not even worth talking to, and this was well before an SPI was even officially filed. So forgive me for being willing to defend the ONE user who has been willing to defend me and attempt to make me feel welcome as an editor at Wikipedia. Popfox3 (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to clarify, that in my comment regarding IP addresses - I have no idea how these SockPuppetry investigations go. I would have imagined that there was a way to look at IP addresses. I, in no way, actually know @Popfox3:'s IP. Nor do I understand how the whole processes go. Needless to say, I am in no way tech-savvy. Furthermore my statement "I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames" (sic) is in regards to years ago when I had a different profile. The username was deleted, and I left Wikipedia for some time. A similar occasion happened shortly thereafter, before I registered my current username and have since stuck to it. I do not concurrently use multiple log-ins, as has been insinuated (and as my previous statement can be interpreted to mean). --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Then how do you explain this? Moreover, why did you claim that Popfox's IP address is "nowhere near" yours? I'm not alone when I say this - None of this adds up. DarkKnight2149 01:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

How do I explain what exactly? I just stated that I don't know the user known as Popfox3. Assume WP:GOODFAITH, and understand that I misspoke - stating how I thought it would be proved...through IPs. I stated that they are nowhere near me - because they aren't me. Cheers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If they're not you, then how would you know where their IP address is? That's a very specific way of putting it. But back to my first question, how do you explain the strong evidence of socking between you and 206.81.136.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) presented by Prefall at the SPI? This wasn't a simple case of logged out editing, because you directly interacted with the IP as if it were a separate user. Also worth mentioning, Popfox3 made their first non-DC Extended Universe edits today by making some edits at Harry Potter articles and joining the Harry Potter Task Force, and even that is a topic area that you have been known to edit in the past [18], [19], [20]. As others have pointed out, checkusers can detect proxies and VPNs, but they can't necessarily detect if you are using a long distance IP from another computer or instances of WP:MEAT. DarkKnight2149 04:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, would you care linking to your previous account(s)? The account isn't deleted, as it's impossible to delete an account. JOEBRO64 12:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I was going to comment about this. DisneyMetalhead claims he had "a different profile" (singular) years ago and that "the username" (singular again) was then "deleted"; however, Wikipedia profiles can't be deleted as per WP:FAQ and WP:UNC. Further, they relate to just one previous account here despite having previously referred to "various usernames" on 24 January and claiming in their own userpage that they "have been for years as an unregistered editor, and previously other editing profiles that were since abandoned/unregistered". On this, it is remarkable that their userpage initially claimed, in March 2017, that they "have been for years under an unregistered editor name" only. It was not until June 2019 that they made mention to "other editing profiles". And they edited it again to add the "that were since abandoned/unregistered" bit at 01:51, 10 February 2020, this is, in response to my comment earlier at 01:02 where I pointed out that they had previously claimed having had several usernames.

If DisneyMetalhead did use other accounts in the past, which do obviously still exist because they can't be unregistered or deleted, their identity must be disclosed. We can't have an user apparently having undisclosed sleeper accounts around here, as that's a potential hotbed for socking and even block evasion.

On the IP issue, the concern is not that DisneyMetalhead claimed having a different IP than Popfox3 (that would be obvious if they are different people). The issue is that they claimed that Popfox3's IP was "nowhere near mine". You can't know where a IP range originates from without knowing such an IP address beforehand, thus being impossible to determine whether it is near or far from your own.

It's also becoming very obvious that Popfox3 is only commenting in places where DisneyMetalhead is present. Indeed, their user talkpage discussions are becoming a near-insult at pretending they are different people. The way the two accounts are engaging to each other is not natural at all (Further, it wasn't DisneyMetalhead who opened this ANI thread? One would think they know nothing about it from this comment.... This has gone beyond WP:BOOMERANG already). Impru20^talk 14:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

We definitely need to get some admin involvement. I think it's safe to say there's definitely something fishy going on here. JOEBRO64 21:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Users: Impru20 and TheJoebro64 - an admin reviewed the case and closed it. I misspoke in the past when I said that I had various users. What happened in the past is that for years I made edits on Wikipedia without having a registered login. That was my choice. When I registered a user, it was in the early days of my edits. It was my impression that the old user was done away with.... unless I'm mistaken. I will look up my old username. Regardless of this past mistake, I have only ever used my current log-in/user since creating it. As for my comments on @Popfox3:'s page - I am free to congratulate them on the ending of this ridiculous witch hunt. I changed my user page to reflect what I had originally meant when posting the comment that IMPRU is referring to. I have re-stated and clarified what I have meant by each comment. I stand by my clarifications.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Question: Honest question (this may perhaps show my lack of tech-savviness)... how do I look at when an article was created? There was one article created with my previous editor log-in.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, previously when I stated that I had used other 'log-ins' I was being ambiguous as to how many... and when I added that I did not know that it was not allowed to have multiple. That is why I have adjusted it to state what I had originally meant.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

DisneyMetalhead, you should just go into the article history and keep going back until you get to the earliest revision. JOEBRO64 23:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: If you inform us on what the article is, we can find it for you. DarkKnight2149 07:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: and @Darkknight2149: the only article created with a previous log-in was an article about The Storm, the American rock band. However, as I previously stated that log-in has been abandoned/never used long ago. Reviewing the edit history however, I go to the oldest edit and I don't see the article being created. Perhaps I'm looking at this incorrectly(?). In all honesty I don't even remember the old username that was used (this was years ago).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Upon searching my old user-name, the page no longer exists... with some further digging, reviewing articles I have edited years ago, as well as talk-page discussions that I was involved with - I found an ANI regarding incivility allegations in 2016, with a discussion regarding some edits I had done years ago. They can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933 #User:Burningblue52.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The account in question is Lorem ipsum5656 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is indefinitely blocked, and I'm not entirely sure why you didn't just retract the supposed legal threat (and become immediately unblocked) instead of creating a new account two weeks later. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: the honest reason was that I thought it had been deleted/removed (I didn't know it could be unblocked). On top of that, the title of username had personal significance in my life at that time. After going through some traumatic marital experiences, I wanted a "clean slate"/fresh start and changed all my log-ins on various pages. In the meantime, my busy schedule did not allow for me to be constantly checking WP. I hope this shows that I have not used 'multiple user names' as I miss-stated on my talk page. I edited without a registered log-in for years, simply because I did not care to/have time to. When I made the user referenced above and upon being blocked (in addition to the personal life situations), I made a new log-in to start over. Those are the only user names I ever made/used. It was my understanding that the username was deleted/removed...I didn't know it could be unblocked at the time.

You are telling me you have been evading a block for four years? Wow.

That's not how WP:FRESHSTART works. It is explicit in that Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions imposed (including, but not limited to, those listed here); or is currently or about to be formally discussed for their conduct (such as at an administrative noticeboard or in an open case with the Arbitration Committee); or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start. You can't just create a new account because your previous one was indeffed, then claim it is a "clean start". That's anything but "clean". Impru20^talk 00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

On top of the apparent socking with IP addresses, this would blatantly and unambiguously fall under WP:Block evasion. DarkKnight2149 05:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Seemingly, their previous account did acknowledge already in September 2016 having been an editor "under various emails and usernames". Plus, under the DisneyMetalhead account they attempted to pose as if the two of them were two entirely different and unrelated editors (diff). Considering all presented evidence, it is very likely that this older account isn't the only one or even the first one being operated by this person. Impru20^talk 12:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I just remembered something. I thought this account sounded familiar, and it turns out, I have a history with Lorem ipsum5656. Lorem is actually Burningblue52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who actually had an extensive history of original research, WP:CIR, restoring edits reverted by multiple editors against consensus, and a whole list of other problems. Burningblue52 renamed their account right before they were blocked, and they weren't blocked for no reason. If Burningblue and DisneyMetalHead are the same user, that's definitely a major problem. DarkKnight2149 19:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Tagging Doug Weller, who blocked Lorem ipsum5656/Burningblue52 the first time. DarkKnight2149 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, this certainly answers a lot of questions I had. I'm absolutely stunned and saddened that DMH has been block evading for years now. I think we need to keep doing some digging to see if we can find any other potential sleepers/previously blocked accounts, as this is by no means a small issue. JOEBRO64 21:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

If DMH has been doing that, shouldn't they be blocked by this point? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

We're still waiting for an administrator response. DarkKnight2149 23:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment from TheJoebro64

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

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

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

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

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

And let me tell you, that's just one case of this. Just look at the talk page and its history. It's mind boggling. I knew it would eventually make it to some sort of noticeboard one of these days, I just didn't know when. There. I said it all. I'm at peace now. JOEBRO64 23:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, this thread has been open for nearly 20 days and (despite unanimous consensus that block evasion and bludgeoning took place, and clear evidence of sleeper accounts) the case still hasn't received administrator attention. Not that there's any rush, but given the threat of a premature archive, someone might consider adding a DNAU template. DarkKnight2149 02:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by Darkknight2149

Darkknight2149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been causing persistent disruption at Articles for deletion. This "keep" vote in particular, in which they attack the nominator for three paragraphs, and drags me into it for some reason, is problematic.

TTN has been cleaning up topics about fictional elements on Wikipedia for the past several months by nominating several hundred of them for deletion via PROD and AFD. I compiled a list of his AFD nominations from November 2019 and found that he had a 97% “success” rate, meaning 97% of his nominations resulted in delete, merge, or redirect after discussion.

November 2019 TTN AFD nominations

Stats: Total nominated = 127 Delete = 88 Merge = 8 Redirect = 27 Keep = 4 Delete Places in The Dark Tower series World of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen List of Hollyoaks locations Earldoms of Gwynedd (fictional) Crafthalls of Pern Locations in the Bionicle Saga Religions of the Discworld Guids of Ankh-Morpork Harper Hall List of locations in Artemis Fowl Locations of Shorthand Street Duchies of Gwynedd (fictional) Transformers: Generations Roadbuster Female Autobots List of boats in Arthur Ransome books Ahab (comics) Blithe (comics) Blight (comics) List of dimensions of the Discworld Transformers: Alternators Cancer (comics) Vishanti Adri Nital Action Pack (comics) Deities in the Elric series Karl Glogauer Gwynedd (fictional) Torenth (fictional) – also redirect Aura (comics) Grail (Wildstorm) Debbie Grayson Discworld gods Flora and fauna of the Discworld List of locations in Babylon 5 Outstanding elements of Babylon 5 List of Firefly planets and moons Planets of the Hainish Cycle Transformers: Robot Masters Pretenders (Transformers) Candlemaker (DC Comics) Cannon (Wildstorm) Mythology of Teen Wolf League of Super-Assassins Transformers Label series Exiles (Red Skull allies) Committee (comics) Creatures of Terabithia List of Redwall characters Nanny (comics) Cordelia Frost Bludgeon (Transformers) Darkwing (Transformers) Demolishor List of Primes and Matrix holders Flint (Wildstorm) Taboo (Wildstorm) Frostbite (Wildstorm) Spike Witwicky Wheeljack List of Beast Wars toys Double Dare (comics) Doctor Moon Deuce and Charger Crazy Sues Daily Globe (comics) Appellaxian Aquawoman Protector (Marvel Comics) NKVDemon Spacecraft in Red Dwarf List of Dune ships Gaius Cassius Longius (Rome character) Quintus Valerius Pompey Transformers: Robots in Disguise (toy line) Ironhide Norns (comics) Kid Commandos Cognoscenti (comics) Blacklight (MC2) – also redirect Stone (Marvel Comics) Googam Katherine Anne Summers Shiver Man Wildcard (comics) Plague (comics) List of planets in Marvel Comics Revolutionary (comics) Merge Ankh-Morpork Assassins' Guild History Monks Cutthroat (comics) Izzy Cohen Ronald Reagan in fiction Glowworm (comics) Arm-Fall-Off-Boy Guillotine (character) Redirect Rumble (Transformers) Ramjet (Transformers) Sentinel Prime Black Mass (comics) Grail (DC Comics) Clown (comics) Nehwon Eleven Kingdoms Ace Morgan Dorian Hawkmoon Marcus Junius Brutus (Rome character) Servilia of the Junii Lord Conquest Captain Wonder (DC Comics) Chlorophyll Kid Foxglove (DC Comics) Octavia of the Julii Chaos Dwarfs (Warhammer) Optimus Primal Gnaeus Pompey Magnus (Rome character) Undead (Warhammer) Niobe of the Voreni Artemis (Marvel Comics) Redwing (Marvel Comics) Bagalia Jann of the Jungle Lucky the Pizza Dog Keep Big Man (comics) Bi-Beast Umar (Marvel Comics) Goom

Darkknight2149 has been frustrated about these mass nominations, claiming TTN doesn't look into these topics before nominating them and that the !voters are either misguided or have an agenda.

There have been multiple instances of Darkknight2149 threatening to take TTN to ANI over these concerns, and seemingly using this threat to try to prevent TTN from nominating more pages for deletion:

1. "If you continue your disruption, you will be reported."
2. "When you continue on, do be surprised when you get hit with an ANI report. That's all there really is to say at this point."
3. "I hope you understand that the incivility and WP:Casting aspersions alone is enough reason for me to file a report, let alone everything else."
4. "I'm going to file a report within the next few days when I get the time/energy to do so."
5. "In addition to what this IP said, I plan on filing an ANI report on TTN within the next few days, per the exchange here..."
6. "Yes, I still plan on doing so (if you are referring to the TTN report)."
7. "I actually plan on filing an WP:ANI report pretty soon in regard to the blind spammings that are currently taking place at WP:AFD; the user in question has displayed tendencies of WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, and several others, and has been banned from fictional character deletion discussions for similar behaviours in the past"
8. "A lot of it is the refusal to get the point and engage in dispute resolution by TTN and Piotrus, from which I plan filing an WP:ANI report over the weekend if they do not rectify their behaviour."
9. "If they make no effort to open a larger community-wide discussion to address the concerns with fancruft, instead of disruptively and haphazardly spamming deletion nominations, I absolutely am filing an WP:ANI report this weekend."
10. "The battleground mentality and inability to admit when you have a mistake is a major reason this is going to WP:ANI this weekend if no attempt is made to stop what you are doing and engage in dispute resolution."
11. "Stop deletion spamming and open a legitimate discussion to propose your concerns, or this will soon become an WP:ANI / WP:ARBCOM matter. TTN and Piotrus have until this weekend."
12. "If we can agree on these terms, I will step down from this dispute and recede the (very valid) WP:ANI report I was planning on filing."
13. "You really are going to make us take this to ANI or ArbCom, aren't you?"

The main discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) can be found here, which expands on many editors' opinions on the matter, including TTN, Darkknight2149, and multiple administrators like me.

Other threads that have persistent hostility from this user:

1. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goblin_(Marvel_Comics)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harley Quinn in other media

Other particularly disruptive/hostile diffs (edit: these are diffs that help show a pattern for this user's behavior, including but not limited to their interactions with TTN):

1. Here
2. Here
3. Here
4. Here

Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes by attacking TTN or other users for nominating many articles for deletion:

1. Iron Maiden (comics)
2. Harley Quinn in other media
3. Judge Death
4. Terrible Trio

Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes at AFD without providing a rationale:

1. List of Marvel Comics dimensions
2. Screwball (comics)
3. Super Buddies
4. Wonder Dog (Super Friends)

I am proposing a one-way interaction ban between Darkknight2149 and TTN, as well as a topic ban for Darkknight2149 at AFD. I have no issue with trying to argue in favor of keeping an article at AFD, but when your arguments are mainly attacking the nominator or ”just a !vote”, they aren't productive. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand that my focus on deletion over anything else and past history are contentious for many, but I'm not particularly sure how I earned such ire from them. Pretty much every interaction with them goes back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin (Marvel Comics), in which I think they formed Mount Everest from a grain of sand. Maybe a third party can tell me I'm wrong, but I think my position there was perfectly clear. I'd admit that our initial interactions weren't without a bit of venom from both sides, but I feel they should have long moved past it. TTN (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If Darkknight2149 feels that he has a legitimate reason for a grievance about TTN then I feel he needs to address it, and lay out his case here and now. If not, then I agree it is long past time he let it go instead of continuing to make threats and doing nothing. I think discussion on an interaction ban and/or AFD topic ban should hold until after he has had a chance to respond, since depending on how he responds, his response may itself prompt a ban discussion. If he does not file a complaint at this time and is willing and able to let it go, then a ban is not needed. BOZ (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban between Darkknight2149 and TTN and topic ban at AFD as nom. It's clear from Darkknight2149's response below that they are not going to drop the stick anytime soon. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• More threats/attempts at intimidation, this time directed towards me: 1. "If you continue to edit war and scew the discussion, I'm having you reported for edit warring." 2. "I will probably end up having to a report to have to file a report about Eagle427's administratorship." 3. "This is most likely headed to Request for De-Adminship, depending on how the situation and (probable) ArbCom follow up plays out." Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way interaction ban between Darkknight2149 and TTN and topic ban at AFD as per nom, but time-limited for 90 days. Not specific to Darkknight 2149 necessarily, but obviously including them based on the diffs presented by nom, there has been a pattern of intimidation, incivility, misinformed AfD !votes and threats against editors nominating comics and game-related topics for deletion. Though I initially suggested this should be time-limited to 90 days, on the basis of my perception that this was a transient issue, Darkknight's subsequent comments in this thread are indicative of a long-term fixation that will be unlikely to resolve in a set period of time. I think an indefinite IBAN/TBAN would, therefore, be in the best interest of the community. Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC); edited 02:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN to stop Darkknight2149 from harassing TTN, and also support AfD topic ban. This editor doesn't seem able to disagree civilly with people over deletion discussions, and has obviously developed an extreme hatred for TTN. A 97% success rate indicates there actually isn't anything wrong with TTN's nominations, but Darkknight2149 can't seem to accept that. The ranting and raving pointed out in the above diffs are bad enough, but the attempted intimidation is worse. "Do as I say or I'll take you to ANI! I'll do it! ANI! I will, I'll drag you to ANI! You have until the count of three.... one... two... two and a half... No really, I'm serious, you have to do as I say or I'll drag you to ANI!! And I'm starting an ArbCom case too!" Reyk _YO! 12:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Boomerang - This proposal is baseless, dishonest, and is very likely to WP:BOOMERANG for Eagles247.

Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes by attacking TTN or other users for nominating many articles for deletion - Blatantly fabricated. Half of those diffs (taken out of context) have absolutely nothing to do with AfD, TTN, or this situation at all. This was me removing a rude reply from my talk page (not AfD related), and this was me replying to a flippant, uncivil insult (also unrelated to AfD). Eagles247 is deliberately digging through my comment history, cherry-picking diffs, and claiming that they are AfD-related. This type of dishonesty is concerning coming from an administrator, not to mention (in addition to everything else) grounds for WP:ADMINACCT.

TTN has been cleaning up topics about fictional elements on Wikipedia for the past several months by nominating several hundred of them for deletion via PROD and AFD Right off the bat, he spins the situation without even attempting to explain what has been happening at AfD.

found that he had a 97% “success” rate, meaning 97% of his nominations resulted in delete, merge, or redirect after discussion - This excuse isn't valid for the reasons I'm about to outline below and are already outlined at WT:Notability (fiction). Nor does it justify TTN's disruption and refusal to engage in dispute resolution (the driving force of this conflict that Eagles neglected to mention).

and seemingly using this threat to try to prevent TTN from nominating more pages Having actively participated in the dispute at WT:Notability (fiction), Eagles247 knows exactly what the conflict is about. On top of outright lying, Eagles247 is deliberately feigning ignorance for the convenience of this report.

There have been multiple instances of Darkknight2149 threatening to take TTN to ANI over these concerns Proceeds to list of the instances where TTN was warned to stop and engage in dispute resolution. Notice how the crux of this "report" that Eagles247 filed (and subsequently parroted by Reyk) boils down to "Darkknight2149 had not gotten around to filing the ANI report yet, so he was using intimidation!" That's because it is the only thing they have to use against me and they know it.

Recent AFDs in which Darkknight !votes at AFD without providing a rationale This falls under WP:BADGERING. Given the sheer volume of nominations, my votes are perfectly valid. Every single one of those diffs was also in favour of a merge/move (which actually supports the nominations), so I'm not exactly sure what Eagles247 is trying to prove with this. This is also hypocritical considering that most of the rationales for deletion themselves (provided by TTN and Piotrus) have been some copy/paste variation of "Fails to establish notability. WP:GNG." TTN has also made it abundantly clear throughout these nominations that all he is doing is digging up as many Start-class/C-class character articles as he can, scrolling down to the References section, and spamming deletion nominations based on that alone. He doesn't even give users time to respond to the PRODS before opening an AfD. When sources are provided and guidelines are presented, TTN almost always refuses to accept them. There's no reason to type an in-depth explanation on every single vote. DarkKnight2149 11:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Note 2 - Additionally, I should also note that Reyk and Chetsford are both biased involved parties. Reyk is fully in on TTN and Eagles247's behaviour, as can be seen in the grotesque circlejerk that took place at WT:Notability (fiction) [21], [22], [23] and every other instance where Reyk has involved himself. His rationale for the ban is also the same paper-thin "DK didn't open the ANI report yet!" excuse that he parroted from Eagles247.

Similarly, Chetsford's rationale for support is purely political - Not specific to Darkknight2149 necessarily, but obviously including them based on the diffs presented by nom, there has been a pattern of intimidation, incivility, misinformed AfD !votes and threats against editors nominating comics and game-related topics for deletion. Diffs that were (in part) fabricated by Eagles247, having been completely unrelated to TTN and AfD. This AN thread provided by Miraclepine below also seems to shed light on Chetsford, where TTN and Chetsford are both seen harassing BOZ for creating character articles and voting against TTN's deletion nominations. [24] Nothing fishy about any of this at all.

I suspect that every Support vote will be exactly the same. Even if Eagles247 and TTN can WP:FACTION their way into making this retaliatory proposal pass ANI, it would likely be immediately repealed afterwards by the arbitration committee. TTN and Eagles247 would do best to stop sanction gaming and open a community-wide discussion at WP:DRN. Their refusal to adhere to simple consensus / WP:BRD procedure, and attempting to claim that everyone who has come out against them is part of some secret ownership cabal is the only reason this dispute is still ongoing. DarkKnight2149 11:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN to stop Darkknight2149 interacting with TTN, and also an AfD topic ban at the very least. No, DarkKnight2149, not every "Support" vote will be the same, because this one wouldn't even have existed but for your ludicrous rant just above this with accusations of lying, hypocrisy, intimidation and the "grotesque circlejerk" comment. I'm not entirely sure what you were thinking when you wrote it, but I suspect it will ensure that this ANI will not go well for you. Black Kite (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I am currently working on a response to this below explaining the situation with TTN (which I don't believe you are aware of and hasn't been addressed yet). The "accusations of lying, hypocrisy, and intimidation" exists because actual lying and hypocrisy took place. As I mentioned on my talk page, you will see me mention that this is the most blatant instance of administrator corruption I have encountered on Wikipedia (and I don't say that lightly). If you go through those diffs, you will find that what I said about Eagles427 fabricating evidence is 100% accurate.

I believe you are reacting to my comment on your face value perception of it. Could you please explain what it is you object to? DarkKnight2149 13:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're partially correct - if you don't understand why the above comments are written in a seriously problematic way, then I don't think I can help. (I mean, "Reyk is fully in on TTN and Eagles247's behaviour, as can be seen in the grotesque circlejerk that took place at (diffs) and every other instance where Reyk has involved himself") More to the point is that you are writing as if there is a massive political conspiracy by multiple users against you, without stopping to think that they all might believe independently that they are doing the right thing. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I apologise if my wording came across too strongly in that sentence. I don't see anything inherently hostile in the rest of it, though. And no, there most certainly isn't a "political conspiracy" against me. In fact, TTN, Piotrus, and Eagles247 are the ones arguing that there's a conspiracy. This (and the situation itself, which is complicated) will be properly explained in #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149, where I outline what is really been happening with the whole TTN debacle (Eagles247 has been deliberately vague and dishonest). Hopefully when given proper context, you reconsider your vote. So far, you are the only uninvolved party to vote. DarkKnight2149 13:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do not believe there is a conspiracy here or at AFD. I think in general, members of a WikiProject may be more inclined to support the inclusion of articles within their WikiProject scope but there is nothing wrong with that tendency as long as there are policies and guidelines to support their positions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the fabrication of evidence than anything else, and specifically attributing out of context unrelated diffs that you dug from my contribution history to the AfD situation. I never thought I would see an administrator stoop that low. DarkKnight2149 14:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're carrying on in the same manner here - accusing people of lying, calling them names, and making all sorts of wild speculations as to their motivations. That makes it hard to believe the diffs above have been taken out of context at all. Being rude and accusatory seems to be your default setting. Reyk _YO! 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What you want to believe is immaterial, Reyk. Eagles247 absolutely did cherry-pick random diffs from my comment history and lie about them being related to AfD and TTN, which would be fabricating evidence. Not to mention that those two diffs that are related to AfD aren't even uncivil to begin with. If Eagles247 doesn't want to get called out for lying, then I suggest he stops lying. If they continue libeling and disruption, they are going to get called out for doing so. It's as simple as that. I know I'm in the right because the only thing you have against me is - 1) I didn't get around to filing the ANI report as soon as I would have liked. 2) I called TTN and Eagles247 out for their disruption, which you are spinning as an "attack". You know it just as well as I do, which is why Eagles247 is being forced to lie and fabricate evidence to begin with.

"calling them names" - Speaking of lying, when was this supposed name-calling? I would love to see proof of that, unless you consider "biased and involved" a personal attack.

"making all sorts of wild speculations" Ironic. Nothing I have said has been speculation, and your, TTN, and Eagles247's entire position at WT:Notability (fiction) has been built on making wild speculations about other people's motives. Every time someone opposes you, you automatically label them a "radical inclusionist fanboy" without any evidence. The conflict started with TTN casting aspersions and refusing to get the point after I pointed out a mistake in his Goblin nomination, and the subject of this report is me warning him about continued disruption and refusal to engage in dispute resolution. But don't worry, #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 will be up tonight. I look forward to watching this dishonest proposal getting batted down by the Arbritation Committee. DarkKnight2149 05:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that Eagles247 has cherry picked anything. As far as I can tell, the diffs they provided absolutely are representative of your hostility and vivid imagination. This whole "conflict" started because you don't like TTN nominating things for deletion, nothing more. Perhaps you see him as an easy target because he was once punished by ArbCom, arguing that he must be also being disruptive now because he was once described as disruptive way back when. However, the fact that his nominations nowadays are backed by community consensus 97% of the time completely refutes that idea. You seem to have boundless time to badger people with angry rants, but seemingly no time to actually start the proceedings you keep threatening people with. Hurry up and start your ArbCom case already. I predict it won't go the way you want. Reyk _YO! 08:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

"This whole "conflict" started because you don't like TTN nominating things for deletion, nothing more." You mean aside from the very genuine concerns repeatedly raised with TTN's behaviour and the nomination spamming? And the very demonstrable problems that they have caused at AfD? And the several other users that have spoken out about it? Your persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is exactly why we're here today. But keep digging your grave. I'm in the middle of typing up a proper rebuttal below, and it's going to be a lot harder for you to keep pushing the narrative "But they are just mad because articles are deleted!" when it's finished.

"the fact that his nominations nowadays are backed by community consensus 97% of the time completely refutes that idea." Your arbritary percentage doesn't indicate a consensus for what TTN is doing, for reasons already explained by multiple users at WT:Notability (fiction), the Arbcom report, and soon by me (once again) below. Despite your attempts to libel me, you have nothing and you know you have nothing. I'm still waiting for you to show where "name calling" took place, by the way. DarkKnight2149 10:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And if you want to claim that this is all an elaborate bluff (yet again), Reyk, here is a preview of what I am currently typing in that section. The goal is to have it finished tonight and posted either tonight or mid-day tomorrow. The ArbCom case won't be filed until this is over (and it won't take nearly as long, since the foundation would already be set), as the section header explicitly states below. But I guess you really want to keep pushing the "empty threats" narrative, huh? DarkKnight2149 10:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not on trial and I haven't started proceedings against anyone so your repeated insistence that I "have nothing" is not really relevant. I just think you're wrong. By the way, if you're going to accuse people of lying, you shouldn't then also do things like accusing me of calling others "radical inclusionist fanboys". I never said that and I defy you to find a diff where I did. Or just finish typing up your ArbCom case. I predict it won't go the way you want. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, the ArbCom case is after this ANI thread has wrapped. In fact, we're likely going to be migrating there as soon as this closes. I'm in the middle of working on #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 right now. And you, Eagles247, and TTN have claimed and insinuated more than once (particularly at WT:Notability (fiction)) that every. single. person that has spoken out against you is an irrational inclusionist (with zero evidence). You just said it again about me right here. That's the epitome of WP:IDHT and WP:ASPERSIONS if I have ever seen it. DarkKnight2149 10:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say anything of the kind. Either file your ArbCom motion or just drop the issue. Up to you. Either way, stop putting words in my mouth that I never said, and leave me alone. Reyk _YO! 10:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

This will be my final reply to you, until I get the below section finished (which will have your diffs/proof in it), is to stop putting words in my mouth and stop libeling me. You are accountable for your actions. DarkKnight2149 10:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN to stop Darkknight2149 interacting with TTN. This constant attacking has to stop. Regardless of the merits of an AFD, AFD discussion should not be about the nominator. Paul August ☎ 13:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: It was a mistake to post the cliffnotes rebuttal above without giving the proper context first, by explaining the situation below at #Comments and proposals by Darkknight2149 (currently working on). It's a shame that my limited time on Wikipedia has allowed Eagles247 to scew the narrative and completely deceive uninitiated editors who don't actually know what's been going on. ArbCom seems like the natural conclusion. After all, they are the ones who sanctioned TTN for this kind of behaviour the first time.

One thing I should address, since it's the only remotely convincing point that Eagles247 has on me, is the narrative that I have been using "bluffs" to "intimidate". He's essentially arguing that, because I warned TTN about an upcoming ANI report numerous times and never got around to it, I have been trying to "intimidate" people. First of all, let me explain a few more tidbits of the situation:

1. My time on Wikipedia is more limited than it was three or so years ago. As users such as Paleface Jack can attest, my work in general tends to move pretty slowly.
2. The original goal was to file the ANI report the weekend after I dropped the warning on TTN's talk page. Before this could happen, however, the discussion at WT:Notability (fiction) took off and delayed it significantly (this was around mid-December). However, it was delayed because the discussion there was heating up and I was waiting to see how it would pan out. However, there was a period from the holidays to mid-January that it honestly looked like TTN had taken some of the feedback at heart (from myself and multiple users), slowed down, and started to take the time to properly assess the articles he was nominating. However, I found out that this wasn't the case two days ago.
3. Even with this notice from 2 days ago in mind, the ANI report would not have been filed immediately. For one, I am currently dealing with another situation above involving WP:BLUDGEONING. For two, I am currently busy in real life, which is I haven't even gotten my full response published yet. I probably shouldn't have published smaller rebuttals first, since they rely heavily on the context of the larger situation at #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149. Going incremental was a bad idea, apparently.

To be honest, whether or not he believes that I'm "bluffing" isn't relevant. This thread is becoming a trainwreck before it has really even begun, and the band aid has already been ripped off (so an ArbCom case request wouldn't take nearly as long to file as this ANI report did). If this situation isn't properly and justly resolved, the ArbCom case request will (hopefully) be filed the same week this thread concludes. DarkKnight2149 14:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide me a diff in which I accuse you of "bluffing"? You used it in quotes twice here which makes it look like I've used that word before, and I don't believe this is the case. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I have only interacted with Darkknight2149 in three threads prior to opening this discussion: Iron Maiden (comics) AFD in which he !voted "keep" per my rationale (despite my !vote supporting a redirect), Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Deletion_of_articles_about_fiction, and Mindless Ones AFD only because he pinged me to sling mud two months after I responded at the notability thread. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support One-way IBAN and AFD Topicban for Darkknight, I dont see how any context would make what DK is doing okay. but we will see once he finshes typing up the comments and proposel section. TTN and Eagles, im sorry you are having to deal with this bullshit. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support two-way interaction ban and topic ban both Darkknight2149 and TTN from AFD. One-way interaction bans are rarely workable, and based on the conversations linked above, TTN's nominations were very obviously disruptive. Darkknight2149 wasn't behaving well, but TTN himself often responded by senseless bludgeoning of Darkknight2149's comments. Give both of them the same. Incidentally, I agree that this case is likely too soon for Arbcom. Krow750 (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Krow750: Honestly, if TTN would just stop and engage in dispute resolution by making his case at WP:DRN, I would be more than happy to drop the stick based on whatever result is determined there (as I stated throughout the AfDs). But alas, that is unlikely to happen. While I do not believe that I deserve to be banned, I would support this on the condition that TTN engages in Dispute Resolution when the ban expires, instead of going right back to what he was doing before in some other form (he was already banned once for bulk-redirecting massive amounts of character articles, and now it's PRODs and AfDs).

A one-way IBAN would also put me in a very vulnerable position, especially after having been lied about several times, so I would have no choice but to file the ArbCom case if that happens. DarkKnight2149 06:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support One-way IBAN and AFD Topicban for Darkknight per OP. I observed, but didn't participate in several of the discussions quoted above, and the additional evidence combined with DKs behaviour in this thread show me that they clearly can't contribute non-disruptively in these areas. As an additional note, threatening, but not actually initiating proceedings is a never a good look, and neither is repeatedly bringing up a 10+ old finding. Scribolt (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support two-way IBAN for Darknight and TTN, noting that I mainly see DarkKnight's behaviour as the problem, and TTN only in so far that he keeps his interactions with DK running for way longer than is productive. While TTN tends to rebut notability claims of any editor in AfDs and generally makes it about the sources, it's obvious that DK has a beef with TTN and targets him specifically. DK has repeatedly hijacked AfDs so that I felt that subthreads had to be archived to make the AfD readable (1,2). My take on the discussion at WT:FICT (while it was still running) was that DK lacks self-reflection and suffers from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to learn from other people's suggestions, while at the same time continuing to threaten with ANI and ARBCOM, apparently to daunt others (as if that was likely to work, huh). DK appears unable to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and it's gotten so tiresome for me that I just ignore any DK discussion threads (with or about TTN) nowadays. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sgeureka: If a one-way interaction ban were enacted (with only Darkknight2149 being banned from interacting with TTN), are you of the belief that TTN would make reference or interact with Darkknight2149 in a disruptive manner in the future? I agree that TTN has let their arguments with Darkknight219 go on for far too long at times, but it doesn't seem like TTN is the one starting these debates. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Eagles247: I initially preferred a one-way IBAN, but then I found this AFD where TTN started the (way too long) interaction. It would be unfair to make it all about DK, and I somewhat agree with Krow750 that one-way IBANs rarely work and with DK that that would put DK in a very vulnerable position. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
• Per Sgeureka and his sensible comments, I prefer a two-way IBAN. On the other hand, I feel that the AfD ban is unnecessary for either party, since it's most important to just separate the two parties at the moment. Talrolande (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Delayed (briefly) per El C

Case request by Darkknight2149 In light of this ([25], [26], [27]), I have scrapped the comment I was typing and will now be opening a case request to the arbritration committee before today is over with. The rampant disruption of TTN and misconduct from Eagles247 is astounding. The latter is an administrator and should know better, and I'm glad he did half of my work for me by filing this report and prompting me to push my other work aside and take action. ArbCom is the most appropriate place to take this, since they are the ones who banned TTN for very similar disruption in the past. For immediate background information, I would recommend taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Deletion of articles about fiction. The case request will be about the persistent personal attacks, aspersions, gaming, battleground-behaviour, WP:IDHT, refusal to engage in dispute resolution, blindly mass nominating copious amounts of Start-class articles for deletion at once (based only on quickly scrolling to the References sections, which has caused several issues at WP:AFD), borderline WP:NOTHERE tendencies, and rampant dishonesty from TTN, as well as factioning, gaming, and administrator misconduct from Eagles247. Virtually nothing that Eagles247 has said here has been honest, and the case request will be open before today is over with. DarkKnight2149 17:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I re-read my responses at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Deletion of articles about fiction, and I stand by all of them. I also stand by reverting your attempted header change using the rollback tool in accordance with WP:TPO. I look forward to reading your ArbCom case request when it is filed, and I wish you luck with the process. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Comment - What Eagles247's diffs about me "threatening" ANI don't show is that every time I had begun working an ANI report, something else came up. The holidays, the discussion at WT:Notability (fiction), and a number of other things. After December, it honestly looked as though TTN had slowed down and actually begun assessing the articles that he was bulk-nominating. It wasn't until yesterday that I checked AfD and found that TTN (who has been warned way too many times at this point) was continuing exactly what he was doing beforehand. If Eagles247 believes that I am bluffing (I'm sure they will grasp onto anything they can get a hold of as a defense), I don't actually care either way, since the ArbCom case will be up soon regardless. This isn't the first time this week that someone has WP:BOOMERANGed themselves by filing a retaliatory report on me. Eaglea247's weak allegations are also reassuring. DarkKnight2149 18:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC) @Darkknight2149: you are risking having your Arbitration request, which lest we forget is the last step in the dispute resolution process, being declined as premature due to not having attempted everything else first. Cited above are numerous warnings you've made of submitting noticeboard reports about this dispute. Did you submit such a report yet? If not, I'm not sure this ANI discussion itself has been exhausted yet, having reached an impasse that would result in an accepted Arbitration request. Just a hunch. El_C 18:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC) @Darkknight2149: I'd recommend adding BOZ to the Arbitration request. TTN's comment in this AN thread about BOZ stating that many of his actions are in line with keeping the standards of 2006 Wikipedia raises concerns about whether or not the criterion 6 of WP:ADMINACCT - Repeated or consistent poor judgment - applies to BOZ's situation and should be grounds to desysop BOZ. ミラP 02:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC) For the record, and if it helps, since my AN discussion (and this is summarizing my last post there), I have acknowledged and apologized for my past mistakes and poor judgement. I have greatly reduced my efforts at article creation to focus only on notable topics, I have modified my approach at AFD to always cite relevant policies and avoid the appearance of canvassing, and I have avoided undeleting anything which clearly should not be undeleted and using my admin tools on any articles that I have been previously involved with, and will continue to do these things. I have made a lot of progress on my undeletions list, but I understand that I still have a lot to go through. BOZ (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I don't think this issue has much to do with BOZ at all, unless you want to drag everyone who votes the other way to TTN into it was well. Reyk YO! 12:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Also also for the record, although I clearly do not agree with a good majority of his goals on Wikipedia, I have actually come to respect TTN for at least his openness about it and I think he takes a far more tempered approach than he once did. I might have quarreled with him in the past, but I do not want to have conflict with him or anyone else anymore. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149

Up soon. To avoid further distractions, I'm going to hold off replying to users (such as Reyk, Eagles247, and anything that isn't necessary to reply to) until it's done. DarkKnight2149 10:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: you've been talking about how you're going to post something in this section for a couple days now. I think admins have been fairly patient so far and have given you enough time to respond adequately to the concerns raised here. I strongly suggest that you post something here very soon if you intend for it to be read before this thread is closed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I was planning on posting it yesterday, but something came up. I mentioned earlier that my time isn't unlimited these days. Would it be more convenient to go ahead and close the case with the proposed sanctions due to "support for Eagles' proposal and excessive delays in Darkknight's defense" and then have me reopen the case (either here or at ArbCom) when I can get it typed? Eagles' allegations are weak enough that I'm confident that debunking them and repealing the sanction won't be difficult, just time consuming. DarkKnight2149 03:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Genuine question (no subtext), by the way. That much is obvious, but I felt I should clarify just so my words don't get spun around by Eagles247 later as "aggression at AfD" again. He already pulled diffs from unrelated threads and claimed that they were "AfD-related", which is just one example of his dishonesty. DarkKnight2149 05:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

That might be best. It would give you as much time as necessary. Since I'm here, I could close this.... but I've interacted extensively with most of the people mentioned in this proposal except for Eagles 247. TTN, Reyk, BOZ, and I are acquainted through hundreds (maybe even thousands) of AfD discussions, which seems to be the crux of this dispute. I also probably interacted with each of them a bit more outside of AfD, too (looking for sources, discussing notability issues, that sort of thing). I've helped DK2149 deal with a harassment campaign by sock puppets of a troll. In short, it's small world, and I'm a pretty active editor/admin. So, it might be best if someone else closed this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for closure

Would an uninvolved admin (@El C: ?) please close per Darkknight2149's suggestion: close the case with the proposed sanctions due to "support for Eagles' proposal and excessive delays in Darkknight's defense" and then have me reopen the case (either here or at ArbCom) when I can get it typed?, and NinjaRobotPirate's demure, above? Paul August ☎ 14:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, since Serial Number 54129 seems to have misunderstood me (see below), I'm proposing this be closed with a sanction for Darkknight2149 as they themselves have proposed. Paul August ☎ 12:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "excessive delays in Darkknight's defense" is a contributing factor to a closure here, he's responded 16 times already with great length and detail, and has been unable to convince participants in this discussion to agree with him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether "excessive delays" should be a factor, or whether mention of such should be part of the language of the close, those would be things the closing admin should decide. Paul August ☎ 15:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"with great length and detail" This is false. My primary defense has yet to be posted and the situation has yet to be explained. All of my comments here have been supplementary statements responding to specific claims from Eagles, Reyk, and other users. And without my primary statement, those supplementary statements have been pretty ineffectual due to a lack of context. DarkKnight2149 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

So what are the "Boomerang" and "Note 2" comments above? There isn't any due process requirement where people have to wait for your response or as you call your "primary" defense. If you made lengthy responses but failed to provide your main points (saving them for some nebulous later time), do not be surprised if most people aren't going to go back and revise their !vote here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: What lenghty response? Boomerang is a compilation of quickfire responses to specific points that Eagles247 made and Note 2 was a follow up addressing something else. That would fall under "supplementary responses". A lot of the stuff mentioned there is also reliant on #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149. Examples - This type of dishonesty is concerning coming from an administrator, not to mention (in addition to everything else) grounds for WP:ADMINACCT. What's the everything else? Right off the bat, he spins the situation without even attempting to explain what has been happening at AfD. What's been going on at AfD? What is TTN's disruption? This excuse isn't valid for the reasons I'm about to outline below and are already outlined at WT:Notability (fiction). Nor does it justify TTN's disruption and refusal to engage in dispute resolution (the driving force of this conflict that Eagles neglected to mention). This never got outlined below, and where does Dispute Resolution enter the equation? And so on...

"do not be surprised if most people aren't going to go back and revise their !vote here" Which is exactly why I advised NinjaRobotPirate to go ahead and close the thread to begin with. The Request for Closure? That would be me. The defense was initially supposed to be posted within a few hours of Boomerang. Then the next day. Then the next day. Then I got over halfway done and believed it would be posted the day-before-yesterday. Then something came up, and I suggested a closure. If you and Serial Number 54129 are going to respond, please keep up with the conversation. DarkKnight2149 19:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

And to be clear, the intention is to re-open the case as soon as it is done typing, either here or (more likely) a follow up at ArbCom. DarkKnight2149 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

So no matter what the closure is here, you will argue after it's done, either here or try again at ArbCom? Hopefully then you will provide us with your "primary" defense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: No, it should be closed in line with consensus; and in this particular case, the consensus seems to be in favour of osme kind of sanction for DK2K149 (although acertaining precisely what that sanction is to be is why the closing admin is paid big bucks). ——SN54129 11:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: You seem to have misunderstood me. Yes, it should be closed "in line" with consensus, and yes, as you say, the consensus favors a sanction for Darkknight2149. And this is exactly what I've proposed above, and in fact this is what Darkknight2149 themselves have proposed.

Many thakns! I assumed that DK2K149 was aligning themselves with the suggestion that they should (naturally) avoid sanction. Thanks for the clarification! ——SN54129 12:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yes, I understand. Sorry for not being more clear. Paul August ☎ 12:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Paul August, I have not read this report closely and am simply too busy today to do so. El_C 18:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN of Darkknight2149 and support AfD topic ban. Darkknight2149, whatever your strategy here is, it's not helping your cause to keep on promising to present some explanation or defense later and especially not helpful to further drag this on by stating that you will keep on elevating this. You would be better off honestly reviewing everything here instead of being so defensive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Why bother replying to a discussion you obviously know nothing about? I can only repeat - If you are going to respond, then keep up with the conversation. The intention was to post #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 immediately after the supplementary statement. The only thing delaying it is the length and scheduling in real life. As I was getting closer to finishing a few days later, NinjaRobotPirate mentioned how long it was taking and I suggested going ahead and closing the discussion to give me more time to work on it without keeping everyone waiting. None of this was planned, and I have certainly been honest than TTN, Reyk, and Eagles247.

I should also note that I was already going to file an ANI thread at some point, but Eagles247 wanted to beat me to the punch. So yeah, don't act shocked when my schedule doesn't align with yours. If I had an infinite amount of time, this ANI report would have been filed in early December. I'm also currently juggling a sock puppet situation at #Sock puppet investigation and DC Extended Universe. You would do well to familarise yourself with the situation before basing your support on a presumptuous narrative about "strategy". DarkKnight2149 22:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

If you simply must know, I am currently dealing with medical issues, a child support situation, work-related stuff, and I'm about to move houses for the third time since 2018. And that's all I'm telling you. Even now, I'm typing this on a mobile phone while the #Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149 draft is on a laptop at my house. So familarise yourself on this ANI situation before you attempt to "confront" someone and throw down some sort of gauntlet. DarkKnight2149 22:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved Admin, & I took the time to familiarize myself with the details. I also have a full-time job, 2 young children (whom I am told are "special needs") & will be dealing with some medical issues in the next month, so I have some sympathy for Darkknight2149 here. What I'd like to propose is this: that Darkknight2149 take a WikiBreak of 30-90 days, get away from this place for a while, & deal with what he has to deal with. In return, there will be no IBAN, no sanctions, or anything. Yes, the AfDs will continue in your absence, but that will happen anyway. Most critically, what's more important: dealing with your own life, or Wikipedia? Any articles that are deleted can be recreated, if you can provide a persuasive argument for that. (And I suspect some of these lists can be fixed if someone adds the needed reliable sources. It can be done in one's personal space.) But at the moment it appears to me you are not in a good shape to convince anyone you are right, let alone do the work to save these articles, & are facing sanctions & humiliation if you don't take a Wikibreak.

I'll wait until the weekend (West Coast time in the US) for an answer before closing this. And I ask other admins to give Darkknight that time to consider this offer, & not close this discussion with the expected outcome. -- llywrch (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User 199.66.69.88 accusing multiple people as disruptive

199.66.69.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dear admins,

User 199.66.69.88 is repeatedly accusing new name discussion as "disruptive" on Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and have made the discussion a bit unfriendly (or just I felt it) at the least. Could anyone help me understand if this is a good behavior in Wiki-land? I don't know any rule that applied here. But I felt that behavior is inconsistent with WP:AGF?

I hope to address this behavior with this user but since they are unregistered user, I don't know where to go (no user Talk page). If this is not the best place to address such issue, please educate me.

xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

IP editors do have a Talk page. I have just used a template to welcome this particular one on theirs. You can add to it if you wish at User talk:199.66.69.88. (Talk pages for IP editors can, however, be problematic if they have an ISP that frequently changes their address.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I left a message there User_talk:199.66.69.88#Addressing_issue and let's see how it goes. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 06:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: thank you for your suggestion. The follow up result here is the message I wrote on their user talk page is reverted in Special:Diff/940761104. Does it mean that writing on their talk page was not the right way to address issue?

By the way I explicitly ask the IP editor to disclose their other contributions but that question seems not answered. So I wasn't sure if this reverting revision is considered an act of refusing the discussion on talk page, or the IP editor mistakenly think they have answered all questions. ::: Since the message on the user Talk was explicitly reverted by the user themselves, unless I understand it wrong, I guess ANI is the only place for this discussion to continue on? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I also suspected some disruption from this ip might of used a multiple registered account to vote in RMs in the article. Suddenly this ip know how to look for a ANI properly and properly link a polices. This person waited until the RM had more oppose than support. Regice2020 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020: If I read between your lines correctly, are you suggesting there could be a possible WP:SOCK of this user? xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspected it after seeing the ip know how properly link and use ANI like a experienced person that been here before. It was just so sudden. Regice2020 (talk) 06:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have seen many IP editors who are savvy and experienced editor, mostly very friendly and self restraint when dealing with conflict of opinions. But this is the only a few cases that I have seen an IP who only have participated in one topic in most recent history, AND have been being super strong in trying to push people to follow his/her instruction. I guess it's not totally impossible this could be a WP:SOCK. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 07:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment (Feb 15) I mean the evidence is pretty clear and this outrageous behavior to cut off discussion when more oppose gathered basically that fits the ip agenda. This where it all suddenly triggered, pressure admins on another ANI in a sneaky way to have discussion closed after gathering more opposition. Making false assumptions that users who did not side with the ip. 1 Successfully got his way. 2. This behavior was part of the closure of the 2019 coronavirus outbreak Requested move 2 February 2020 <-- This where the behavior started. I may have to notify more users who had their voices cut off because of this. Regice2020 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You characterize some behavior here as "harassment" in your edit summary. Would you mind providing diffs to support the accusation that I have harassed anybody? Otherwise I would appreciate your retraction of that accusation. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOCK aside for now, it's pretty plain that the IP's present behaviour is not holding WP:AGF to task as I see it and it certainly stands out as a stark outlier to the generally civil RM discussions conducted by the rest of the community on that page, made more pronounced by a seeming intent by the individual to WP:BLUD.

Talk:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#2019–20 coronavirus outbreak: In a thread opened by @Wikmoz: with explicit overtures to WP:CIVIL, IP immediately casted the OP's intent as a POV-push attempt "to deride and portray as conspiracy theorists anyone who disagrees with renaming the article." Engaged by the OP in a query to clarify their accusation, the IP replied: "I don’t expect you to admit to wrongdoing in making this thread. I’m just asking that an admin close it as disruptive. There is no intention to seek self-criticism here."

Wikipedia:Move_review#2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak: Portraying a RM close explicitly tabbed "without prejudice" as a mandate to cite WP:IDHT and "sanctions handed out to those disruptive individuals" they assert are continuing "their pattern of disruption." Sleath56 (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I stand by my statements that the individuals at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak are engaged in disruption. I specifically request a WP:BOOMERANG for xinbenlv (who opened this thread without notifying me of the discussion, as required), who took it upon himself to falsely tag my posts with a disclaimer that I had only ever participated in discussions regarding the Wuhan coronavirus. As a cursory review of my contributions will show, this is entirely false. I am growing very concerned with xinbenlv's behavior in these discussions and elsewhere, including a blatant anti-anonymous editor animus.

I further request that reviewing administrators consider the behavior of Regice2020, who has called for unregistered editors to be excluded from future requested move discussions in a transparent attempt to exclude me from such discussions. This same person has, without a shred of evidence, accused me of sockpuppetry on this very page! (Knowing the existence of ANI is not suspicious in the least. And calling anything I've done "disruptive" is ridiculous.

Sleath56's behavior is concerning as well. Not knowing the difference between an accusation of "disruption" and one of "vandalism" and coming to this board insisting some intervention be made is bordering on WP:CIR territory.

Other participants at the talk page have indeed been disruptive, though I have always assumed good faith (as has been evidenced by the tone and tenor of their participation) that their disruption was the result of a failure to understand the nature of the community process rather than a deliberate attempt to bludgeon a pro-PRC perspective.

All that said, I believe it may soon be time to seek general sanctions for the entire Wuhan coronavirus topic area. The individuals involved in bludgeoning requested moves and endlessly starting new threads in what very much looks like a WP:FILLIBUSTER have not shown any sign of slowing down despite the timely, patient intervention of multiple experienced editors. This race to ANI is a sign that the efforts to contain the dispute thus far have failed. Please step in and provide some assistance. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

As requested here, I have posted the above on 199.66.69.88's behalf. aboideau^talk 16:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the statement of 199.66.69.88 here, @Aboideau:. I felt a bit hard to even have a normal conversation of 199.66.69.88. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I am not accusing anything of 199.66.69.88, but on a factual basis, if we look at the most recent contributions of 199.66.69.88, from 2/7 - 2/14 Special:Contributions/199.66.69.88 they have over 50 contributions, except 1 edits, all other contributions is on Talk page of the 2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus related topic and move requests. So I might have typo, not strictly only, as I wrote in other places The user's only recent contributions are about this topic. It seems over the past several days the only thing this IP is focusing on is asking people to do not start a new title discussion for that particular article. Maybe harrassment might not be the best description of this user's behavior, but I start to feel very concern about how their behavior (calling other people disruptive for even discussing a proper name(not formally go for a RM yet), have influenced the discussion atmosphere in other participants who want to join discussion and form a consensus. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I see a user who still has a thing or two to learn about wikipedia and how to edit effectively with others but I’m not sure I see disruptive behavior here. Perhaps I am misunderstanding but from Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak it seems that they are far from the only editor who objects to the repeated name change attempts. IP users have the same rights as other users and that page is a very popular one ATM, a page warning was appropriate but I don’t think ANI is the venue to solve this problem. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

IPs actually don't have the same rights as other users, which is also pedantically obvious when the IP can't directly respond here on AN/I, because they are inherently unaccountable unless effort is expended for a WP:CHECK. As demonstrated in the IP's response, they prefer to promptly cross-examine rather than address points of order made, which is particularly noted when concerns brought up are of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. It's clear the IP is not a new user, and regardless of whether WP:SOCK is citable, the observable fact stands that their IP status serves as an inherent cushion to their benefit against reciprocal conduct examinations while they liberally cite the conducts of other participants here and beyond. Sleath56 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

We’re running into the issue of WP using rights, permissions, bits and flags interchangeably aren’t we? I apologize for misusing the term of art, I would restate my point but this thread seems to have run its course (and even continued onto another thread) in my absence so it would be of no use to anyone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I would. The charge of deliberate intent in "xinbenlv (who opened this thread without notifying me of the discussion, as required)" is plain to see as an outright fabrication when the very opening statement of this AN/I stands as contrary that the OP expended documented effort to notify the IP. OP also notified them through reply on the pertinent Talk page. I view it as representative of an unhelpful penchant for overblown accusative assumptions which are thereafter utilized as rebuttals. Sleath56 (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• 1 "Hi 199.66.69.88, I want to kindly notify you that I bringing this to ANI for your accusation of other people being disruptive for trying to drive title consensus. I can't bing it to your talk page because I can't, so I am just notifying you here... xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)"

This isn’t the required notification procedure. xinbenlv knows full well how to write to a user talk page, and should know (as should you) that merely pinging or burying a comment on a talk page is insufficient. I was not notified as is required. The failure to concede this point speaks to the credibility of the positions you have staked out. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's interesting that their reply, instead of addressing the points of order made, were instead to issue counter charges instead, amusingly against every other participant. As such, I take it that they hold implied consent to the citations I've presented of their behaviour and see them as 'wholly appropriate.' As a result, I see those two citations as demonstrably of WP:AGF not being held to task and an user not invested in correcting their behaviour from further engaging in such manners.

On another note, citing misconstrued WP:CIRs in an AN/I opened on grounds of WP:CIVIL and failing to read the header addendum on its utility in disputes being citable for WP:PA is comedic, and I do consider it a borderline WP:PA. Sleath56 (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor 199.66.69.88 is clearly not a newbie given the way he or she cited many policies/guidelines/essays, therefore likely to have been around for quite a while. I didn't like the way the editor is trying to disrupt or stop other people discussing issues by urging closure of these discussions, but I don't think what he or she did is sanctionable just yet. Whether the editor is a sock or not I don't know, and that is the only concern in the !vote of various discussions of the talk pages. Hzh (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I see no need to address spurious accusations on the terms of such an accuser. By what right should any of you control the direction of this discussion?

Perhaps you find it amusing that I've leveled complaints at the other participants to this thread, but the most basic look at those participants will show that everyone who has participated in this thread (with one exception, against whom I naturally have no complaint) has been a participant in the discussions at the talk page (and specifically those who have so desperately demanded a pagemove). Nobody has had a chance to participate, and as has been the modus operandi of the talk page since the "no consensus" RM, it has been filibustered by those in favor of a pagemove. None of you has given a chance to any ANI participant—administrator or otherwise—to really review this case, which in my experience is par for the course.

At its core, this is a content dispute that those who have brought this complaint seek to cast as a behavioral dispute. Those experienced in ANI dealings will recognize this as a very common stratagem. I urge you to look beyond the claims made above by xinbenlv, Regice2020, and Sleath56, who have not provided a single diff of the claimed misconduct on my part on the talk page. Look at the diffs I've provided. Thank you. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

To have balanced voices heard, I like to notify Wikipedian, @Hurricane Noah:, @Benlisquare: to join this discussion. These two Wikipedian do not agree with my point of view in that they both disagree to have a RM.

has also @Benlisquare: have think raising new title discussion could be disruptive and an ANI-worthy case. I know you have not formally requested any ANI, but since this is a similar discussion, I'd like to make sure you are aware of our debate here. I am willing to be convinced by you or 199.66.69.88 that any conduct of discussing new name could be disruptive.

Oh by the way,

I like to point out among these 3 Wikipedians who have thought even having a new name discussion (not a RM) as "disruptive", two of them, @Benlisquare: and 199.66.69.88, have 3 major similarities I couldn't help noticing:

* 1. they make strong statement asking people to stop discussion immediately, in a very strong toneSpecial:Diff/940211462 and Special:Diff/940711118.

* 2. they are very familiar with policies and have been citing policies inline as links such as Special:Diff/940211462 by Benlisquare and Special:Diff/940692880 by 199.66.69.88.

* 3. evidence shows they both understand Chinese to some level, as showing on Benlisquare's talk page, and 199.66.69.88's first contribution is on Wenliang Li updating the subject's Chinese name markup Special:Diff/939627710.

Instead there is no sign @Hurricane Noah: shares these two similarities. I am not suggesting these facts (or just my opinion) are sufficient to justify a WP:SOCK accusation, and I genuinely think 199.66.69.88's Special:Diff/939627710 is a good edit for Wenliang Li that I want to applaud him/her for, but I think it would be great if 199.66.69.88 could further disclose his/her other contributions, I think this will greatly resolve any minor doubt people may have in WP:SOCK. However, I like to hightly both 199.66.69.88 and Benlisquare have voted the same side as OPPOSE in two separate RMs of the same topic (maybe not a violation of WP:SOCK even proven same people? if so, that's smart). xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I was like thinking where i did see this similar edit before which prompted me to respond to IP. Hopefully this ANI will get to the bottom of this out control issue. Regice2020 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that the reason why I am upset is that RM after RM has been opened and no consensus is able to come from these. It seems people there are unable to cope with the no consensus because they feel it is a factually incorrect title. It is imo disruptive to open another RM for a similar move soon after the previous one is closed just for the sake of continuing a discussion that went nowhere. Everyone needs to take a break from this and come back once the fog has cleared and the name is clearly known in the media. I thought that a month would be a good break for everyone since it takes time for the public to accept a common name. I'm not saying new name discussions/RMs are disruptive in general, just the fact that they are being done with such haste and clear lack of evidence in support of a new name. I would support opening a RM/discussion once there is a name clearly established. Noah^Talk 01:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In regards to your accusations, is there an extensive history between those two users? If not, it likely can't be confirmed if they are the same or not. Participation/voting the same in arguments over and over again would suggest they are the same. If it is just the two times you mentioned, it would be doubtful since the Coronavirus outbreak mainly pertains to China right now. Noah^Talk 01:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The IP mentioned above contacted me on my talkpage as I submitted the above messages in a manner that I take as him wanting me to defend myself for his own wellbeing. I see he sent the exact same thing to the other user mentioned as well. Noah^Talk 02:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

On your page he knows how this very cleanly. What is this? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHurricane_Noah&type=revision&diff=940855999&oldid=940216817 Regice2020 (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I take everything after the standard ANI message as the IP user trying to influence the discussion, in the manner of soliciting a response instead of just leaving the neutral, standard ANI message. All I can say is that something doesnt seem right about the IP's actions. Noah^Talk 02:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that user was able do that ANI posting on your talk page. The user is not new and must be very experienced under a account(s) of Wikipedia. The part were the ip was disruptive was not acceptable for people who did not side with the ip. Regice2020 (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Hurricane Noah:, your answer convinced me that within a given time frame, probably lock down any RMs would be much more productive than allowing RMs to be re-opened over and over again, and causing a distraction of discussing new names. (I previously voted oppose, but now I think I changed my mind convinced by you) xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And I like to make it clear, in contrary to what 199.66.69.88 said in Special:Diff/940855999, I did not suggest any WP:SOCK possibility of you @Hurricane Noah: as in the sentence ..."Instead there is no sign @Hurricane Noah: shares these two similarities. "... xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think that I'm a sock of 199.66.69.88, then feel free to start a SPI and request for a CheckUser lookup. Though, I am a little offended that you'd even remotely think that I'd happily visit a third world country like the United States of America with its murder rate of 5.0 per 100,000, median income of $56,516, and lack of use of the metric system. But then again, I suppose it's completely impossible that different people can share the same opinion about childish behaviour (such as shoehorning RM discussions) being displayed on an article talk page, and it's definitely impossible that somebody could link to Wikipedia policy pages. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this is my current dynamic IP, and this is when I'm on my phone. Now the real question is, was I able to hop on a plane from the United States after 03:54 UTC, 14 February 2020 and fly to Australia to make these posts? Tough question, I agree. I certainly am in possession of a personal-use F/A-18 Hornet myself. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Benlisquare:, I apologize if you feel offended of a potential sense of WP:SOCK . In fact if you and 199.66.69.88 are separate users, which I very much like to assume so, you don't have to disclose anything, neither contributions nor IP address, because we can easily see your contributions as public, and we can file for WP:SPI if needed for IP addresses you access. I don't worry about you(benlisquare) at all. You are invited here to address the question: @Benlisquare:, what kind of act on the talk page, in discussing a potential new name, make you think that it's disruptive? I like to be convinced by you and learn to edit Wikipedia with you effectively if any part of our discussion indeed makes it disruptive. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My position is that the best outcome is to avoid a situation at 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak where we end up with the same situation we have at Talk:Kiev, Talk:Sea of Japan, Talk:Liancourt Rocks, and many other back-and-forth cases. Everybody ends up wasting their own time, and we don't end up moving anywhere meaningful; for what benefit does this bring? With this in mind, Rome wasn't built in a day, and we can afford to wait until there is clear literary consensus (not just Wikipedia consensus, but consensus across the board, from newspapers to organisations) of a widely accepted name. This concern has been brought up by many other users, and is not something that I alone came up with.

Even with this concern brought up time and time again, between 2 February and 11 February, we've seen an onslaught of RMs after RMs after RMs. In Australia there is a common idiom, "throw enough shit at the wall, and eventually some of it will stick"; what this means is that if you repeat the same action again and again, you'll eventually reach your goal. The repetitive RMs certainly felt like an attempt at eventually making something stick to the wall, especially given:

One, the timing between the RMs, and

Two, that there was very little difference between the first handful of suggested titles.

While upon first glance it might not seem like much, there have been various instances in the distant past where these tactics have been used over and over again in a disruptive manner. I'm sure that I wouldn't be the only person who sees the repetitive creation of RMs as disruptive behaviour, and that this sentiment is echoed elsewhere as well. When the community cannot come to a consensus to move, starting up another identical discussion four hours later in the hopes of reaching a different outcome is definitely not appropriate, ergo I consider it falling within the realms of WP:TENDENTIOUS. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

What I do ask explicitly for 199.66.69.88 is for him/her to disclose his/her other contributions so we can learn his/her pattern. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 08:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

No. I’m not interested in being further harassed by your gang from that page. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

My thoughts

1. Let's all try to take a step back here. The discussions at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak to this point have not always adhered to the standard of civility that we set for our contributors and which apply equally to everyone whether or not they have an account. While I do not think uncivil behavior should be condoned it is understandable under the circumstances that things became a bit heated, and while many of the diffs presented here are hardly creditable, none are exceptionally severe, and as such I do not see a need for any sanctions unless things continue to degrade. If everyone in those discussions agrees to just focus on content from now on there won't be any further problems.
2. If you believe someone is abusing multiple accounts then file a detailed report at WP:SPI backed by diffs and confine your concerns to that forum, lest it appear to others as mere casting of WP:ASPERSIONS. As a clarification in advance I am not saying anyone has intended to cast aspersions, but merely that the possible appearance of impropriety is by itself reason enough to confine such concerns to the appropriate forum. Further discussion here can only serve to add fuel to the fire.
3. There is no policy against long-term IP editing. Some users choose to create an account, and that's fine, some choose not to create an account, and that's fine too. Neither choice should be held against anyone.
4. It is not the purpose of ANI to resolve content disputes. I suggest that if you believe the volume of move requests has become too large then you should initiate a discussion resembling Talk:Kiev#Proposed moratorium on move requests, and abide by whatever consensus emerges from it.

Sorry about bouncing back and forth between two IPs, these are public computers, and with no time-limit I have no more right to evict anyone than they have to evict me so I have to get in whichever chair is open, and that's assuming it has working internet which has not always been the case these past few days. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've maintained that my point of order in this AN/I is the observation that the IP's present behaviour is not WP:AGF-worthy conduct. I disagree with the proposition that discussions on the page were ubiquitously devolved or heated such that the IP's behaviour holds parity with that Talk's standard. My observation is that their behaviour, as said, stands out as a stark outlier to the generally civil RM discussions conducted by the rest of the community on that page, made more pronounced by a seeming intent by the individual to WP:BLUD. This ties to the rather plainly attempted deflection through the IP's claim that the point of order is a content dispute despite the citations of behaviour contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF that they have rejected to respond to that were brought up within this AN/I.
• Points which bring up the IP's unregistered status are not attempted forays into discussion on the merits of long-term IP editing but rather that the user's fundamentally unaccountable status as an IP is now a point of interest when they seem principally interested in conduct cross-examining on conjectural grounds, which in my case amounted to a borderline WP:PA through the use of specious WP:CIR in a AN/I dispute. This is rather than engaging or even rebutting the concerns made by participants here, and when their status inherently inhibits the reciprocity potential for WP:BOOMERANG.
• The deficit is glaring because it doesn't require WP:CHECKUSER, or charges of WP:SOCK, when the IP's conduct demonstrates they are clearly not a new user, nor have they objected to that characterization throughout this, yet while albeit not wholly, principally the weight of their contributions are dedicated to the topic at hand. This is problematic from a bilateral engagement on AN/I standpoint because since the dialogue has devolved to tit-for-tat conduct allegations, they hold a tabula rasa on the appearance of a new user, with the considerations of clemency that pertains on the concerns presented of not meeting WP:AGF, yet the extant evidence points clearly to the contrary. Sleath56 (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed that the IP editor 199.66.69.88 again attempted to have a discussion closed - [28], mischaracterising the nominator's position. That was followed by a closure by someone else, before it was reopened after an objection by the nominator. I think I can now say the editor's action is disruptive when he or she did it so many times. Hzh (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: Let me try to address this as best I can.

1. I didn't state that the discussions were ubiquitously devolved, just not always civil. My words were carefully chosen because they were based off a review of presented diffs from each individual, not from reading every single thread on the originating discussion page. In fact I should have at least done a spread read, because it looks like the recommendation in my 4th point was already discussed and I needn't have been mentioned it. However one of the reasons that diffs are so often requested is because it is irrational to ask everyone who wishes to comment on these threads to review the originating discussions in their entirety.
2. As so often happens a dispute which started over content has become one over conduct. Without saying who if anyone is at fault, the conduct should be discussed here, and the content there.
3. 199.66.69.88 did not initiate the discussion so WP:BOOMERANG isn't really applicable. That merely technical correction aside, IP users are just as accountable for their conduct as user's with accounts, and must be willing to answer for their actions if called to account and accept the consequences for them. If an uninvolved admin finds their conduct sanction-able then they may be sanctioned up to and including blocks. Their may be a narrower argument in there that IPs can't be indeffed, however, based on what I've seen, no one is being indeffed judging from the evidence so far presented. In any case IP users can be banned as happened with WP:BKFIP, so the maximum penalty remains the same.
4. I'm not quite sure I follow your last point so I'll need some help. You seem to be saying that the short amount of history available to judge 199.66.69.88 is an unfair advantage of sorts in this situation. Yet, having a short history to judge off cuts both ways, long-standing respected users who lose their cool over an issue and become disruptive in an area are usually afforded far more leeway than new ones who come in and begin disrupting things immediately. I could kind of see your point about unfairness if we had a case where a laundry list of grievances stretching back years was presented by one side, while the other had no such history to criticize. However as far as I can see, all accusations and counter accusations have been limited thus far to a single dispute so I do not see that as a concern.

If you feel I have missed a crucial point or characterized anything wrongly please let me know, I can be a bit slow sometimes so a bit of clarification never hurts, thank you. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

An extremely fair response and assessment. I endorse your post. I maintain that any disruption I may have caused is purely incidental and harmless. The only thing they might rightly criticize is my immediate move to close one discussion (though I stand by my statement that the anti-name change views were being misrepresented in that table). But I rightly disengaged from that discussion to permit other participation. I have not filibustered that (or any) discussion, and I challenge anybody to give diffs showing misconduct on my part (I note that few if any have been posted despite the claims of OP and his associates).

The other complaint, that my comment at the MRV “misinterpreted” the nominator’s response, is pretty spurious. He said, I now agree that simply reopening the RM will likely not lead anywhere. (diff) By agreeing that relisting or overturning is not the answer, he had conceded that there was no outcome for MRV to reach other than endorsing. The remainder of his comment was dedicated to “other things that could be done” in a future RM, which is entirely outside the purpose of MRV. It’s like talking about page cleanup in an AFD: It belongs on the talk page. And in fact, he promised just that in his edit summary! There was nothing left to review about the RM under discussion. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@74.73.230.72. I appreciate the aspiration of mediation I derived from your reply, but I'll be brief as I felt your response was more directed to the spirit of my reply rather than the substance. The point of this entire ANI as I said is the assertion that the IP's behaviour was precisely notable for not meeting civility because it set itself as an outlier and to my attention through their enthusiastic WP:BLUD. The use of WP:BOOMERANG per my sentence is as a 'tit-for-tat process', as the IP has set the blame (seemingly on nigh everyone but themselves) when they accused both participants here but also others still uninvolved on the Talk, it is indeed applicable. The view on IPs being unaccountable is well established, the point of this discussion is not a wholesale discussion of that philosophy. It's brought up here because I view the sentiment as applicable to the ongoing situation. The point of my last bullet is better argued just restated: "This is problematic from a bilateral engagement on AN/I standpoint because since the dialogue has devolved to tit-for-tat conduct allegations, they hold a tabula rasa on the appearance of a new user, with the considerations of clemency that pertains on the concerns presented of not meeting WP:AGF, yet the extant evidence points clearly to the contrary."

@Sean Heron: as he has been discussed by the IP, yet unpinged by them. Sleath56 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: Well I tried to cover both spirit and substance, perhaps not all that well.

• I set out quite deliberately to keep things at a high-level in my posts so far to get at principles everyone can agree upon before diving into the details. It's probably best to avoid further discussion WRT IP accountability in general at this time, as an unfruitful tangent that will be further complicated by the different meanings that word assumes in context. I think we can agree that in this circumstance 199.66.69.88 has been called upon to account, is doing so, and will be sanctioned if their actions are determined to warrant such. As a member of the Association of Good Faith Wikipedians Who Remain Unregistered on Principle part of my mission is ensuring that all IPs are treated fairly and equally, and to call out unfair prejudice and bias against other IP editors when unambiguously stated as such. However, I am not here specifically to shield other IPs from the consequences of their misbehavior either. I have many times in the past requested blocks against users registered and unregistered alike in accordance with the blocking policy, and I will undoubtedly do so in the future.
• I'm a bit reluctant to get into the details here, because I know I won't be able to participate much longer, and it would be inappropriate as such to try to assume a referee role that I know I won't be able to follow through on, however I will with apologies approach some of them in the remainder of this post.
• I think 199.66.69.88 has acknowledged a solid pre-existing knowledge of guidelines and the five pillars, as such they along with all participants can safely be assumed to have been familiar with WP:AGF and WP:AAGF alike, and we can move forward with that in mind. If I am wrong on this account anyone who was not familiar with either the guideline or essay prior to this dispute please correct me on that point. Likewise I don't think there's any need to worry about WP:BITEs, and again please correct me if I'm wrong.
• Finally what specific remedies are being sought here? Based only on the diffs presented thus far, and admitting that I have not read the discussion in any detail, nor have I followed it's continuing development, my initial assessment still holds that ideally if everyone just follows WP:FOC hereforward in these discussions this can all just be water under the bridge. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My original opinion was that while 199.66.69.88 was annoying, his or her actions did not warrant a sanction. However, after seeing examples of the editor's attempts at closing discussions (some of which were successful but another reverted, which I mentioned before), I'm considering such actions to be disruptive, and if such behaviour persists, then something would need to be done.Hzh (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? The MRV closure? The closer never said anything about my characterization of the nom’s comment as influencing the close (which was correct, by the way—he agreed that relisting/reversing was not an outcome he desired, therefore MRV had nothing left to do, and the closer got it 100% correct). The closer should not have reopened the MRV.

As to closing RMs, so what? I did nothing improper. In one case I sought input from an AN thread that was already open, to inform participants that the problem of disruptive “protest RMs” was still ongoing. I don’t appreciate your aspersions. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@74.73.230.72: I appreciate the disclosure and the further clarification of mediator impartiality, though I don't believe I've ever objected to your impartial conduct, nonetheless I retract any statements that you may have construed that way. My view is that the IP's behaviour is a breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL conduct, made pronounced by WP:BLUD, and their reluctance here on this AN/I to provide response to the incidents I've cited further asserts that. This is along with explicit conjectures of their behaviour as without being without fault and "purely incidental and harmless" despite numerous uninvolved editors beyond the participants here, including one whom they called to this AN/I themselves (who stated they were called here inappropriately): @Doc James:, @Hurricane Noah: holding the case otherwise and this makes me believe the mere existence of this protracted AN/I doesn't hold any merit in stemming future behaviour in this regard. There will be be a further RM discussion in a few days time on the relevant Talk page and I believe the IP should be allowed to participate, but this should be provided they acknowledge not to utilize the same non-WP:AGF behaviour. The remedy to this of a ruling of un-WP:CIVIL behaviour or a warning as closure to this AN/I would suffice as appropriate action in my view. Sleath56 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I note that, yet again, you've not provided a single diff of the alleged misconduct. All you've done is give a single diff of me defending myself, and a diff of someone complaining that I gave him a detailed ANI notice after he was mentioned as a possible sockpuppet. I take issue with the claim that there are numerous uninvolved editors beyond the participants here. Who? Doc James said in one line that he viewed my conduct as somewhat disruptive and never said another thing. Hurricaine Noah is another talk page contributor, and is hardly "not a participant". I don't think there's been a single comment ITT from actual ANI regulars, so forgive me if I don't particularly take your assessment of any "consensus" here to heart.

I reiterate my demand that you actually provide diffs for your claims of misconduct. From all I can tell, this entire thread boils down to one post wherein I described a move-related thread as disruptive after a series of speedy closes of disruptive RMs. Worst case, I'm wrong and it wasn't disruptive. Have I disrupted anything? No. Have I failed to assume good faith? No! Have I done anything for which sanctions normally lie? Absolutely not. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As you say, your behaviour will be held to the determination of AN/I to decide, that's all I will say to that regard. I have listed my points of concern already and I have no interest in repeat ad-nauseam what has already been stated. I indeed did provide citations with diffs, though it's telling of your prompt dismissal of points made by participants here that you neglected to notice them. Additionally, Ctrl+F shows you are the only one to use the word "consensus" in this AN/I apart from the OP statement. Caricaturing extant comments from uninvolved editors as cited as such to allow you to go on a rhetorical tangent about lacking "consensus" is not needed, I've provided the diffs for those comments made, whose merit here stand on their own for AN/I to judge without the necessity of your negationist interpretation of them. Sleath56 (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Everyone the person earlier behind the comments from 74.73.230.72 on this thread has left. Etiquette among our little group is to not ever resume discussion from other IPs on any threads once we are no longer here, so we can't be impersonated. I chose a different computer for this comment to limit confusion, I may use that computer later this week if it's the only one open, sorry but I don't know enough to help out myself, I mostly do RCP. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sleath56 is possibly a paid editor working for the PRC, or maybe just a WP:SPA obsessed with PRC hot button issues. Regardless needs a t-ban, although that will likely do little to prevent from creating another account. Huge ongoing WP:BLUDGEON going on here Talk:2019–20_Hong_Kong_protests#Discussion_Break. @JzG: have a look at this, you tend to patrol the political arena. I guess the IP address edits are also related. Probably need page protection and maybe DS on this article, as much as I find DS annoying. Maybe at least start with high level page protection. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Accusation is inappropriate buried here, should be its own section. Obvious request of WP:BOOMERANG for the out of nowhere WP:CIV breach of WP:PA and WP:ASPERSIONS along with here. Sleath56 (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Xinbenlv's final(probably?) statement

@199.66.69.88:, since you have explicitly refused to provide your other contributions, I respect your stance out of your privacy.

I genuinely believe Wikipedians, including you who I hold different opinions on content or procedure in this subject, are here to contribute to Wikipedia, and do good for it. And sometimes Wikipedians and you and I have strong opinions or react strongly because we both care very much about the Subject. In this aspect, shouldn't we be called friends? I think this is the AGF spirit.

I understand you want to ensure we follow a right way to edit that subject, discuss name, or you want to ensure it's called a right name in your mind. I am very open to be convinced and I'd like to suggest you that if you have used a better tone, instead of saying "stop such disruptive behavior immediately", you could say "hey do you know by initiating such discussion it could cause unintended destruction? And to avoid such, I suggest the disucssion to be closed as soon as possible", etc. In such way, your message could be much better received and your influence is delivered. Wouldn't that be better to amplify your contributed time on Wikipedia?

At this point, I think since I have delivered all my messages and unless new information / opinion is needed from me, I will leave this thread to other participants, admins to furhter disucssion. Other than that, I will try to WP:FOC from now on. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Side note: I give kudos and respect to 74.73.230.72's facilitation of this discussion. I applaud to your efforts in ensuring IP editors are treated fairly, I sincerely agree with this opinion. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 18:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

IP completely bias again on a ANI that he not being reported. I have no choice but to fully agree with @Xinbenlv: and users who believe they were harmed for not siding with the IP Regice2020 (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

199.66.69.88 may have connections with Wired Article

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

199.66.69.88 behavior was very unacceptable on 2019 coronavirus outbreak talk page . I suspect that behavior led to creation of this Wired news article were the ip was possibly collecting information and data without our knowledge. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-coronavirus Regice2020 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020: I'm not particularly sure what administrative action you would like to see. There's already a section above about that particular user. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I seek Block or Topic ban. Thank you for bring me tot his attention, but the ANI report is about the users disruptive behavior towards other people on that talk page while this one about the ip planned this behavior outrage, so the wired news article can be created with loads of information collected. Regice2020 (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what you mean, as that's a very serious accusation. I've read the Wired article, and it doesn't present an argument on the topic of RM disputes as far as I've read it. Unless you have evidence based grounds for the charge, this seems like a rather inappropriate WP:CONSPIRACY. Sleath56 (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The article also mention the notable @Doc James: and other users. Someone need get this outbreak controlled and get to the bottom of the source. Regice2020 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020: I don't think the IP user was deliberately trying to sabotage Wikipedia's internal discussions to tip off Wired about it. Wired writes a lot of stuff about Wikipedia because I think one of their journalists is an editor here. Plus, that piece highly praised us anyways, so I don't know why you are pursuing this line accusations. Assume good faith. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Doubt the wired piece and this IP are related. The IPs behavior however is somewhat disruptive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is what I’ve been talking about. The harassment coming from Regice2020 and other participants on the Wuhan Coronavirus talk page—baseless accusations of being a sockpuppet, demands I disclose past contributions, false claims that I’ve only edited in this one topic area, running to ANI with conspire theories like this, etc.—has only intensified in the last couple days. No matter what I’ve done, nothing merits this sickening level of bullying and harassment. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Given that I was the first to pointedly object to the conjecture made above, I find this an inappropriate assertion and representative of a tendency by the IP to conflate those who propose opposing views in 'collaborative' monolithic 'hostile' camps, often fringed with accusations of "conspiracy." 12 I find it odd the IP is happy to liberally portray themselves as having received "sickening level of bullying and harassment" (in reply to an accusation rejected by all responding participants) when they're also unwilling to address the observations of WP:BLUD and borderline "bullying" behaviour as I've cited and remain unaddressed above. Sleath56 (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've commented too much already to close this thread myself. I do suggest that nothing good can come of breaking the discussion into ever more pieces, and advise everyone interested to confine their future comments to the thread already opened above. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have moved this thread to be a subthread of the existing thread on the same editor. It's less confusing that way. There's generally no need to have 2 separate threads on the same editor at ANI. I have no objection to closing it since I agree no evidence has been presented of any connection between the IP and the Wired article, but I felt it better not to close and move at the same time.Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup i think this ANI have large amount of info for the report. Can any Admin give some comments below here? Regice2020 (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Please stop bumping this dumpster fire of a thread when it’s abundantly clear nobody on this board wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

^ As seen above, the similar disruptive behavior that used on RM that @Xinbenlv: reported on ANI and once again another attempt to disruptively censor someone. This ANI report are not meaningless. Regice2020 (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent promotional history at Duke articles

• Duke University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Duke University School of Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Duke–NUS Medical School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would appreciate more eyes on these, and possibly protection for the main article. COI edits from Duke and Singapore IPs. It's also possible that the most promotional content in the school of medicine are copyright violations, as from [29]. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am an IP editor who has never coordinated with other accounts to build the appearance of consensus. I don't know where this person is getting that from. All my edits have credible sources (example: research papers published in Science/Nature or media outlets like the NY Times, WSJ, etc.) It is not my fault that the university in question has been receiving a lot of positive coverage lately. The fact that the coverage is positive doesn't make it less worthy of being highlighted in the article as and where appropriate.

Also, I'd like to refer to this: "When an editor sees a single purpose editor, one initial reaction might be to cry "COI!" or "Paid editing!", taking the issue to noticeboards and other venues. It is often done in violation of assuming good faith." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_cry_COI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.217.221 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BOOSTER is also a good essay. As for my concerns re: multiple accounts with similar objectives:
• 137.132.217.221 (talk · contribs)
• 137.132.215.192 (talk · contribs)
• 119.74.237.226 (talk · contribs)
• 152.3.43.52 (talk · contribs)
• 137.132.215.196 (talk · contribs)
• 137.132.212.213 (talk · contribs)
• Most of these IPs are from the same range in Singapore--from the National University, whose medical school is affiliated with Duke--and all are drawn to Duke articles, including that of the Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore. If they're not all used by the same editor, then they suggest a longer term effort by multiple COI editors for the same ends. Though I do like "It is not my fault that the university in question has been receiving a lot of positive coverage lately" as a defense. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has also included these talk pages: [30]; [31] and [32]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is related, but I had similar issue at Joseph Heitman (a faculty member at Duke University Medical School) where I created the page and then a series of Duke-located IPs have been making promotional edits (mostly adding mentions of awards and various external links). Ajpolino (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Sm8900's refusal to get it.

Sm8900 (talk · contribs) has gotten into their heads that ... something (see also samey-thing they proposed a few weeks before that one) has to be done about... I don't even know what. The idea is half-conceived, unclear, and has little-to-no support because no one even knows what it is they're putting forward, or what problem they are trying to solve.

Last night, they went on a spamming spree at multiple Wikiprojects (e.g. [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], and that goes on for a while), effectively promoting the idea that 'Town Halls', whatever those are, could/should be implemented. This was for the most part reverted (by me), with a notice to not do that again until the idea has support.

They've also recently self-appointed themselves as the WP:HISTORY co-ordinator, implemented a "Town Hall" at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/History Town Hall, (which is now at MFD), created WP:Town Hall (redirected to WP:Community portal by Moxy (talk · contribs), got told by just about everyone to slow the hell down (User_talk:Sm8900#So sorry, User_talk:Sm8900#Town Hall spamming on WikiProjects), and recently being 'adopted' by another user User_talk:Sm8900#Welcome aboard matey! (@CaptainEek:)

Last night, before going to bed, they have promised to 'refrain' from such edits (User_talk:Sm8900#Town Hall spamming on WikiProjects), but this morning, what do I wake up to? A message on my talk page and more spam notices at WT:PHYS). And I'm not the only one either [38], [39], etc...

This incessant spamming about this underdeveloped/dead-on-arrival idea has got to stop. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

well, as you requested, I created a draft in my own user space. I thought I was complying with your request. Additionally, I thought that voluntarily letting you know about my new draft page, and my request for comment at that draft page, would be a positive step. I was trying to contact you directly, as a gesture of respect and a willingness to adhere to any requests that you might have. I appreciate your note on this. I hope that helps to clarify things. I do appreciate your note and your insights. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

here is the page that I linked to, based on your request to me to retain it simply as a user space draft. as you can see, this is a draft in my own user space. link: User:Sm8900/Community forum and bulletin board re WikiProject. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The request was for you to stop spamming your half-baked idea. The VPR discussion is going on, stick to that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Competence seems to be a real issue.... here they are welcoming a blocked user. There main contributions to our project as of late is to make redirects and user drafts copying talks from other pages. They have been asked to stop this on multiple occasions by many editors but to no avail. Moxy 🍁 14:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

He means well. I like the idea of scaling up a noticeboard to involve more people but the problem is that very few people bother with community pages and a lot of the wikiprojects listed in the council directory are inactive or barely have a few contributors and a lot of those are often not consistent so you're unlikely to get much support Sm8900 from people wanting to regularly put up notices. Focus on the millions of articles we have needing work, breathe some life into one of the US state ones or something which already exist would be my advice. I don't want to comment on the issue any further now, wish you the best of luck Sm8900.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

sounds fine, Dr. Blofeld. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

at this point, I would prefer to discuss one-on-one with any admin who wishes to address this. there is no need to mix in every other one of my edits from the recent past. I copied a talk page just now to a draft page, so that I could refer to it. it was simply a single colloquy, where someone from the Help Desk explained how to do some formatting details. it was not actually a debate, or any type of contention, or even a controversial talk page topic.

is it possible to bring this ANI section to a close? I have already replied to and accepted all of the original points made by the editor who initiated this item. I appreciate your help and understanding. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This has been brought here because of the disruption across the project. I am aware of 2 this month....may be others Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Restored page or Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians#Should we say something about etiquette in moving and page creation?. Slow down.--Moxy 🍁 15:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Slow down" is fine. thanks for replying. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how to describe this situation. I acknowledge that (at least on Wikipedia) Sm8900 is in many ways 'more' intelligent then myself. Thus the reason why I can't figure him/her out or what it is he/she is doing. IMHO, he/she might be over-reaching, with too many balls up in the air. Definitely a positive bloke & quite polite. But also has a tinge of a Patrick McNulty approach. I confess, he/she has left me bewildered. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Though likely not important here. I peeked at Sm8900's edit pie chart & up until around December 2019, he's been virtually non-existent on Wikipedia. It's as though a different individual took over the 'account'. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Behaviourally, something happened in 2019, and I don't see this level of disruptiveness/newbie-ness before then.. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

well, ok, but it is still me over here. I would like an admin to come along and provide some positive resolution. I think GoodDay did make some positive statements in their comment above, which I highly appreciate. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sm8900 has been around for a long time and been a valuable contributor. I'm not sure what their current rash of ideas is about, but they are at least excited about contributing. They are engaged, which is a good thing. They are just perhaps moving faster than Wikipedia can move. I think that they could probably slow down a bit, but with a little guidance they could keep on keeping on. Sm asked for adoption by me recently (which to be honest bewilders me a bit, but I think Sm realized they needed some help and thus reached out for it), which I accepted. I haven't actually had the time to engage much with Sm, its a very busy period IRL, but the adoption was quite recent. I agree that the widespread...spreading of the townhall idea wasn't super helpful, and should stop. But it was done in good faith. I have more thoughts on the matter, but I'm typing this hurriedly before I run out the door, so I'll reply more later. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks, CaptainEek. I think your insights and your overall summary are totally accurate and correct. I appreciate all your insight above, and all your feedback. thanks very much. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, if I have any further ideas, drafts etc, I will be sure to run them past you, and to proceed slowly and deliberately, and make sure I am using one forum to present the idea. if the idea is for an existing resource or talk page, I will be sure to use that page's talk page for any proposals or changes ahead of time. but again, i will proceed slowly. I did not mean to step on any toes. I do welcome the important feedback that I have received here. I will be sure to keep these important points and concerns in mind. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Headbomb: I checked their old contributions and can attest with a high probability that it's the same editor. Sm8900 might be seen as overeager (your use of the term "disruptive" is absolutely misleading), I think they are primarily a mainspace editor and projectspace is new to them, indeed the ones who do a lot of the content work often face a disconnect with the meta aspect of projects, so I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the case here. At the very least, not one time have they been uncivil or intentionally disruptive, so please, let's have the decency to give this editor the benefit of doubt instead of dragging them to ANI. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruption made in good faith is still disruption. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am open to all your feedback, and I value your views. I do appreciate the feedback of everyone here. may I please point out, though, even if "disruption made in good faith is still disruptive," we do attach some importance to the distinction between "good-faith" edits and "disruptive" edits. however, with that said, I am still totally open to and interested in absorbing your feedback, and acknowledging your valid points and concerns. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• My experience has been that this editor responds very politely to criticism but then doesn't take a blind bit of notice of it and carries on behaving like a bull in a china shop. Politeness and apparent good faith are not enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly; WP has been played before. The editor seems very "young" to have been around since 2006. Sleeper sock? Miniapolis 23:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: A sleeper sock who is overeager with virtually no bad-faith editing. And and and, they have been around since 2006 but have appeared in 0 checks among the thousands conducted each year. I rest my case. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have been debating whether not to comment here. In addition to the areas that Moxy referenced, this editor had a somewhat cacophonous entry into User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace, where after having made only a few prior comments on the page, he had a burst of over 120 edits in a three-day period, which other participants in the page found disruptive to the point of describing it as "taking over this workspace discussion". I also find this behavior confusing coming from a fourteen-year editor, and I think that perhaps some serious throttling of his edit rate would benefit him by forcing him to think harder before hitting "publish changes". BD2412 T 01:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm just perplexed by what's changed in Sm8900's contrib history, beginning in December 2019. From 2006 to that date, for the most part he/she was nearly invisible in terms of edit count, then suddenly BOOM. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

They do seem to have had a similar burst of activity in March 2007, but that's quite an interesting quieter stretch. BD2412 T 02:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Going Boom with edit count isn't that odd - no odder than when my technically 8 year old account went boom a little under 2 years ago. Their actions are in no way indicative of a sleeper sock. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I keep running into @SM8900:'s pushing various suggestions in this vein (firstly Spore, now Town Hall) at multiple fora, which is and has been a little wearying. However, they definitely seem to be in good faith, and so I'm inclined to see whether the adoption above can help, coupled with the rap across the knuckles ANI, work, rather than needing to trot out any more drastic a method. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• Sm8900 asked me on my talk page to look through this ANI thread and comment. I don't really understand what the Town Hall proposal is all about - management of WikiProjects really isn't something I've ever involved myself with, and I haven't been sufficiently interested to look into it. It seems apparent that they are trying to do something in good faith; it also seems apparent that it's not really garnering much support, and they should probably listen to what people are telling them and slow down, or perhaps just drop the idea and do something else. I'd add a very quiet, non-meant-to-be-threatening note of caution - a bit further up, Sm8900 says that we attach importance to the distinction between good faith and disruptive editing. In fact, per the second paragraph of WP:DE, no such distinction exists - Sm8900 is perhaps confusing this with VANDALISM, which by its definition cannot be done in good faith, but if good faith editing becomes disruptive, it must be stopped. Hopefully this won't turn into that. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your input above. I will definitely discontinue the edits referred to above, now that I realize and understand that they were intrusive. I really appreciate your help with this. thanks. I would be willing to delete any such notices that have not already been deleted. I'm sorry for these edits, which I realize were intrusive. I appreciate your help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, here are some of the previous discussions where Sm8900 was asked to adopt a more deliberate approach with proposals and discussions: WikiProject Council talk page; WikiProject Council talk page; my talk page; Sm8900's talk page; portal guidance workshop. isaacl (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Townhalls? Sounds likeKarmafist -- Deepfriedokra 18:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's been brought to my attention that I could be seen as casting aspersions. That is not my intent. Just an observation. But if you were here for Karmafist, it sounds like his ideas. I mean someone one could come up with the same/similar stuff independently. Sorry to bring it up. There was much upheaval and Wiki drama surrounding Karmafist. You had to be there.-- Deepfriedokra 19:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Now canvassing for a new idea User:Sm8900/portal draft. What can we do here?--Moxy 🍁 22:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I have not done any canvassing at all on this. this is simply a draft in my own user space; I only contacted around three people, who had expressed some support for this idea in some form, and who had previously communicated with me directly about it, including my mentor. I have not and will not canvass any WikiProjects, or any editors associated with them, or anyone else, as I indicated and agreed to above. I have indicated closure for this topic discussion at Village Pump for this. I appreciate your inquiry. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900, a bit of advice from me, that you probably won't take, would be to concentrate on editing individual articles for the next few months rather than make any broad suggestions as to how Wikipedia should be run. The reason that Wikipedia has become the world's foremost encyclopedia is that people have created it one article at a time, rather than made any organizational proposals such as you are so fond of. Just get some idea about what Wikipedia is before telling everyone they should be doing things differently. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with you. I am done making broad proposals. the draft above is simply based directly upon a comment that one user made to me. I only contacted one or two people who had provided with actual, direct, explicit written input on some ideas, of their own accord. I am not going to canvass anyone in the community at large. I do agree with you, and that is what I plan to do. that is it. I appreciate your note. --Sm8900 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I was also asked by Sm8900 to drop by and offer some observations. I have been off-wiki for the last three days, but have monitored this thread via mobile phone. It is hard to know how to comment without causing upset. But here goes...

Short version: This editor is well meaning, enthusiastic, acts in good faith, responds politely to criticism, agrees to take feedback on board, but then seems to carry on in the same vein, oblivious to the concerns being raised with them. That's not acceptable. The message that their actions have been unhelpful and disruptive must be a painful one to hear, but seems at last to be getting through.

TL;DR version: Now, I really hate pouring coldwater on anyone's high-functioning enthusiasm - especially when brought here to ANI - but I did feel I needed to do that myself in some of my earlier interactions, both on talk pages [40],[41], behind the scenes at the Teahouse, and at Deceased Wikipedians (diff). I do finally see a rolling back in the last few days from all these great ideas they've come up with, and it is certainly unusual to see a long-standing editor suddenly switch to such intense, almost manic, behind-the-scenes activity and idea-creation which have at times verged on being disruptive. They have certainly been a bit of a time sink for me and others. Whether they choose to offer an explanation as to why they seem to have made this sudden switch must be left up to them, as it would be rude of us to pry. Sm8900 has been bluntly told (by me) to stop copy/pasting past discussion threads and signatures into their own subpages, as this causes great confusion. They have sought some kind of steer/mentorship via CaptainEek at WP:AAU, and I am also willing, should they so wish, to continue being blunt and even a bit rude to them if it helps to avoid them being brought back to ANI again for what some folk here are, not unreasonably, seeing as good-faith but nevertheless disruptive behaviour. They really should also stop making innumerable tiny, incremental edits to pages, and instead attempt to make larger edits and with clear edit summaries. (Their poor use of descriptive edit summaries is unhelpful and needs serious improvement - and this can simply be achieved by setting the Preferences option to 'prompt for an edit summary' prior to publishing changes, and using the Preview button to consider what they're writing, and whether they've said it all or not.) Repeatedly coming back to add little afterthoughts is quite irritating, and a cause of many edit conflicts when trying to resolve issues.    

As an aside, I would invite Sm8900 to look through every single one of their innumerable user subpages and consider whether they should request deletion of most of them. Some seem to be redundant (example), or empty (example), whilst others are copy/pastings of existing help pages (example), or wholly inappropriate copyright violations, whilst others seem to be solitary notes about particular topics, and even hoaxes (example), and I doubt they need most of them. Much of what they're replicating (like this or random thoughts like this) could simply be achieved with links on one single userpage, clearly divided into useful sections, or could even be done off-wiki in a word-processor.

Whilst not suggesting they've done anything wrong (except the copyvios) in creating this plethora of sub-pages, I feel a serious cleanout would also show a willingness to tidy up their act and make the task easier for future editors to get into the mindset of this editor to fathom out what it is they're trying to achieve here, should such issues persist.

Personally, I would like to see them agreeing just to stick to content creation and normal editing for a while, even at WP:WikiProject History where they enthusiastically burst on the scene, and to cease with the 'grand ideas' and problem-solving for a bit. Continually asking for input on the next great idea - no matter how interesting they think it is - is seemingly not going down too well with some.

Summary:Providing the concerns raised by a number of editors here and elsewhere are finally being listened to, understood and acted upon, I feel there's no further action needed at this point, as the message that they're out of kilter with the rest of us is finally seeping through. I'm sure that Sm8900 is now only too aware that any recurrence of their over-enthusiastic rush to unilaterally resolve and sort out every single problem on Wikipedia could well lead to further charges of disruptive, but good-faith, editing and we all know where that could lead to in the end. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes. I think you have made some excellent points above. I will be happy to adopt every single one of them. as you note, I have already begun to scale back most or all of the practices that you refer to above. I will be glad to continue to do so. I am really glads that you took the time to write here. I hope you will feel free to provide me with further feedback on ym talk page, any time you feel the need should arise. I think all your points are highly valid and on-point, and I intend to adopt every single one of them. Again, I am sorry for the edits intially referred to above, which I now realize were intrusive. It was not my intention at all to be intrusive, but I have a much better idea of what the genuine reasons are that an edit can be intrusive, regardless of intent. I feel much more aware now of these vital concerns, and will step back in these areas. I really appreciate your helpful and important insights above. thanks very much. And again, let's stay in touch any time you like, via my talk page. I accept and welcome your insights., thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have now adopted all of the suggestions mentioned above. I greatly appreciate the valuable feedback provided here. I think this was a valuable exchange, and I appreciate it. If anyone has any further points to raise, either positive, negative, or otherwise, I would ask if any further points, comments, input, etc could kindly please be posted on my own talk page. I greatly appreciate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think this can be closed now. Sm8900 seems to have got the message. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Phil. If issues persist, we can always come back here, but nothing needs to be done at this time. I will help watch over Sm and steer them on the right path. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Incivility and Hounding by User:ජපස

Hello, I'll try to be as brief and clear as possible. The situation is a bit messy so I'll probably fail but here is my best shot...bullets in approximate chronological order

First Incident

• I've spent the last week editing pages relating to UFO sightings and Conspiracy Theories. I identified a page Bob Lazar version at the time that was in pitiful condition. We are talking of a conspiracy theorist which is being defined as a "criminal" first and foremost (definitely NOT his claim to fame...)

I started modifying it and trying to source and improve it. I also introduced some innocuous links such as the glaringly missing UFO conspiracy theory

e.g. [42] and [43]

Nothing major certainly... one could disagree with the wording for sure. Nothing a quick edit can't fix especially since most of the content was already on the page.

• Given the topic, several new editors joined in and some discussions arose. I engaged in those discussions with civil results: we achieved some compromises and moved forward working step by step to source and improve the page.

See: Talk:Bob_Lazar#New_Sources where I ask for a second opinion regarding some new sources I was examining.

And: Talk:Bob_Lazar#Los_Alamos_Monitor/Lazar_"Jet_Car"_article_as_a_source

And: Talk:Bob_Lazar#Revert_Spree where I try to ask editors to WP:ROWN (User:Keldoo was new and a bit too revert trigger happy so I explained the 3 revert rule https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Keldoo&diff=940614782&oldid=940612574 and we worked together from there on with no issues achieving consensus and posting a small reorganisation of the page content to make it more readable/clear)

• And here comes User:ජපස our hero. Without participating in any of the ongoing discussion he reverts the WHOLE WEEK: REVERT

This multi edit revert claiming POVPUSH is completely indiscriminate. It goes over all discussions trampling all consensus. It's so broad I can't even understand which version he reverts back to. Even useful links are removed.

• Me and other users complain and restore. And one of his aligned friends replicates the blanked revert supporting him. :[44]

• I find a noticeboard Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Bob_Lazar,_Whistleblower? where accusations to me and the other users of spreading WP:FRINGE theories and of being tinfoil hatters abound. This seems the origin point of this merry group of friends. I try to engage in a WP:CIVIL way but am immediately greeted with a nice WP:PA "You are the problem"

My edits were minor in any case, not worth fighting over nothing.

I try to move on.

Second Incident

• I start editing another page in terrible conditions: USS Nimitz UFO incident my first edits

This time I try to prevent any problems by opening a discussion myself on the Fringe_theories/Noticeboard asking for opinions. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident and some editors review and confirm my work. Some of my edits are challenged and we try to discuss them by continuing existing discussions and starting others Talk:USS_Nimitz_UFO_incident until...

• Our hero User:ජපස follows me here too and without participating in any discussion he reverts everything once again: REVERT

Another indiscriminate multi edit revert without engaging in discussion that rolls back on everything blindly.

Simple proof of how indiscriminate the user's reverts were: of the -2,344 characters removed +2,050 belonged to an entire paragraph that he was in favour of and that I and other users were discussing in detail in the talk page. I pointed this out to the user and he promptly restored it saying "This is worthy of inclusion!" [45] He didn't even read what he was reverting....I guess he just had to look for my name in the edit history...

At this point he starts editing the page as he sees fit suppressing all of the other editor's contributions and ensuring that the page will be just as he personally likes it.

• He still doesn't participate in discussion on the talk page but only on the Fringe_theories/Noticeboard where he dismisses a peer review paper from a reputable journal I had presented and that we were discussing because he doesn't agree with it's contents and suggests I should be reported [46]

User report and hounding on surviving pages

• At this point I realise that no amount of discussion will dissuade his uncivil behaviour and decide to report him myself for edit warring behaviour believing it was the correct place to do so [47]

Almost immediately User:Oldstone James reads my report and confirms that this behaviour is a pattern and has happened before to him [48][49]

• I inform the user and wave white flag on the fringe noticeboard [50]

• User starts blatantly WP:HOUNDING my last surviving edits from the week. He reverts covertly all of my other CLEARLY sourced contribution and Admin El_C warns him not to follow me around [51]

REVERT is particularly egregious. I had placed TWO reputable sources (incident was front page NY Times) so why remove it? This is just a list and there are definitely worst sourced cases included. He didn't correctly revert (what a coincidence) so no notification for me and no discussion on the talk page.

EDITS I had added a link here as the last editor but he didn't have the courage to revert it thank god

Those were tiny edits so the absurdity and vindictiveness of his reverts are clearly on display. Not to mention the sneaky manner in which they were done.

• El_C closes my report as "This goes beyond the scope of this noticeboard" and suggests I pursue here if necessary [52]

MY FINAL STATEMENT:

I hope I have accurately described the destructive pattern of behaviour of this editor. Unfortunately his MO rejects any discussion and stifles any WP:CIVIL collaboration with indiscriminate and vindictive reverts. The user has only presented a facade of discussion once I presented my official complaint and relies on the other users on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard to support him squashing the contributions of any new editor in the fringe theories area. I repeatedly pointed out that WP:ROWN would immediately solve all of our problems and that we could work collaboratively together simple editing each other's work but to no avail. I even was asked pointedly if I was aware that WP:ROWN is "just an essay".

I'm sorry it has come to this. I never had to post any kind of report on anyone before in 10 years of participating in various Wiki projects. But User:ජපස, supported by the group over at fringe theories, has lost touch with Wikipedia:Five_pillars and is damaging the project.

I'm sure similar incidents have happened before as this seems like a systematic approach that is applied to pages discussed in the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard (the fact another user confirmed the MO in less than 1 hour is pretty astounding). And I worry it will continue if left unchecked.

Thank you for your time. I hope I was sufficiently clear (it isn't easy). If not just ask for any clarification! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggest WP:CIR block (for Gtoffoletto) Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Could you clarify my incompetence please? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

P.s. you added a random "G" in my text above braking syntax. I have corrected your mistake. Your welcome. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Our hero follows me here too (bold is my emphasis) — please avoid unnecessary innuendo, Gtoffoletto. El_C 15:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Frustration showing sorry. Definitely unnecessary... --Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. This is problematic forumshopping by Gtoffoletto, which I warned him against here. There's a bit of a pattern emerging in Gtoffoletto's use of noticeboards: an admin need only hint that another board might be better and he rushes there; but no matter how clearly the same, or another, admin advises him to, say, stay away from an irrelevant noticeboard, as I also did here — "I can tell you for free ... that it would be useless to post this conflict [at AN3]" — he doesn't seem to notice. Nor does he apparently care how many experienced users tell him jps is not hounding him (here for instance is El C trying to explain it).

Another pattern is that this user prides himself on being civil, in contrast to his "unhinged" and "deranged" opponents[53]. Illustrations above: "and here comes our hero", "this merry group of friends", "our hero follows me here too", "one of his aligned friends" (that would be LuckyLouie) etc, above. A striking example of passive aggression is this post on the Fringe noticeboard, where he is apparently proud of his readiness to compromise, as he refers to it as "waving the white flag". I recommend ANI surfers to read what he has to say there about the "gang", consisting I think of jps (who has been admirably mild and encouraging throughout his engagement with Gtoffoletto), and LuckyLouie — a gang that according to him stifles all constructive editing and forces him, Gtoffoletto, to file what I had already told him was a pointless report on the edit warring noticeboard (wasting some more admin time). And Gtofoletto, looking above again, where do you get off complaining like a maenad about being reverted, and then insulting people for not reverting you, also above: "he didn't have the courage to revert it thank god". Eh?

I have blocked Gtofoletto for 31 hours for disruptive editing, in the hope that he will take my advice more seriously if it comes with a block. Please reboot your style when you return from the block, Gtofoletto, because passive aggression and failure to listen to experienced users won't help you to a good experience on the English Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

Bishonen, in fairness, I am the one who told Gtofoletto to submit a "Well-documented" report to AE or AN/I, if they feel they have a valid, verifiable complaint. But if you found that this report was sufficiently below par (rather than forumshopping), I have no immediate objection to the action (short block) you've taken. El_C 17:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's below par, and also it's the straw that broke the camel's back. It's not just the report. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

Okay, Bishonen, fair enough. El_C 17:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Post block statement and clarification

I accept my punishment as I recognise I was out of line several times (as I have stated above and elsewhere to USer:El C and as my edits to the above report prove).

I am clearly frustrated with User:ජපස's behaviour (and at the time was also dealing with a high fever that didn’t really help my temper and coherence of expression). So while I disagree with some of Bishonen’s statements and don’t fully understand some of her arguments in her decision to block me I choose not to argue and apologise to all involved. My first block. So be it. There’s a first time for everything right? :-)

Back to the case in point, (am I correct in thinking my being blocked does not automatically dismiss my case?) I have spent this block reading up on what is going on and to understand how better I could have handled the situation.

It is clear I am facing a much more experienced group of users that has cemented themselves as “model” editors in the eyes of some admins even. Who knows how long this behaviour has been going on.

This experience disparity is why (after she contacted me during one discussion) I have requested help from User:Bishonen twice in the last week on her talk page. However, she misinterpreted my help request as a request for involvement in the editing while what I was asking was for the correct APPROACH in dealing with such a situation. Unfortunately it seems I didn’t explain myself properly and the subsequent misunderstanding ensued. At the time I felt I didn’t have the proper tools to “fight” this destructive behaviour which is extremely sneaky and much easier to overlook than my petty and obvious incivility.

What I have found recently is that the behaviour I described in my report fits exactly the behaviour described here: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (curiously the user has even edited this page in the past).

I would argue it hasn’t been particularly WP:Civil (as I think my report proves) but this short description summaries the situation quite well:

Civil pov-pushers argue politely and in compliance with Wikipedia civility principles, but also with bad faith, which discourages or upsets the other contributors. In a discussion, blame is often assigned to the person who loses their temper, which is even more frustrating for fair contributors trapped in such discussions.

Most of the behaviours indicated in the essay describe exactly what this editor is doing. I would argue that without an admin taking the time to examine the substance of this user’s edits it will be very hard to understand what he is doing. And that subject matter knowledge is probably also required. The way he is dismissing sources that don’t conform with his POV is particularly worrisome as he is is doing so with a facade of “civility” and “compliance with regulations” which is clearly fooling most (but not all).

Will someone take the time to read the report with the necessary attention? I worry the time and attention necessary to properly familiarise with the case is excessive for an admin here and unfortunately this behaviour will continue. The silver lining: the overwhelming amount of reputable sources that are emerging (which the user is bizarrely dismissing in what I believe to be a POV push) relating to some of those cases should make this much easier. We are talking about a first page of the NYTimes story after all. A lot of resonance obviously across all major newspapers, congressional hearings, documentaries, etc.

TO CONCLUDE: I reported that the user engages in multi edit reverts that result in suppression of other user edits in an attempt to evade discussion and POV push. And has been doing so with WP:HOUNDING characteristics towards me. I have presented evidence to the best of my ability but am available for clarifications if necessary. Is this approach to reverting accepted on Wikipedia and as indicated above considered “admirably mild and encouraging”?

I consider this my final appeal and will accept the verdict without presenting any additional evidence unless requested by an admin evaluating the case as I feel "the facts" have been already sufficiently linked above. Thank you for your time. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I recommended that Gtoffoletto advances their position with a well-documented report. The above is, not only too lengthy, more importantly, it has zero documentation, so its usefulness is in question. It does the opposite than to serve Gtoffoletto's interests. El_C 18:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am facing a much more experienced group of users that has cemented themselves as “model” editors in the eyes of some admins even. Who knows how long this behaviour has been going on. That's quite a bold claim to be making, especially without any documentation to back it up. Anyway, if consensus is against your edits for whatever reason, then the onus is on you to persuade editors otherwise in a civil manner. Resorting to innuendo and aspersions is actually a form of tendentious editing. Again, content disputes are to be resolved through dispute resolution, not administrative intervention. El_C 23:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

User: Brockhold

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

Could an admin take a quick look at this user's talk page and recent edits. [54]

They have been deleting content from this page today and the talk page does rather suggest WP:NOTHERE. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I need to add more here, as thus far no one has commented. I note that this user has continued to edit multiple articles and every edit has been reverted. A lot of the reverts yesterday are by Vif12vf (talk · contribs) who asks in an edit summary that Brockhold stop disrupting articles.[55].

I have looked at the user's edits and they are not clearly malicious. Yet the editor continually makes these small edits that are, in practice, disruptive - leading to many talk page warnings and several final warnings - and the editor does not engage in the article talk pages. This may be a case of WP:CIR, with the editor unaware of how disruptive their edits are. It would be good if the editor could respond here. I did notify them of this thread, but pinging Brockhold (talk · contribs) for comment. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Brockhold has possibly used several IP's in the past, and has never responded to anything. Basically this editor ignores our very excistence! I think some of the IP's have gotten blocked, but somehow this never acctually happened to the main profile! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I left a final warning at User talk:Brockhold#Collaboration. Please ping me if further problems occur. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, looks like the problems might be continuing, looking at their contribs.. Waggie (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Waggie: I looked at that several hours ago and it seemed ok. I would take action if I saw Brockhold make an edit which another editor reverted, with Brockhold substantially repeating the edit without discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

These three edits all reintroduce previously reverted material: [56][57][58]. Again there is no discussion. Thanks Johnuniq.

Confederate States of America in particular shows clear edit warring today: [59] -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted on that article twice today and would like to avoid reverting a third time! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked Brockhold indefinitely. Any admin is welcome to unblock if Brockhold demonstrates a willingness to collaborate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf ANI Interference

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

I am here start a ANI against Jtbobwaysf for deliberately interfering with another ANI report for another user. Throwing that ANI off the chart with 1 big edit. Very inappropriate and want Admin to really do something about it. Regice2020 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Users are allowed to comment on threads about others here, and I don't see how anything he did is inappropriate or really outside of the norm other than the allegations of PRC allegiance (which aren't kosher sans strong evidence). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 02:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 is clearly not here. A boomerang is in order. Wp3Strikes (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Question & Reply @Jéské Couriano:

1. Wp3Strikes a Admin or something? the things the user cited was kind disruptive.
2. Jéské Couriano - Jtbobwaysf directing it to @Sleath56:. It was throwing off the ANI inappropriately. Why not create own ANI for that? Regice2020 (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• I honestly concur that Regice2020 is either WP:NOTHERE or is a case of WP:CIR. See #199.66.69.88 may have connections with Wired Article, and Regice2020's other posts in the thread to which that's attached (disclosure: I'm the subject of that thread). Here are some select diffs: (edit summary and post) (diffless accusation of socking), (claiming that issuing an ANI notice is evidence of socking), (claiming I opposed a RM in order to generate material for a Wired article), (diffless accusations of canvassing/socking to influence the outcome of a RM), (proposing that IPs shouldn't be allowed to "vote" in RMs), (claiming a particular pagename is tantamount to accusing the people of a particular province of deliberately causing a disease outbreak). I'd also like to draw attention to Regice2020's almost total refusal to use edit summaries. As of right now, in 774 live edits Regice2020 has used edit summaries only 98 times. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Add to that Regice2020’s now-deleted response to this post: Sorry i can see right through this. Competently [sic] WP:BIAS. What? 199.66.69.88 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The 774 figure seems to be misleading. Only 224 of Regice2020's edits were to main space. [60]. 244 were to Wikipedia, but I think most of those were to ANI or similar i.e. effectively talk pages. While editors are still encouraged to leave edit summaries for talk edits, in reality many editors do not. It's rarely considered a big issue if all the editor is doing is leaving a new reply. If the editor is modifying their existing reply, it's probably encouraged more, especially if they are deleting something (so people don't have to wonder why the editor's edit removed bytes) but even then still often not considered that important. On a talk page, only when the editor is doing something other than leaving a new reply or modifying their existing one is it probably expected an editor will leave an edit summary. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s just part of the pattern. Non-use of edit summaries (often omitting even section heading links), strange accusations made without evidence, nonsensical arguments about policy... this is a WP:CIR situation, assuming good faith. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the speedily conducted indef block by @Bbb23:, and I'd support an investigation into the ownership of Wp3Strikes (talk · contribs), a blatant fresh WP:SOCK which laces this entire AN/I thread with suspicion when their only contrib was that statement above. I guess since this has been opened by @Regice2020: on the same editor, I might as well reiterate my obvious request for a WP:BOOMERANG for @Jtbobwaysf: for the out of nowhere WP:CIV breach of WP:PA and casting WP:ASPERSIONS. They've done so above here:1 and also first in a local Talk here: 2.

I've never been a party to such instant lack of WP:AGF in a first conversation with an editor before. The uncivil comment of "I think if you cannot stop this WP:POV pushing you should get a ban"2 is frankly further compounded by their attempts in my view to recruit an admin user publicly on the Talk page (whom in respect, did not rise to the appeal), instead of appropriately opening an AN/I here, who by the tone of their pitch ("have a look at this, you tend to patrol the political arena")1 implied they have prior relationship/contact with is highly inappropriate and seems like WP:CANVASSing for a WP:TAGTEAM to me.

The whole thing seems like it was conducted as a disruptive sideshow for a content dispute as it came out of nowhere with no prior discussion between me with that editor, and when I've requested them to open an WP:ANI for such severe accusations, and they buried the requested accusation in the middle of another protracted and lengthy AN/I rather than a new thread, in my view to avoid WP:BOOMERANG scrutiny for those extreme accusations and sanction aspersions. I've requested they elaborate ("I'm sure you'll be willing to provide an explanation on how this is 'POV-pushing' rather than just stating ipso facto without elaboration.") for when they post at AN/I on their reasons and evidence for such maximal accusations and sanction threats, including 'paid editing,' but they declined to do so in their post here, instead adding further accusations of being a "paid editor working for the PRC" and that when the admins give me a 't-ban,' it'll "likely do little to prevent from creating another account" implying that I'll attempt to WP:EVADE and WP:SOCKPUPPET to skirt it. Sleath56 (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sleath56: is not my tag team partner and the user has opposed things i did in the past. It was simply inappropriate for Wp3Strikes, a sock, suddenly defending (Jtbobwaysf) as the first edit after starting this ANI report against Jtbobwaysf for interference. The current focus on why did the sock suddenly defend Jtbobwaysf in the first edit of that account. Who that sock? Regice2020 (talk) 08:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: QUESTION Why these WP:Sock have interest in this ANI Interference report??? One targeted this ANI report and one pinged me through talk page as you seen?? Regice2020 (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This. The fact that Regice2020 hasn't drawn at least a trouting from someone with a bluelinked username is only serving to embolden this behavior. Not that it's really doing anything at this point. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Edit to note that the “This.” at the beginning of this post was in reference to a post that has since been removed. I am adding this to clarify that I’m not agreeing with Regice2020. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Kenji1987 WP:NOTHERE

Kenji1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their entire contribution history consists of attempts to whitewash articles on a small number of problematic academic publishers, except for a small amount of pointy argumentation (e.g.). Talk-page contributions consist of endless piles of civil POV-pushing. Essentially everyone they have interacted with has ended up querying them about COI/whether they are being paid -- whether or not that's the case, they are a pointless drain of energy on other editors in the academic journal space. I request an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. --JBL (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Kenji1987's same pattern of civil POV-pushing has also spilled over into my talk page, to the point where I explicitly gave up on responding, only to have Kenji1987 continue to try to extend the argumentation: see User talk:David Eppstein#Accusing me of whitewashing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "WP:NOTHERE" applies, but there's certainly a problem with WP:IDHT and WP:CLUE an a general obsession with the questionable publishers (mostly Frontiers Media and MDPI). A topic ban around academic publishing might be warranted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am trying in all honesty to contribute to improving the pages related to open access publishing. I might be overdoing it at times, but I find the general athmosphere quite toxic. If you look at the Talk page of MDPI, you can see that I am open for discussion about restructuring the pages, but its either ignored or I am accussed of whitewashing. JBL repeatedly asked me to "go away", and from day 1 I joined Wikipedia, I never really had the chance to join a discussion without being accussed of whitewashing. Whatever the result is of this proposed ban, its all documented, and while we can never see someone's true intentions, I am just an academic trying to do my part making information on scholarly publishing on Wikipedia a bit less biased. MDPI's page is graded of C quality, and there is a reason for that. There are a group of editors trying to discourage other users for making changes, upon we end to having this situation: a total ban. Im willing to have an open discussion about improving pages on open access publishers, and refrain from making further edits in the meanwhile, but then I need constructive arguments, and not discussions about me or my integtrity. On the other hand, if it is decided that I should be banned, then there is a lesson here to be learned, the reader is able to decide what lesson that is. Kenji1987 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, a topic ban would also be fine with me; since Kenji1987 has made 0 only a dozen or so edits to articles or article talk pages outside that topic area, I'm not sure I see any difference. --JBL (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel_B._Lewis That is simply not true. I have edited pages on universities, cities I like, and other odd pages. Not as much as academic publishing (maybe 95% of my edits?), but in order to have a right judgement, you cannot simply state things which are not true. Kenji1987 (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Although this is not WP:COIN, my immediate impression is also of a conflict of interest, despite the claims on the user page and repeating that it's not the case when asked. The reason for this is evidence: the history shows a lot of editing in relation to open access and particularly MDPI and the tendency has been to minimize criticism. It is not impossible that I'm wrong, but these are usually strong indicators, the same reason various other editors also suspect it... It is rare that someone will spend that much effort on a particular topic without involvement (which could even be as benign as publishing through it). Others can WP:AGF and assume it's not the case, but to persuade them, it would be a good idea to move on to other pages when contested, or even other topics, before an eventual topic ban occurs to enforce that, or even a full site ban... —PaleoNeonate – 03:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, this has been suggested repeatedly to Kenji1987; the whining you see above ("woe is me! how cruel that I should be accused of whitewashing, just because I want to remove negativity! alas!") is completely consistent with the responses they've given before. --JBL (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

And for some reason "fixing" the page seems so urgent as to require the use of help templates... Moreover, the MDPI article itself has had a lot of previous COI editing issues before. If the goal was really to bring articles to GA status, why not try with less controversial pages? If not really COI, it's still at the point of disruptive editing. —PaleoNeonate – 03:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I did, for example see Scientific Reports or Plos One. Kenji1987 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Right: that's the small amount of WP:POINTy argumentation I mentioned. --JBL (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand that editing one particular topic all the time can invoke the feeling of having a conflict of interest. The point is, from Day 1, I have been accused of that. Now, the MDPI wiki is particularly sensitive to users having a COI and I have made (and I am still making) novice mistakes (for example by assuming that doing your own research can be part of Wikipedia), but every time, I am trying to start a discussion (see the Talk page, I am repeatedly asking for input, suggestions, and even help) I have to defend myself, up until the point, that I am now discussing whether a total ban is justified or not. Now, I did not not know what civil POV-pushing was (until today), and I will try not to have endless discussions, especially if users tell me that they don't want that any longer (I have never received a warning about this), but at the same time, I am honestly interested in for example, what constitutes a newspaper style article and what is encyclopedic, what generally goes into a lead and what not, when is a source outdated and when is it not, and so on, and so on. I see for example a double standard how criticism is reported for Scientific Reports (a section I added by the way) and MDPI. For the former it is short, to the point, and no quotations used, for the latter, it is a whole essay about what editors felt, who rhetorically asked what, and which magazines called some of its articles "crazy" or "silly" or what not. Now, I do not want to start this discussion here (and I understand that this is not the place for these kind of discussions - it is discussing whether a total, topic or no ban is justified for me - and whatever the outcome may be, I have little influence over this), but these are some of the issues I am trying to raise. If this is against WP-policy, Ill stop doing it, and observe a little longer what is allowed in editing, and what not, but if this is reasonable, then I am willing to have an open discussion about how to be a responsible Wiki-editor. I honestly get triggered when people reduce my whole reply to simply "whining" or when discussions are cut off through saying things like "go away"[1,2,3]. Ps. I laid out my concerns, I leave it here now, I will hear later what the outcome is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Who%27s_Afraid_of_Peer_Review%3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=MDPI&offset=&limit=500&action=history [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MDPI Kenji1987 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User:142.166.158.233

142.166.158.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This ip address has been continuously disruptive editing and adding WP:OR nonstop despite several final warnings. In addition, the ip address has also failed to communicate on their Talk page. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@YoungForever: can you explain what the problem is with this IP's edits? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This ip address continuously adding WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH on multiple articles again and again such as [61] and [62]. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I've had a look at some of this editor's contributions and the thing that strikes be most is that the articles seem to be formatted as tables rather than prose, which makes it more difficult than it should be for anyone to edit them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Was about to report them, and then saw they had a discussion on them here. So now I'm here. Personally, IP is continuously disruptive across The Masked Singer pages, and after multiple warnings, continues to do edits like this, that are completely unnecessary. Yes, I know there is a new episode airing tonight, but we don't need to make a new section with literally nothing in it when it is airing hours later.

Should also be noted that I've had trouble with this exact same IP on The Masked Singer Wiki/FANDOM. I know it's off of Wikipedia, but probably worth noting that I am the founder of the Wiki and I've had to block said IP because after many times and many warnings there, I've resulted many blocks against them, and I wouldn't be surprised if I have to make an indefinite block in the future. On here and Wikia/FANDOM, I've seen 0 signs of communication apart from their continuous disruptive editing habit that doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. I'd definitely agree with YoungForever on the lack of communication and WP:NOTHERE. In addition to both of those, worth noting that the IP has not once used an edit summary to explain any reasonings whatsoever. Magitroopa (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Wikieditor19920

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

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

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

This apparently is not the first time at the ANI rodeo for this user: see [63], [64], [65], and this edit war that went way out of control. This is getting a bit absurd, and while I don't feel harassed yet, there is definitely a discomfort when wanting to engage with this user. Even bringing this up at ANI was hard because I knew it would likely distract from anti-vandalism work.

But none of this feels right. We are supposed to be civil. This - what has been doing on - isn't civil, and after that many notes at the ANI, I would have think they would have learned their lesson. Apparently not. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This report makes no allegation of a violation other than trying to Poison the well. User:Mr. Vernon suggested at an AfD discussion (Murder of Tessa Majors) on an article about a murder that the victim's race was the only reason that reliable source sources had reported on it. Further, they based their delete vote on this reasoning, which completely disregards AfD guidelines and frankly violates WP:NOTFORUM. I raised an issue with the editor about this, and they have since repeatedly posted on my talk page to challenge me about it, restoring a thread I had deleted violating my right to WP:BLANK.

In addition to beating a WP:DEADHORSE on my talk page, this user is also canvassing [66][67][68][69] "support" for this thread. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not use quotes around something I did not say. I never said the victim's race. I did say that if she were of another race, she wouldn't be getting this kind of press coverage, and the article I linked to has peer-reviewed data to back up that assertion. Second, this isn't WP:CANVASSING; there cannot be an attempt to move the needle on consensus because ANI does not operate based on consensus. These users have had interactions recently with this user and may want to provide input; but that's all they can provide, input. All of these users have had interaction with this user recently about this specific AfD (and only those users.) Notifying them that there is an ongoing discussion seems correct. If it IS canvassing (or otherwise against another policy that I am not aware of), please let me know ASAP and I will remove the notifications and apologize for getting it wrong, and accept whatever punishment I get for breaking the rules. Also, the "vote" (which it isn't, AfDs run based on consensus) had nothing to do with this, but rather my reading of WP:EVENT and determining notability guidelines for crime based on a reading of the material; see here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User acknowledges that they said what I said they said (I italicized for emphasis, didn't use quotes) and asks if they can unring a bell re: WP:CANVAS. Over a comment that I agreed to disagree with them on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Odd, I thought Canvassing was more like this attempt to solicit a user's "vote" into the AfD you are involved with. Did I get that wrong? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The above diff shows that I solicited the advice of an uninvolved admin about an article possibly qualifying for WP:SPEEDYKEEP, whose position I had no idea about beforehand. Indeed, the admin disagreed with me. You are going around asking for editors who you believe will be on your side because they either a) agreed with you at the AfD discussion (constituting a small minority), b) have had disagreements with me in the past, or c) both, to "chime in," or rather, gang up on an ANI thread. Apples and oranges. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Followup on canvassing: my mistake, I interpreted the article to apply to matters of consensus only. I've rolled back the changes, and as far as I know those editors have not read it (they have not posted here or tried to contact me.) It's up to the admins how they want to handle it. Of course the edits are still there (Wikieditor19920 has linked to them) so they can be examined and the appropriate action taken. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And for repeatedly restoring a deleted thread (yours) to my talk page? Was that a mistake as well? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, how is that inflammatory comment?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam—is it proper to imply that the article exists because the victim is a white woman? Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop that's not what he/she said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Question Is it permissible to ping the talk pages of an admin to ask them to Speedy Keep an article going through AfD? I've read WP:SK and it gives very limited reasons for doing so, none of which apply here. WP:SNOW wasn't even applying (not at the time, anyway.) I've always thought that the folks at AfD do a good job of monitoring and applying Speedy Keep/Snow/etc. when they apply without needing to go around asking. It also seems odd that once the admin said no, Wikieditor19920 kept pushing [70] [71]. This is an honest question - is this ok to do? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wikieditor19920 appears to be WP:BLUDGEONING at this AfD. Not only 14 additions to the AfD (one now gone), but editing another user's edit[72] and posting to three user TPs [73] [74] [75]. I suggest a warning to let others !vote without harrassment. O3000 (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And now the canvassing kicks in. I'll note that User:Objective3000 is criticizing me for my number of contributions at an AfD, while exhibiting the same behavior at a move discussion for that same page. Ironically, 03000 took the AfD as another opportunity to attempt to re-litigate the move discussion, which was completely irrelevant.

User:Mr. Vernon purports he didn't know that canvassing was a technical violation, but common sense should hold that seeking out other editors to gang up on someone is not in accordance with WP policy. He actually violated 3 tenets of canvassing with this thread: 1) posting a non-neutral message "chime in... Wikieditor is getting absurd..." 2) to a non-neutral audience (those he believes more likely to agree with him for reasons above) and 3) perhaps spamming (posting the same message rapidly on 4 different user talkpages). It's difficult to believe that this was an unintentional innocent mistake, and you can't unring a bell.

Lastly, this user forced me to delete his thread from my talk page four times [76][77][78][79] to challenge me on something I had already acknowledged, our disagreement about his comment, and which there was nothing further to say about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am confused about how an editor can force you to remove something from a talk page. Being very proactive about pruning a conversation from a talk page (as in, within a few minutes) seems like a choice. Your comment is still on my talk page; what of it? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You are not entitled to restore comments to my talk page that I have deleted. Removal is an acknowledgment that I have read it, as were my (multiple) responses. WP:BLANK, WP:TPG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

All involved need to stop bickering here and at the AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, which is why I suggested a warning about bludgeoning with no sanction. O3000 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'd love to. It should be kept at the AfD. And if Wikieditor19920 did that, as is the case for most AfDs, that would be fantastic. But they take it to my talk page. They [edit my comments. They harass the person who nominated the article for AfD on their talk page. They request a speedy keep from an admin and harass them after they say no to the point where the admin says "I must also admit some curiosity as to what you think you'll accomplish, practically speaking. It should be clear by now I'm not going to change my mind." I'm wondering if this user is here to build an encyclopedia or not. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Aggressive bludgeoning is WE19920's main mode of interaction on talk pages; a stern warning from an attentive admin is sorely needed. --JBL (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis—Wikieditor19920 nicely asks Mr. Vernon on their Talk page if they would consider striking their comment. They explain that the comment is "in very poor taste in an AfD discussion like the one above". And Wikieditor19920 nicely asks Cryptic on their Talk page about the same subject. I will point out that Cryptic says that this incident "shouldn't have gotten the disproportionate media coverage it has". No, that is not what Wikipedia is about. We follow sources. Sources clearly enunciate that the Murder of Tessa Majors is interpreted by some to herald a return to high crime rates in New York City.[80] Wikipedia does not get to decide that the incident "shouldn't have gotten the disproportionate media coverage it has". Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• Mr. Vernon—your comment about Missing white woman syndrome was illogically placed near the top of that discussion, right after the nomination of the article for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Bus stop: That's because it was I saw the AfD a few minutes after it went live and replied to it immediately. As far as I know that's the basic order of AfDs, top-level comments are in chronological order, which is why my input (keep or delete) is much further down the page. I'm not sure why I saw the AfD so soon, but I had been watching that page closely due to issues regarding posting the names of the suspects (not by anyone involved here) and of course when I'm looking out for vandalism, watching recent changes/new pages is a must. --Mr. Vernon (talk)

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

I'd suggest both the OP and Wikieditor199220 give that AfD some breathing room and leave each other alone. That should resolve everything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, but User:Mr. Vernon has now 1) violated my talkspace by restoring a thread that I intentionally deleted, multiple times, and 2) has filed a frivolous ANI report over an issue that had ended (my striking of a comment he made at an AfD discussion, that wasn't part of his vote, and with an explanation, which he objected to and that I took no further action on) and 3) engaged in blatant canvassing to unduly influence an ANI thread against me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Further, the fact that this user would try to compensate for the lack of any perceptible reason to have come to ANI in this instance by trying to create prejudice with a full history of any time I've been involved in an ANI thread (which is limited and never resulted in any sanction), in addition to the canvassing, is a complete misuse of what ANI is for. WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: where is the restoring multiple times? The only time they seemed to restore comments you deleted is here [81] [82]. While generally speaking editors should not restore comments that an editor deleted from their talk page, the explanation [83] offers some understanding of why they did so.

I don't see where else they restored comments that you had deleted. They did make that new comments on the issue after you had deleted the thread, but that is not a WP:OWNTALK issue. If we're ignoring psychic nonsense, by definition you cannot have read comments which had not been posted before. And while yes, if they use the same section heading technically they're restoring the section heading that's a fairly pointless semantic debate since the editor could just give a different section heading.

For WP:harassment and other reasons, if an editor wants to drop an issue on their talk page, this generally should be respected, just as if an editor wants to completely ban another from their talk page. But that's a different point. And frankly, I can understand why Mr. Vernon wanted to offer their explanation if you're making such a big deal over what is actually a single restoration of deleted comments.

Further if you want someone to drop an issue, it helps a great deal if you don't respond either other than with a basic message saying you no longer wish to discuss the issue. While editors should generally still respect a request to drop an issue on their talk page even if the other editor has said a lot as unfair as that can be, it's generally a bit lame to expect you should be the one to get in the last word.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, this user is not allowed to restore any comments to my talk page, once, twice, or at all. And repeatedly re-opening a thread title that I deleted with new comments is just as much of a restoration as his restoring a deleted conversation thread.

This has nothing to do with who has the "last word." I could not care less, nor do I owe him a response to every one of a series messages confronting me about something long dropped, to either his satisfaction or yours. I politely raised an issue with User:Mr. Vernon on his talk page about a potentially inflammatory comment he made an an AfD. He took exception with my striking the remark at the page and posted on my talk page about it. When I gave this response, there was nothing more to say about it. I shouldn't have to repeat myself with this post, which was the last response I gave before he came to ANI (and which shows how unnecessary this report was). As for If we're ignoring psychic nonsense, by definition you cannot have read comments which had not been posted before., I have no idea what you are talking about. I removed the thread once he had posted it, in addition to offering written replies. This is a user who seems to have lost his temper and apparently didn't get the response he wanted from me, and that's why where at ANI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• Except judging by your comment you have not understand what that editor said. It was a perfect comment. The editor asked why that was unusual and that was the right reply, showing why the media is extensively covering the story. It was not inappropriate.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• SharabSalam—if the idea of Missing white woman syndrome was a part of a cogent argument for the deletion of the article Murder of Tessa Majors, wouldn't we expect that concept to be invoked in the actual deletion argument posted by Mr. Vernon? We do not. Nor do we see any reference to race. If it was such a "perfect comment" then why doesn't Mr. Vernon use that comment or related concepts in their deletion argument? Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop - you're missing the point completely. Whether the AfD I started was correct or not, the editor has been bludgeoning discussions that he doesn't agree with (not to mention heading off to other editor's talk pages to annoy them), and he needs to stop doing it. This was quite clearly pointed out above. This is not about the validity or otherwise of a particular AfD or DRV. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

My comment at your and Vernon's talk page was not to "annoy you" -- it was to ask that you reconsider an off-topic comment about race that has absolutely nothing to do with notability guidelines. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Multiple users cited my arguments as persuasive enough to influence their vote, and frankly, it seems like the discussion is overwhelmingly favoring keep. Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have, though when an editor agreeswith you, it seems it isn't bludgeoning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Black Kite similar behaviour in Talk:Ilhan Omar in the RfC. The same editor has been bludgeoning almost every vote in that RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• "Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have". Some advice - I'd stop replying when you can't even count. You've made twenty-eight comments at that AfD. Mr.Vernon has made nine. I don't think I need to say anything else, so my point about your bludgeoning stands. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: I have no idea where you are pulling those numbers from. I have about nine comments at that RfC, most of which are very short replies to pings, and Vernon has seven, including an extremely long counter-response to Levivich's analysis. I suggest you double check your work before accusing other editors of "not being able to count." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• You've edited it 28 times, Vernon 9. I dare say some might be typo fixes and so on, but, whatever. You made 25 edits to the DRV as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I made a few typo fixes for each comment - guilty of occasional typographical errors? Sure. Vastly more participation than Vernon? I don't think so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop, It was a response to Black kite question. Why this was covered widely in the media.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Black Kite—I pointed out that the reason given for your initiation of the AfD was detoured by the next comment by Mr. Vernon. It was a non sequitur. Mr. Vernon was asked on their Talk page to remove their comment, but they refused to do so. That is an out of place comment. If there was any cogency to that comment then Mr. Vernon or someone else would have told us that the article should have been deleted because the news tends to favor white female victims over black female victims. But we don't see that. An extraneous and inflammatory assertion should be removed from an AfD such as this one, especially appearing at the top of the discussion. They were literally responding to a question you posed, Black Kite. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted that you don't think the comment from Mr. Vernon applies. But, other editors are allowed their own opinions. Hasn't this been discussed enough? O3000 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

50.39.167.96

There's an IP user here that's been vandalising several pages, all with pretty much the same vandal pattern. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: All edits of that user were made in a short period of time and were pretty much blatant vandalism. Why have you brought this case to ANI instead of reporting that user to AIV after giving him enough warnings? Well, it's very likely that the user won't make any more edits from that IP address, as a lot of IP addresses change every day, so any further discussion is rather aimless. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: BTW, when starting an ANI case you must inform all concerned parties on their talk pages. It applies also to unregistered (IP) editors. You didn't do that. I have done it for you as a courtesy. But as I said before – per WP:DENY – there's been absolutely no need to start this ANI discussion. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay. It's just that I don't think anyone has told me about that before. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:AIV deals with vandals fast, even minutes, but you need to warn them off first.--Chuka Chief (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Unprofessional blocking of innocent user

I been falsely blocked because I restore some edits which I thought was productive towards to the article but it was done by someone who was evading their block numerous of times. The edits I done were these:

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88].

Ohnoitsjamie thought I was a sockpuppet of the user, Alex Neman and blocked me indefinitely, The fact they accused me of such things and blocked a innocent user is very frustrating and unprofessional coming from a user who been here for nearly one and a half decade. Even when he did unblock me, he still wasn't fully convinced I was innocent and stated "Likely false positive".

I understand why you shouldn't restore edits from someone who is blocked because it usually for a good reason, but the edit this user has done were legitimately good and I thought if it was fine if a genuine user added them instead of the blocked user. This is simply a exception since most of the time, the content the user restoring are unconstructive while these I listed simply aren't. Now I got this indef block permanently stuck on my block log and possibly lost a bit of credibility from other users. --Vauxford (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

While trying to avoid editing by proxy, at the same time, reverting errors back into an article is also obviously a problem. This isn't a contradiction that is likely to be resolved, ever. It just needs to be addressed according to the particular circumstances of each individual case. El_C 19:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

El_C He was notified, I done it as soon I was unblocked but he removed it. [89] --Vauxford (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Was already corrected less than a minute later — oh well. El_C 19:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

My bad then. --Vauxford (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

A word of advice, Vauxford. Very few people look at your block log, and those that do don't care whether you have been blocked before as long as you are making valuable contributions. There's no loss of credibility at all. Just don't worry about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger It still humiliating to be accused of sockpuppeting, let alone being blocked indefinitely because of a accusation from one admin and then that admin who unblocked me still doesn't buy your alford plea. I have been accused sockpuppeting in the past by certain users even though I wouldn't do such things. --Vauxford (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There's always a danger that someone with an unjustified block in their block log might have it held against them later. "OMG! User:Suchandsuch was blocked for socking in 2014! They're obviously a bad hombre and automatically wrong now!!" Then you've got to explain the error, and the conversation gets derailed. Better to put in a 1 second block with an explanation that the first one was wrong. Reyk _YO! 23:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm a big User:Ohnoitsjamie fan, but I think they got this one pretty wrong. I have certainly blocked an editor I thought was a sock only to discover I was wrong, but you really have to be more apologetic than this, both on the talk page, and in the block log. I'm also concerned that Vauxford was unblocked only on the condition they would not reinstate the edits; what is the policy basis for that? If they want to take ownership of that edit? Unfortunately, Vauxford, policy does not allow block log redactions, but if you'd like, and if Jamie's willing, they can block you for 1 second to annotate the block log to note that the previous block was in error. If they aren't willing, I'd be willing to (after hearing both sides, in case I'm missing something). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that Phil's advice is sound. Speaking only for myself, I never look at another user's block log unless I have a reason to - which usually means that I think I'm going to have to block them, and want to know whether they've been blocked recently which might influence the duration. Floq's suggestion of a brief block to add an explanatory note to the record would probably work well; if you don't fancy that, and anybody ever goes fishing in your block log to try to stir up trouble, feel free to ping me and I'll explain what's wrong with what they're doing in simple language. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam The 1 second block seem to be the best choice, I also think Ohnoitsjamie owe me a apology for this blunder of his. I still don't get why I can't claim ownership of these perfectly good edits which improves and update the article greatly. --Vauxford (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Because of WP:PROXYING, Vauxford. Anyway, from my own experience, there's not only a "decent chance" that Vauxford is not Alex Neman — the chances for that being true actually approaches zero. (Argh, sorry for the double negatives.) El_C 20:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Surely you mean that the chance Vauxford is not Alex Neman approaches 1, not 0. You've gotten lost in the double negatives. EEng 20:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

PROXYING is working at the direction of a banned user. We have no reason to doubt Vauxford when they say that's not the case. What PROXYING does say explicitly is that an established user can take complete responsibility for the content. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Not if it becomes a pattern, it taking place over a considerable time span — then, no. El_C 23:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't verified whether your reinstatement of the IP edits was constructive (I'm not a car expert like you), but policy permits you to do what you did, and if the block was based on a pure technicality without looking at the substance of your edits, it was wrong. In addition, although I may not be a car expert, I am a sock expert, and the evidence was insufficient to block you for socking (on many levels that I won't go into here).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I still want to know whether I'm allow to restore the perfectly fine content and claim it as mine and have Ohnoitsjamie formally apologise and admit his mistake to me and actually acknowledge the fact I am NOT Alex Neman. --Vauxford (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Vauxford: For a very simplistic example, if an IP of a sock fixes something like a homonym error, where someone had "I except your proposal" instead of the correct "I accept the proposal" and that IP is reverted because it is a sock, any valid user is welcome to take responsibility of the edit themselves and restore the fix. Amaury • 21:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I would revert them back now but I'm too afraid I might be indef blocked again. Looking at the WP:PROXYING I considered the edits productive and I haven't been told to do this by the blocked user outside of Wikipedia, I have absolutely no contact with this user and I haven't interacted with him once on Wikipedia. --Vauxford (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie's respond to this: [90], [91], [92]. Do admins really act this juvenile? He outright refuse to owe his mistake and thinks indefinitely blocking a user without actually any sort of background check or simple common sense as "trivial". --Vauxford (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My suggestion: If you do want to restore them but are worried, you can leave a note on the talk page essentially reiterating what's in WP:PROXYING: That (1) you are restoring the edits because you believe they are constructive, (2) that you are not doing so at the direction of the blocked or banned editor, and (3) that you are taking personal responsibility for the edits. Then in the edit summary/ies for the edits restoring those edits, you state that you're taking personal responsibility for the edits and link the talk page thread. And if you're still concerned, post on Ohnoitsjamie's user talk letting him know what you're doing. It's a bit belt-and-suspenders, of course, but sometimes you've got to take that approach in this type of situation.

On some level, this just goes with the territory of editing Wikipedia: Sometimes you get mistaken for a sock, etc. Admins aren't expected to be perfect. Yes, it would be a good idea if Ohnoitsjamie apologized, particularly now that others have pointed out the original conclusion was erroneous. But there's no need to let it bother you. Your block log is not going to get blanked. That Floq put a notation in your block log is, from what I've seen, already above-and-beyond what is normally done here. I'm not saying you should be appreciative of your shitty situation, but getting this bothered about it isn't helping anybody, and doesn't make you look good either. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And let me just say one last thing: meatball:DefendEachOther is one of my favorite essays on approaching disputes on Wikis and elsewhere, and I consider required (or at least strongly suggested) reading in your situation. You've already convinced people that Ohnoitsjamie was mistaken, and they're sticking up for you. Let them try to talk to Ohnoitsjamie rather than continuing to complain for now. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've annotated the block log to clearly indicate that based on this discussion, that the block was wrong, and that the unblock conditions were not required, or based on policy, and are recinded. The only thing I'd recommend, @Vauxford:, is that if you decide to re-instate, you do so with a long edit summary that clearly explains why you think it's a good edit, and that clearly notes that you're taking responsibility for the edit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I have every right to express my disgust when I been mistreated, even if it sounds like I'm acting spoiled. I don't mean to be and I know it against policy to delete block logs. I do regret demanding a apology but c'mon, it isn't that hard to say "I'm sorry that I wrongfully blocked you" and it water over the bridge, but because he hasn't done that (I highly doubt he would of done it if I didn't prompt him to) it is just creating aggression between me and this admin and plus, it just makes him come across as childish. This should of NEVER happens if he actually looked through my user page rather then indiscriminately block someone without restraint or second thoughts.

In conclusion, I don't mind walking with the annotation on my block log and I will sort out a edit summary with the said edits above, I just hope Ohnoitsjamie does the right thing now or later, because something like this shouldn't result just with a slap on the wrist. --Vauxford (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the edits with the disclaimer as well as linking to this ANI, hopefully that should do it. --Vauxford (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't see anyone explain the core problem—dealing with long-term abusers (LTAs) is very difficult and very irritating. LTAs thrive on creating drama and it is unfortunate that you have been made part of it. Please let the matter rest and accept that Wikipedia, like everything else, is very imperfect. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks Ohnoitsjamie is required to engage here and explain this block per WP:ADMINACCT? - Levivich (lulz) 04:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, you're not. I'm with you completely. This should be a bigger deal than it currently is. Rather than circle the wagons, I think Ohnoitsjamie needs to be held accountable. A bad block is one thing. A sysop accusing a long-term contributor of socking and going straight to the indef block is a horse of a different color.--WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hm. I don’t know if he’s required to participate under the terms of ADMINACCT, but he darn well should be here. This is really something that would’ve just required a simple mea culpa in his first response to the whole thing. That would’ve been enough for me. People make mistakes. That Vauxford is a long-term contributor isn’t particularly relevant in my view; the problem, and Johnuniq rightly puts it, is the whack-a-mole that LTAs turn administration into. Sometimes there’s collateral damage and in this case it was someone who didn’t just leave. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

He has responded to Vauxford on his talk page, so I think ADMINACCT has been met. He has not apologized but has explained his reasons for not doing so.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you’re being charitable by describing that response as an explanation. I am still unclear as to why 1) the block was made in the first place, 2) the unblock was made with conditions (what was the policy basis for those conditions?), as opposed to without conditions, and 3) there was no apology with the unblock. “I don’t apologize on demand” kind of misses the point: one shouldn’t apologize on demand, but one should apologize-without being asked-when one makes a serious mistake like a bad block. Fundamental question: does Jamie realize he made a mistake? The important thing is that everyone learns from this going forward, but I’m still unclear as to whether Jamie thinks he made a mistake here. Levivich (lulz) 15:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have observed over the past couple days that Ohnoitsjamie has been quite active fighting this very active and persistent sockfarm, but this is just a bit more than a regrettable false positive. Several checkusers have been involved already, and Ohnoitsjamie ought to know that if a sock account had been editing while the sockfarm has been active, we would have detected it. Furthermore, while edits by sockpuppets can be reverted, it's not required, and it's a long-recognized convention that such edits can be restored if a user has a good-faith reason for doing so; we are also required to assume good faith. So this is a few layers of bad block, but there's not much we can actually do about any of it since it's already been reversed. WP:ADMINACCT does not compel apologies, and seeking your pound of flesh is tendentious behaviour.

I propose that Ohnoitsjamie's unblock condition that Vauxford cannot restore the edits is formally vacated, and as a community we explicitly declare that Vauxford is unconditionally unblocked (someone can note that in the block log if they want). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I agree here. No reason to forbid it considering it's not a absolute requirement that sock edits be reverted. No reason to say no to good edits, just make sure that Yauxford understands that their readdition of those edits brings all responsibility for them onto them. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 16:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector Looking at the block log, hasn't Floquenbeam essentially already done that?-- P-K3 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support formally vacating Ohnoitsjamie's unblock condition. I fully understand that Vauxford may feel pressure even if it's been pretty well recognized here that it was a bad block to begin with, so I think this is a valuable exercise. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Remove editing restriction The user should not have been blocked at all, and the editing restriction they felt forced to accept under threat of being permanently blocked should be lifted ASAP. Lurking shadow (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I find Jamie's conduct here appalling. Mistaking someone for a sock is a honest mistake but this doesn't get him off the hook. The editor in question has been around here three years and has over 5,000 edits. Some checking should have been done first. Jamie didn't. His unblock with a condition was a bad mistake. Anyone can restore a sock's edits. His refusal to apologize shows to me that Jamie don't think made any mistake. That's the third one he has made in this whole affair. Behavior like this from an administrator is unacceptable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• @Jamie: Jamie has replied again[93] at his talk page. He is not backing down or taking any form of responsibility for what they did. I have never taken anything to ARBCOM in 13 years here. Always time for a first. His failure to explain himself here is very troubling....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

So he consider what I strongly thought was misconduct as "causing drama", like I'm the fault of all this? I admit this shouldn't of gone further then when I said "I reverted the edits with the disclaimer as well as linking to this ANI, hopefully that should do it.". Seem like other users have different thoughts about this situation, and I wanted to see how it goes without getting myself involved again (not wanting to be tendentious). William suggested that I should take this matter to Arbcom but unless this admin has been acting irrational at several occasions recently, I have no reason to do so, I don't even know where to start setting up something like that, it looks complicated. --Vauxford (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth taking to ArbCom myself, unless there's evidence of a pattern of misconduct and you can plead this as the culmination of such a pattern. While single instances of misconduct can result in a desysop, I don't see this as one of those situations. And unless a lot has changed, ArbCom usually leaves routine admin discipline (tbans, ibans, routine blocks, trouting) to the dramaboards. In particular, at least from my perspective, the real disruptive part of the dispute is over—you're unblocked, there's a pretty clear consensus it was a bad block, it's pretty clear your unblock condition has been vacated, and it doesn't seem like Ohnoitsjamie protests or disputes any of that. He just isn't apologizing. And while I think that's pretty lame on his part, even after his explanation why, I don't see ArbCom twisting his arm on that. Like really, I'd just go back to business at this point. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• i already voided the editing restriction yesterday. Maybe just once don’t turn something that’s been resolved for a day into a whole thing. —Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The initial block was based the Vauxford reinstating a series of edits that a prolific and recently active sockmaster (Alex Neman) had recently made, with no explanation as to why they were being reinstated. Though I saw that it wasn't a new account, but Neman had recently used a "sleeper" from 2017. I unblocked the user after concluding that it was false positive; asking that they agree to not resinstate the edits was based on a lingering concern that the socking user had asked others to reinstate his edits off-wiki (proxying). In hindsight, those restrictions were unnecessary and the unblock should not have been conditional upon them. I agree that those editing restrictions are no longer necessary, and in the future I'll leave it to others more familiar with the sockmaster to handle any future edits by that sock. I loathe drama, and would've been happy to try to further remedy had the complainant engaged with me directly to express their concerns about the conditions of the block and the block log itself, rather than immediately bringing the matter here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Vauxford, whom Jamie wrongfully blocked and wrongfully unblocked with a restriction, had no obligation to approach Jamie in a manner that Jamie finds acceptable. If an admin wrongfully blocks an editor and the editor’s response is “fuck you, asshole”, the admin should still apologize, because it’s the admin who did something wrong. The editor who is complaining about the admin doing something wrong is not doing anything wrong by complaining about the admin’s wrongdoing! I strongly reject the characterization of editors raising this very reasonable concern as seeking a pound of flesh. That said, I also don’t think this is arbcom worthy as long as everyone is on the same page that reinstating a sock’s edits (even a prolific sock) is not a blockable offense. The fundamental point is that PROXYING explicitly allows Vauxford to do what they did (and no, no edit summary declaring “I am taking responsibility for these edits” is required. That is already implied for every edit we make, and it’s ridiculous to expect editors to search histories and figure out who is and who isn’t a sock before making edits.) Levivich (lulz) 04:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Having said above that I don't think Vauxford should worry about this, I find Ohnoitsjamie's attidude to this appalling. Should anyone trusted with administrator rights find it so difficult to admit to a mistake? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, while Alex Neman is definitely a very very active sockpuppeteer, he was blocked for 3RR, for adding too many pictures, and for being generally awful at communicating. However, many of his photos are very important (and continue to be in use) and a large proportion of his edits are completely useful - I don't think it's entirely fair to expect all users to be aware that they risk being blocked for reinstating what seem to be useful edits. Meanwhile, it can be very hard for admins dealing with this kind of user (the Alex Nemans, BullDosers, and EuroVisionNims). I also don't want to become a proxy for Alex Neman by reinstating his useful edits and I don't think anyone else does either. Anyhow.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Need eyes on an AfD

We seem to have an issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turing Research with regards to SPAs inappropriately editing/refactoring messages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Preface: I have a declared COI with George Mason University, so I'm not going to touch the deletion discussion. It's pretty blatant that the two keep !voters are undeclared COI, since the usernames match one of the professors in the group and a grad student in the group who published one of the cited blog posts. Both could use a gentle nudge from someone uninvolved in the AfD about proper formatting of deletion discussions and our rules about COI. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 21:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing appears to get through to them and we're just going in circles. I've already more than discussed WP:COI with Akumar19. Praxidicae (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. They've got pretty bad selective reading. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, oh, I completely agree that you've done that. "Gentle nudge" was an intentional understatement, what they really need is the application of a cluebat, but it needs to be from someone besides you (preferably someone of the administrative sort). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 21:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I think this is the first time I've actually had to invoke COI on myself. Exciting! ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 21:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The only inappropriate editing or refactoring of a message I see is this. The rest appears to be a failed attempt at figuring out how signing works. (Plus the usual incomprehension of independent reliable sources, but that doesn't merit a trip to ANI.) —Cryptic 21:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Well to be fair Cryptic they both went back and resigned their unsigned sigs with other peoples usernames. See here before I cleaned it all up. Praxidicae (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Given the horrid example of sig formatting they saw, it's not surprising and clearly unintentional that they only managed to get the visible part right. Hence, "a failed attempt at figuring out how signing works". —Cryptic 21:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I would note that an undeclared COI is worthy of administrator attention, especially as they have been pointed at that policy several times already, and seem to be refusing to acknowledge it, as such it's intentional at this point and a clear ToU violation. Waggie (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any need to raise this issue here. The discussion will reach the correct result anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• In case people miss it, Fbatarse and Akumar19 have now been CU blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in memory of an alumnus

Since as far back as April 2015, user Billytruax has repeatedly attempted to add cross country athlete Anthony Melcher to the section for notable alumni on the article for Dixie Hollins High School. After searching for Melcher's name on Google, I found that he was indeed a cross country athlete who graduated from Dixie Hollins, and who passed away in 2011 (see obituary here). I feel sympathy for Melcher's family and friends, and I wish them well. However, per Wikipedia guidelines, notability must be established for persons listed in such a section. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not for memorials. As a result, I have removed Melcher's name from the section on several occasions, and pointed to the aforementioned guidelines in one of my edit summaries. Rather than engaging in discussion, Billytruax has continued to re-add Melcher's name without providing justification for doing so (see here and here). —Matthew - (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I must say that I do find the behavior concerning. Hopefully they'll come here to discuss and this can be straightened out. Waggie (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I've left a warning, along with the usual helpful alphabet soup. Their other edits appear to be made in genuine good faith, including the edit war regarding the removal of unconfirmed allegations. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Moxy. behavioral issues, disruptive editing, attacking other editors, WP:NPOV, BRD, BATTLEGROUND. Also user:The Sr Guy.

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

---

• Main Article: Hungary and its talk page,
• and Moxy's and my talk pages.

• Also, lesser problem user: The Sr Guy
• in same Hungary article, religion section, plus Article: Hungarian Greek Catholic Church

I'm not sure what to do with Moxy. He looked like a good editor, identifying cosmetic problems. I was working on the page, correcting some new and old problems, mainly WP:NPOV and BIAS stuff, and making sure the article data accurately reflected the cited source. Some math was clearly wrong in statistics, mainly. I also notice people deleting valid text for no good reason (including Moxy deleting images with positioning problems instead of just fixing the positioning), so I restored that as well. This article has a history of chronic abuses of BATTLEGROUND with NPOV and OWN and other assorted pushing of agendas. I'm only concerned with factual accuracy with cited reliable sources. I didn't actually know about the behavior history (which got it denied for GA nomination and laughed at by reviewers who were disgusted).

Moxy and I were having a decent discussion, though he seemed a little jumpy. He began to edit war over his claim that the date of the cited source for a census was 2011, when the source (an official Hungarian government agency website) clearly indicated 17 July 2013. I pointed this out more than once, and he finally posted on the talk page but at the same time made another edit change (disruptive). I answered the post, again informing him of the correct data per the cited source. However, he had already made another two edits I hadn't seen yet.

Those two edits were these: all of a sudden he apparently completely flipped out, and spewed what sounded like a threat and a definite ultimatum to me with 4-letter words in the thread on his talk page: DIFF. The second edit, made around the same time: he made a horrible reversion of the article back several dozen edits, obliterating several users' edits including mine and his: DIFF. I reverted that totally disruptive edit. His edit summary there and also elsewhere was beginning to look like gibberish, as if he was stuttering writing. His sentences were full of typos which he vainly tried to correct, like he was typing too fast, and couldn't be bothered to write coherent sentences.

I then put a warning on his talk page about his disruptive editing, his attacks on me with silly ultimatums, and his massive reversion/obliteration: DIFF. I talked about what he had done, and suggested he just take a break, calm down his anger, and come back later so we can work on making the article better together.

He wasn't responsive. He was completely stammering in his posts, threatening ANI or 3RR, and sounding very irrational. His talk page, the article talk page, my talk page, and edit summaries were borderline nonsense. He made yet another disruptive edit reverting my reversion back to his huge disruptive edit from before: DIFF. His edit summary was diverting as well, blathering about ANI or 3RR threats when HE was clearly in the wrong (this I've noticed is a typical tactic by disruptors). Someone else reverted him this time (one of the users whose former edits he mass obliterated).

There's also another disruptor, User:The Sr Guy, who mainly is pushing deliberately inaccurate information (and inaccurate and confrontational edit summaries) for NPOV and BIAS, some of it definitely controversial, contributing to the general BATTLEGROUND mileu of the Hungary article and the related article Hungarian Greek Catholic Church and ALL of his edits are like that and all have been reverted by various people, mostly me recently, or his edits with fake data have been merely corrected. He's specifically editing portions of sections on religion, and skewing statistics with fake and biased data not supported by reliable sources. He jumped in to the threads with Moxy and my warnings and suggestions and seems to take Moxy's side, but I think he's just provocating. I've ignored him (he posts in the middle of my posts, breaking up my post, not good).

The Sr Guy doesn't edit very often, but today he did put back three of his same edits which I already reverted, one in Hungarian Greek Catholic Church and two in Hungary. I reverted them again with a warning to discuss in the talk page, knowing that he won't because his edits are bogus (unless he gets meatpuppets/sympathizers/disruptors). The warning I gave him on his talk page: DIFF

I've filed this complaint rather than escalate further, since Moxy is unable to be communicated with. I'm not sure what to do in this situation. I've never filed a complaint before, so please advise. This takes up more time than I would normally allow, and the Hungary article isn't the main article I work on, I just happened to step into a pit of vipers there, and I don't like wars or user behavior like this from Moxy.

As I write this, Moxy has requested the page to be locked and an Admin has done so, locking it for a week. Fine with me, as all of the troublesome problems have been corrected and Moxy (and The Sr Guy) have been reverted to the way the article was before. Can you extend that protection indefinitely? The page already has insufficient protection and there's really no one who watches over it and I don't want to take on that responsibility, I don't feel right in this whole matter. It's kind of scary.

BTW, Moxy's issue seems to be just the source date for the religion census. Such a simple little thing he's getting all bent over. I don't see any resolution even if he were to discuss in the talk page, since 17/07/2013 is the date of the source and that's that. No getting around it. I think The Sr Guy is more of a problem on that level because he WON'T discuss and his agenda is just a pushy one. Besides, you notice the subject is religion here: one of the two things that causes people to war on this planet (the other being politics), and I stay away from those subjects.

Wait, another diff. As I write, Moxy is posting incomprehensible gibberish in the talk page: DIFF. A series of edits with a huge post or two in the threads: he still can't write comprehensible sentences, and then a giant string of garbage data filling up half the page, and even an image. There's another user in there (the one that reverted Moxy recently) who also has posted something way too large, and these people pinging demanding my attention (they're like children). Moxy just wants more to complain about (like the image he wanted me to put in the infobox so I did). I'm not going to answer any queries to me or anything else until you resolve this. How about lock the talk page too? And how do I stop Moxy from posting on my talk page? (I'm archiving it all.) It's like I've suddenly been appointed the God of the Hungary article, and my minions (or my children) are annoyingly begging me for answers to imaginary problems. I don't want this job! Can you get rid of them all for me? So I can be in peace and do my work. I just want to tell them all to shut the F up, but I'm too polite for that.

LisztianEndeavors (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no way to make other editors stop trying to collaborate with you. You can try dispute resolution, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you present us with the census source? GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Said incomprehensible gibberish clearly shows that the census data is from 2011, and not 2013. For those wanting to confirm, open up [94] and then open up 1.1.7.1. Although it is tagged as 2013, it does not contain any data for 2013. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place for discussions about the Hungary article or any controversies. This is a complaint about two users' behavior. People posting here please take your discussion to the appropriate talk page. I personally am not a guardian of that page, nor even a frequent editor. In fact, my edits are done and I have other articles I regularly attend to. If you need help with problems with the Hungary page, please refer to Talk:Hungary, and I'm sorry but I can't help you here. There are ongoing discussions in that talk page on the subjects you appear to be concerned about. Be aware that the Hungary article is protected, so discussion in its talk page is both necessary and appropriate. This current thread here is about a user complaint which is currently waiting for Admins to address. Thank you for your consideration. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Have no clue why this editor wants to put a year of 2013 for 2011 census. Still waiting on a reply as to why they think it's from 2013 despite the source saying 2011. Hard to move forward when the editor is not able to read the source properly. What can be said?--Moxy 🍁 14:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What exactly is this report about? A complaint that editors aren't agreeing with you? GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

TO ADMINS: UPDATE. I am having to continually update this complaint, since Admins are not taking action. Users are harassing me in this ANI complaint now, as you can see. They pretend they can't read the complaint and are insulting. The Sr Guy is still making the same repeated disruptive edits to Religion in Hungary, after already been reverted twice before. Same violations as I've already outlined in my complaint. DIFF1 and DIFF2.

Moxy continues to attack me on Talk:Hungary, but his language skills are so insufficient (his "them" and "they" refers to me). Moxy and others, like GoodDay are confrontationally abusive. They make jokes at my expense. NinjaRobotPirate is another barrel of laughs. Mr rnddude and others like especially Moxy, the main initial subject of this complaint, continually try to discuss imaginary non-issues, that is, intimating a "dispute" where there is none, again directed at me as if they're children trying to get something out of their father, and I'm the father.

This is not what I signed up for, to nursemaid a bunch of immature users causing havoc and being as insulting as some teenagers might (though my own two teenagers don't behave like this). I find it astounding that WP allows this sort of thing to go on unchecked. I'm tired of having to monitor these two articles to revert vandals, trolls, abusive editors, disruptive, destructive, and unconstructive editing, WP:NPOV bias pushing editors who put up fake statistics that show an inability to do simple math, and slanted data designed to further their deceptive agendas. Both these pages need permanent administrative protection, and they need someone responsible to monitor them regularly (not me! I have too much work to do in my project pages), and troublemakers need to be summarily blocked and be done with it. Please respond now with action citing these users I've identified for their disruptions; do something constructive to take care of this situation please. I don't need this abuse and Wikipedia articles especially don't need this abuse either. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked LisztianEndeavors for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think he/she may require a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK let's unlock the page so corrections can be implemented. My reason for protection failed miserably 😣. Funny all this over the wrong date.--Moxy 🍁 01:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Read over the discussion at LE's talkpage. What's he going on about, him & his wife not feeling safe on Wikipedia? This is a head scratcher. GoodDay (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Chuckstreet (talk · contribs) to me. Combination of List of compositions by Franz Liszt and bizarre rants. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

He went from being an old man living alone & scared of the FBI, to a fellow who is married. Entertaining stuff, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Wego99

Wego99 (talk · contribs) repeatedly inserts claims on Sheth and Shah (surname) that they are related, without citation or discussion. He has now taken to removing citations without explanation. Please would an uninvolved editor give him suitable advice. – Fayenatic London 08:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Notified 173.251.14.133 (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinpointed by GSS

Hi, admin. I am here to raise concern over my articles being purposefully proposed for deletion (Synergis and Kowloon Development Company) within 5 minutes. I don't know the motive behind the unreasonable consecutive proposed deletions of my articles (which I've already objected because they comply with GNG) of GSS and whether it is because he is not satisfied about my vote in AfD discussions. I wish you to notify him that his actions are disruptive I tell him to STOP targeting my contributions. Thanks a lot.--WikiAviator (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Since GSS is a new page reviewer, my initial guess is that they came across those pages while doing new page review, concluded that they were not notable companies, and tagged them with PROD. Looking at the two pages you linked, neither of those demonstrates that the subject meets GNG and I would have probably either draftified them or proposed deletion if I'd reviewed them. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I generally concur with this.

@WikiAviator: If you have access to sources that meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability (see WP:CORPDEPTH for excellent guidance) please do focus on digging them up during the AfD period rather than pursuing this claim of misconduct... because I’m not seeing any misconduct. While there’s sometimes disagreement over whether new page patrollers should seek deletion for pages on notability or A7 grounds within a few minutes of page creation, as far as I know it’s not against the rules. Particularly when there’s an assertion of a WP:BEFORE search done by the person nominating the page for deletion, as GSS has done.

Once again, please find sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH and provide them in the appropriate place. If you do it within the AfD period the pages shouldn’t be deleted, but even if it takes you a little longer they can be recreated. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

As a non-admin who used to check the new pages myself, I doubt it was strictly coincidental new page patrolling, as the pages were created a couple days apart. However, the first one that GSS proposed for deletion was Synergis, which is weakly sourced for notability (a single third-party source from 17 years ago, plus the company's own annual report and one line in a book from the stock market that the company trades under) and had already been tagged for conflict of interest. That combination makes it reasonable to check if we have a problematic page creator. Upon seeing Kowloon Development Company, which has weaker sourcing, I'm not surprised GSS was moved to propose that for deletion as well (references are a Bloomberg dead link, a "webb-site" database, and an announcement of a stock release.} Neither proposal for deletion is unreasonable, and even WikiAviator's initial defense of Kowloon on the AfD page is that "sources could be found". It looks to me like the problem is that WikiAviator is creating weakly-sourced pages, not that GSS is noticing them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Toomim and giving a voice to the alt-right

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

During the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence, I commented that it was not important for Wikipedia that the voices of "conspiracy theorists, alt-righters, neo-Nazis, casual racists, anti-semites, etc" be heard, with User:Toomim immediately objecting [95]. A bit of a back & forth with NightHeron followed, as the latter attempted to convey to Toomim that alt-right was not equivalent to "right-wing" nor "conservative". NightHeron further clarified that "the term alt-right refers to the fringe wing of the right": [96] & [97]. In response, Toomim posted:

• The alt-right is a political orientation that describes many millions of people. If you are arguing to block these people from editing Wikipedia, then you are in gross violation of Wikipedia's core principle of NPOV, and someone might report your account to administration. Tread carefully. [98].

For reference, Toomim's post I was responding to was this: [99]. The above statement advocating on behalf of the alt-right was concerning to me, given that the first sentence in Wikipedia's Alt-right article reads:

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

What do admins and other users think? Do we want to provide a voice for the alt-right on Wikipedia? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Not an ANI matter. EEng 16:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To be clear, Toomim also identifies as being liberal. It may be that you're in disagreement as to who the alt-right encompasses. Either way, I don't read Toomim's post as desiring to "give a voice" to a particular political group (let alone "advocating on behalf" of the alt-right), but that anonymous editors should still be allowed to edit within the topic area. In fact, the more I read into the context of Toomim's post, the more I find the entire premise claimed in this thread to be disingenuous. Even taking your complaint at face value, I'm not sure what sort of administrator intervention you're requesting. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• The concerns of K.e.coffman are real, and are not "disingenuous," as this IP-editor claims. I'm not taking a position about what, if anything, can/should be done about it. But Toomim's participation in the Race and intelligence talk page has been problematic. At one point in order to explain why Davide Piffer's writings on race and intelligence are not RS, I quoted from RationalWiki: Piffer is a research fellow of the Ulster Institute for Social Research, a racist institute founded by Richard Lynn that publishes racist pseudoscience. In response, Toomim accused me of "McCarthyism" and conducting a "witch hunt," and said my behavior was "morally reprehensible." All this for opposing the use of an alt-right source. NightHeron (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That’s fine, if there are other, serious problems with this person’s behavior, then bring it up in the OP instead of this out-of-context quote in a disagreement about whether an article should be permanently semi-protected. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • You appear to be mistaken, the behavior happened all over the talk page not just in that one discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Then it should’ve been in the OP. If this person is being disruptive it should’ve been brought up in the OP. My analysis is based on the isolated quote and the reasonable interpretation of it. But I don’t buy the claim that opposing semi-protection means someone supports giving extremists a soapbox. I’ll note that in said discussion he never said that he supports letting extremists have a “voice” through Wikipedia. That said, I think it’s entirely appropriate to give a warning under AP2 given the clear argument that conservative viewpoints are being silenced in violation of NPOV. Whether a topic ban is appropriate is a different matter and requires more evidence than OP provided. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I interpret the OP as citing the entirety of Talk:Race and intelligence as evidence and then offering specifics on the most egregious statements. I may of course be mistaken in that interpretation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Diffs of misconduct are necessary, especially to establish a pattern. A vague wave to a talk page is entirely unhelpful and insufficient. All OP provided are a few diffs in one dispute over semi-protection that, for reasons I’ve already stated do not seem that “egregious”. For one, despite everyone’s claims to the contrary, he doesn’t seem to have said anything regarding giving anybody a “voice”. Yes, he made a claim that conservative voices are being silenced in favor of liberal voices, and that deserves a warning. But I don’t read his comment as meaning extremist viewpoints should be presented with equal precedence. This was after all a dispute about semi-protection of the talk page and not content in the article. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
            • What do you think of these assertions[100]? Note that they are under a completely different section which is a dispute over article content. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
              • Unconstructive and unhelpful on his part. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• WP:NONAZIS. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC).

• Giving a voice to the alt-right would be violating wp's policy on NPOV and WP:V. If these tools want a voice they should go to Facebook or 4chan or whatever cesspool they've made home now. Praxidicae (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No opinion either way and I understand the NPOV part, but how would it violate V? Also have we established Toomim is a Nazi? PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • For the same reason using someones personal research posted to their blog would violate WP:V? We can't rely on such sources for facts. Alt-right are masters of twisting fact. Gold level mental gymnasts, I'd say. Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

      Gold level mental gymnasts, I'd say – Can't agree with you there. They're actually quite clumsy at it, but their audience's critical faculties are so dull that it doesn't matter that what they're saying makes no sense. EEng 22:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

      True facts. PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

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

• SPA is more troubling, editors like that typically have an agenda. It may be spam, a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

OWN-y editor at Chris Noth

• Chris Noth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Khawue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Chris Noth regarding WP:BLP and fannish-trivia issues at Chris Noth, not a single editor agreed with these edits by User:Khawue and the consensus was that they were inappropriate. Nonetheless, Khawue continues to add portions of this fannish, tabloidy content about the subject's dating life here. He has been WP:OWNing the article, reverting consensus-derived edits not only by me but by another editor here. Despite discussions at Talk:Chris Noth and at his own talk page, and consensus by all other editors at the BLP Noticeboard, he appears to be intransigent about this dating gossip.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You can see this is not true. Reliable sources were used to discussion of significant relationships. This all began with suddenly 20 edits from an IP address on Feb 19 with no discussion. Then I had to repeatedly address false claims that birthdate of Noth's son was unsourced, etc. as you can see in the talk page and also my own talk page as well as aggressive and uncivil blanket statements about me. I tried to explain my approaches but was overwhelmed. I stated a number of times willingness to discuss the issues and the details but they were unwilling. I provided sourced, valid arguments but did not get detailed discussion from the these two editors as a response 65.78.8.103 & ‎2601:188:180:b8e0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63, just mostly reactive statements. I have asked for Admin help on the BLP noticeboard.

-Khawue (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A third editor, User:LakesideMiners, has now removed Khawue's contentious edits.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"the birthdate of Noth's son" does not remotely belong in the article, per WP:BLPPRIVACY regardless of how it is sourced. And neither does tabloid gossip about allegations of abusive relationships. [101] Khawue might do well to spend less time edit-warring gossipy content int biographies, and more time learning about how such biographies are actually written. 109.158.187.247 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You can in the talk page "the birthdate of Noth's son" was placed by 65.78.8.103 who insisted it was a BLP violation not to have a reference to it, and he added the People magazine ref and an Instagram post as refs for it. I've changed it back to January 2008, from the Oprah ref. I did not cite tabloids for abuse allegations. Yes I have reviewed how biographies are written.-Khawue (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Birthdates require citing, and children are a part of biographies. See, for one of countless examples, Kim Kardashian#Health and pregnancies. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, birthdates of non-notable people don't belong in Wikipedia articles, regardless of sourcing. 109.158.187.247 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree with User talk:109.158.187.247. Also, the last reversions were by 65.78.8.103 only. Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Chris_Noth&curid=1161307&diff=941971912&oldid=941963442 the reason for Orion's name was not a contentious edit nor was it a BLP and WP:PRIVACY issue, nor was it "excessive detail about the non-subject's pregnancy." There subject cites the pregnancy complication as the reason for his involvement in a high profile fundraiser.

• https://toronto.citynews.ca/2009/05/21/sting-sheryl-crow-chris-noth-in-t-o-for-one-night-live-event/

Chris Noth knows all too well how scary it can be as a parent when things go wrong with your newborn child.

The Sex and the City star and his girlfriend had complications when their son was born 16 months ago...the experience clearly affected the actor and it’s part of the reason he’s taking part in the second annual One Night Live charity event taking place at the Air Canada Centre on Thursday.

The star-studded event features performances by Sheryl Crow, Sting, and the Canadian Tenors. Noth serves as MC for the night, the proceeds of which will go to the Women & Babies Program at Sunnybrook. -Khawue (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• https://toronto.citynews.ca/2009/02/11/sex-and-the-citys-chris-noth-part-of-star-studded-lineup-for-one-night-live/

“You don’t hear too much about pediatrics or this kind of hospital for pre-term babies being on the front list of benefits or for raising money. Having just had a son who’s a year old and having had complications when we were at the very beginning, I know how scary it is for parents. When you’ve got an institution like this that’s impeccable and first rate, it’s something you want to cherish,” Noth explained." -Khawue (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, Noth "credits his partner...for saving their baby boy after she was told the child wouldn't live" is noted in the Contact Music ref and the other refs. Tara's role in the incident is significant. There are things missing from the article like a part on charity work, which could help provide more context and rationale for edits but I have posted links above and also in the talk page and my own talk page on Feb 19 to explain but these were not acknowledged. As I've said, would better to discuss in detail each issue one at a time without blanket personal comments and ignoring of my points for less of this back and forth.-Khawue (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that this edit [102] by Khawue violates WP:3RR. 109.158.187.247 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

And all the edits by 65.78.8.103? [[103]] [[104]] -Khawue (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. Haven't looked. 'Someone else is doing it too' isn't a valid reason to ignore WP:3RR. 109.158.187.247 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There's not much to add to 65.78.8.103's report, except to reiterate. The issue may be a simple WP:CIR matter, but it's manifest in a series of willfully obstinate edits and lengthy threads at the article talk page and (now two) noticeboards, which require at least a half hour to sift through. Refuses to get that this is an encyclopedia, not Playbill. So the conclusion is less that this is a competence issue than a determination to steamroll a half dozen editors, not to mention WP:BLP policies and basic WP:NPOV guidelines. One of the more impressive WP:OWNERSHIP examples I've seen in a while. Requesting either a block or topic ban. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page and the notice boards in response to other users also lengthy post and comments on numerous things. I posted here the quotes from the articles as I had just linked to it before on Feb 19 and it was not addressed in the talk page about the birth notability so it seemed that it was accepted but apparently not. I have explained many times that I am fine with working on trimming the details as I have been as I went along. I worked on different parts of the article, every few days so it was patchwork, also had extra details for WP:NPOV. I have not tried to steamroll anyone. I responded to constructive feedback, replied respectfully, tried to refine my understanding and made modifications e.g. on the BLP noticeboard my conversation with Zaereth and continuing today to modify statements about abuse allegation. I specifically asked you for your suggestions about rewording two sentences about the American Buffalo (play) which you misquoted and gave you the correct website with the actual article (I accidentally said broadwayworld.com and you used that to claim WP:PUFFERY) and you refused to engage, suddenly claiming WP:OWN. Zaereth said it was not a WP:BLP issue and I have not violated any WP:BLP. The initial claim that I violated WP:BLP by removing sources about his son's birthdate was false as I noted on the talk page and my talk page since 65.78.8.103 posted on both on Feb 19 with the same claims. The Oprah ref provided January 2008 and was the at the end of second sentence following WP:REPCITE.

As stated, there were a number of rapid edits starting on Feb 19 by 65.78.8.103 instead of discussing each issue so many things go lost and back and forth but just the general assumption that I don't know the policies and ignoring my valid points. Some things like MOS:SAMESURNAME that on Feb 19 I was accused of violated MOS about, I thought I already resolved, but then back and forth today with all the other edits when 65.78.8.103 finally saw the ref with the Noth surname that I already posted on the talkpage on Feb. 19 and seemed to accept it. There has been obstinate refusal to just work out issues one at a time instead just blanket judgements and details get lost.-Khawue (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• I was asked to look at the section in the article and did so without seeing what was in the history or on the talk page or here. I am not surprised to find so many people taking issue with the whole Orion thing, for instance. Having read over the talk page, where at least four if not more editors all disagree with Khawue, I can only chime in with those who tried to prune the article. If Khawue continues, they should be made to edit something else--this might be a nice occasion for a partial block, for edit warring, likely BLP violations, trivializing the BLP, and wikilawyering all over the talk page to keep celeb trivia in an encyclopedic article. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. Much of your changes were quickly reverted. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    • No, I did not revert changes. I provided a simpler source for the full name from OOOM as well as restored the Playbill ref for her full name with Noth surname which was accepted by 65.78.8.103 today after no discussion since February 19 when I posted the sources that disproved his claim that I violated MOS:SAMESURNAME. This was not disputed, nor her employment as a bartender. [105]
    • Then I added that Tara's play, co-produced by Noth, would have it's world premiere at Berkshire Theatre Festival, which was not noted before although it is mentioned in the ref for full name [106]
    • Then I added the reason for moving to Sherman Oaks, L.A. for logical continuity from Theatre section which states preference to live in NY and that he still spends time in NY in a separate sentence with the source: OOOM interview: "Noth still spends a lot of time in New York" and also the SMH article from 2008 [[107]]
    • before there was one sentence about dividing time between LA and NY and reason for living in LA.
    • No, there were not "at least four if not more editors" disagreeing with the Orion birth details. On February 19, 65.78.8.103 false claim that I violated BLP by having the January 2008 unsourced but it was in the Oprah ref the second sentence after it, which they did not see and put their own source with the exact date. I also provided links briefly as to the significance to refute WP:INDISCRIMINATE After that there were no reply until TODAY, 65.78.8.103 removed it with their edits. Then I restored it after 109.158.187.247 disagreed with having the exact date. Later Isaidnoway posted on the talk page about not having any details about minor children to which I replied with my sources explaining significance well as Angelina_Jolie#Children showing an example with the same level of detail. There was no further reply. It was a discussion and I could see both approaches.
    • The MOS:SAMESURNAME issue as I stated above, after February 19 after I replied with my sources to disproved violation of that, there was no reply. So again I thought it was resolved until edits again today but then 65.78.8.103 accepted it.
    • No I did not violate or trivialize BLP. I did not "wikilawyering all over the talk page", I provided the information that I had and my perspective. -Khawue (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
    • No it is false that "Much of your changes were quickly reverted." Drmies, this is a false claim again. You can see the 3 things I did above. I added a few things as mentioned above and left the out the details about the children. Drmies removed the Playbill article confirming Tara's use of the Noth surname [[108]] with comment "article doesn't say they're having an affair, and it's unnecessary" not understanding that it was for MOS:SAMESURNAME described above, NOT to say they are having an affair, and said her play "needs more than a workshop for inclusion" [[109]] so I added the world premiere. -Khawue (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

On User:Khawue's talk page I've suggested they agree to take a voluntary break from editing the Chris Noth article or its talk page for a period of seven days. This might allow the various disagreements to settle down and avoid the need for any admin action. It concerns me that Khawue seems to be edit warring and that almost their sole interest since arriving on Wikipedia in January is editing this one article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston Due to limitations, I found it easiest to just focus on the one article which hardly had any references when I started. I did not do it for any advocacy or promotion which is what WP:SPA is concerned about. I have followed NPOV trying to get different perspectives which added details and trimming after I add as well. I have said may times I accept reducing the details. Every few days I would add things after coming upon information from research. I have been online more regularly dispute started since Feb. 19 numerous edits from an IP address where there was false claims about MOS and BLP violations which I posted about on the talk page and my talk page which I felt were "wikilawyering". I posted sources to prove my point on Feb 19 but maybe they were not seen based on edits today although the MOS:SAMESURNAME was eventually accepted by 65.78.8.103 in the edits today even though I already replied with the same reference on Feb 19 on the talk page and thought it was resolved. After Feb. 19 I was just posting in the talk pages and notice boards where discussions were started, focusing on one topic of the article and then early this morning 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 and 65.78.8.103 started numerous edits on the article.

So I have documented what has happened above. There were a lot of communication problems and misunderstandings and false claims. I am not intending to edit war. Back to the recent edits, you can see above, I explained the statement above to Drmies "Much of your changes were quickly reverted." is false. You can see I accepted the lower level of details and did not put my 3 edits back. I would want to discuss these 3 edits with you and Drmies. I want to be able to discuss specifics one at a time instead of blanket statements. It is not true that I put the birth details back against 4 people as explained above. -Khawue (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Khawue: please disclose both your conflict of interest and, per the terms of use, who is paying you for your edits. Many thanks, ——SN54129 06:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • User:Serial Number 54129 ??? I do not have any conflict of interest that I know of and no one is paying me for my edits. cc:EdJohnston -Khawue (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• It's like dealing with some climate denier--we are being trolled. The SPA makes a bunch of edits and inserts all the kinds of stuff we routinely do not insert, using gossipy sources and synthesis, reverts and reverts, clamors all over half a dozen talk pages and noticeboards, and we just let them do it? Drmies (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have warned User:Khawue they may be blocked for edit warring if they make any further edits at Chris Noth during the next seven days unless their changes have received a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• EdJohnston Okay sure. I am not trolling. When I mentioned Drmies above I was explaining the 3 edits which were none of the things he was mentioning. I always used WP:RS and not synthesis, and I acknowledge I wrote too many details and accepted trimming down. As I mentioned above and in talk page I saw Angelina_Jolie#Children as an example of different level of detail, there is discretion about this. I saw reverts as well of things I thought were resolved. I have also shortened sentences e.g. removed references to the West Hollywood condo [[110]]. So that is my perspective, it's not that I wish to re-insert details that were removed.-Khawue (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

IP spammers

• 114.160.220.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 106.185.153.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These IPs keep adding spam links to numerous articles. Akisuto Zeniko (talk · contribs), 2001:318:e011:f::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 210.131.158.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 202.84.95.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 202.248.40.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been blocked for the same behavior in the same topic area. I think they are the same person as well. Could someone block the IPs and/or protect the articles? 153.227.110.191 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/114.160.220.2 reblocked for 3 months. Other one is a little stale – it hasn't edit in two weeks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Deepcruze

Deepcruze is an obvious POV pusher, violating WP:SOAP and is dedicated to promote one-sided views about Dalits. He has been creating essay-like articles such as Dalit businesses, Dalit music as well as WP:HOAX like Dalit Lives Matter (AfD) in very recent times. Wikipedia is not for activism.

He also failed to address the concerns over his paid editing.

I could discuss with the user in question about these long term issues but it is clear from his talk page that he is totally unresponsive to any concerns addressed to him on his talk page or article talk pages, contrary to WP:COMMUNICATE. NavjotSR (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Xenagoras - WP:NOTHERE

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

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

The WP:RSN incidents go as follows:

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

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

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

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

Let me address the WP:RSN incident first: The only interaction I ever had with ZiaLater occurred in the RfC about the GrayZone Project, where I quoted France 24 to disagree [111] [112] with ZiaLater about the type of interaction/relationship between the White Helmets and al-Qaeda, because ZiaLater quoted other sources to say [113] that GrayZone disseminates propaganda and attacks about that topic. I quoted [114] France 24. In cases where France 24 concluded that allegations about an event were "unproven", they said they could not verify the location where videos about these events were captured. France 24 never disputed that the events in the videos did occur. In these "unproven" cases, I quoted France 24' decription of the events. In cases where France 24 concluded that allegations were "false", they said the military/religious rank of a person was falsely described or there was an incorrect translation from Arabic to English. In these "false" cases, I quoted what France 24 claimed to be true.

All things ZiaLater wrote in their first and last paragraph of this ANI report [115] are irrelevant to the disagreement in the RfC about Grayzone. Let me explain them:

• ZiaLater's first diff links to an unwarranted and false suspicion against me that was raised without any evidence and without any reason to have that suspicion [116]. That other editor had also attempted to damage my reputation and discredit my future edits by making a false statement of fact about me [117].
• ZiaLater's second diff links to a 31 hours block against me for an 1RR violation that I unsuccessfully appealed [118], because I attempted to make a series of consecutive edits that amounts to one revert. But I inadvertently failed to make this an uninterrupted series, therefore the admins ruled that I should take it as a reminder to be cautious editing articles under 1RR, so as not to even inadvertently cross over that line.
• ZiaLater's third diff links to my misguided attempt to get an uninvolved editor to give his opinion on a stuck dispute. I am not yet familiar with dispute resolution procedures and was not aware that an unsolicited invitation to participate in a discussion is inappropriate. Nine days ago I started my first RfC, aiming to solve a stuck dispute.
• ZiaLater wrote, I had received multiple warnings about [my] behavior, but gave no example. I therefore dismiss this claim as an attempt to discredit me. They also wrote, it appears that the user has received too many warnings for incidents [similar to promotion of falsehoods on Wikipedia], but gave no example for such a warning and no example for any promotion of falsehoods on Wikipedia. They also wrote, these alleged many similar warnings were too many ... for this to be accidental and that [I were] not here to build an encyclopedia. I have always been aiming to adhere to the highest standard of editing and conduct and I continue to improve my editing and conduct.
• I firmly reject all accusations. The behaviour of ZiaLater amounts to casting aspersions against me and they are mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction. Addtionally, the lead of WP:ANI states, this page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. This ANI report by ZiaLater does not concern any urgent incident, and it does not concern a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. The ANI lead further states, before posting a grievance about a user on this page, consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page or try dispute resolution. ZiaLater did not discuss the issue on my user talk page and did not try dispute resolution. Xenagoras (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Pepperbeast

I am here to bring my humble request that pepperbeast is undoing my most edits with oppsing reasons for same sort of content on women in islam and Iddah. I asked him about it he explained me not. Furthermore he said that verse of Quran on iddah article which is added is unintelligibe though its commentary was also given, furthermore he removed a verse from womwn in islam page while similar verses are present. Please help me and make him understand. Thank you. I have given him notice on his talk page. Smatrah (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained to Smatrah, we do not need lengthy quotations that say exactly the same thing as the well-written, secondary-source-backed article text. The Iddah article is already, IMO overstuffed with quotations, and what you inserted was full of spelling errors and a useless sort-of sentence "Main directive is following". I also strongly suspect that Smatrah has has been using several different accounts to carry out an edit war. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear can you provide Diffs to prove that there were speling errors, furthermore, bro article is full of lengthy quotations

Why are you targeting selected ones. Furthermore if a handful of editors disagree with you it does not mean that it is sockpuppet. As there may be users who support you on other articles. 

Smatrah (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• As far as I know, Smatrah always had problems with lack of understanding about WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPA. See the block log too. The issue was really premature and shows that Smatrah is not capable enough to deal with the content disputes. I would suggest an indefinite topic ban from anything related to religion for Smatrah. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I would not call D4iNa4 a sock puppet of pepperbeast just because he ia supporting him. D4iNa4! I came here to make myself immune from blocking. The point here is that pepperbeast says my wording was unitelligible, can he provide diffs to support his claim? Rather than threatening of blocking. Thanks, hoping a sane answer. Can you tell which section of these guidelinrs where i did no obeyed. Smatrah (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Smatrah: coming here does not make you immune from blocking. Indeed, it has quite the reverse effect, per WP:BOOMERANG, of drawing attention to your editing. Any editor who does not believe that an edit improves an article can revert, after which the next move by the editor wanting to add content should be to start a discussion on the article talk page, not here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Do not make me immune from blocking, just tell which my edit do not foliow which section of wikipedia so mentioned guidrlines, so that i may improve. Furthermore pepperbeast was not explaining reason of his undoing even on his talk page but still undoing. So what i came here to seek justice. Smatrah (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Perpetual spamming by Md Moniruzzaman Emon

The primary purpose of this user on Wikipedia has been advertising selected TV stations, in particular Ananda TV. The user keeps recreating the Ananda TV article, which has been repeatedly deleted or moved to the repeatedly rejected Draft:Ananda TV. This user also keeps adding a red link to the non-existing article to List of television stations in Bangladesh and List of Bengali-language television channels, despite the big "Attention editors!" warning on both pages ([119], [120]) that says red links are unacceptable. The user has been adding the red link for many months, and has received numerous warnings for it, including two level-4 warnings. Md Moniruzzaman Emon deliberately ignores them and keeps spamming even after the last warnings ([121]). The user is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia.—J. M. (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Somalia/ Somaliland political dispute

On a variety of articles related to Somalia there appears to be a battle going on between User:Lion Pappa and User:Aqooni (and also possibly User:Capewearer). Lion Pappa has accused the other two users of sockpuppetry, but I have told him that he must not make such accusations without evidence, and that if he has evidence he should present it at WP:SPI. Both Lion Pappa and Aqooni have made edits at WP:AN3 making accusations against each other, but in both cases malformed. I have told Lion Pappa and Aqooni that if they have a content dispute the starting point is to discuss on the relevant article talk pages, but they have not done so. Lion Pappa has repeatedly removed sourced text from a number of articles, and in his most recent edit he has deliberately falsified a reference title. I was rather surprised not to find the Somalia/ Somaliland dispute among areas covered by Discretionary sanctions, but in any case the current behaviour of this group of editors appears to be disruptive. I will leave those of you with greater expertise to decide how widely the blame lies. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My edits to Issa Musse‎ and Oodweyne District (which I assume are the articles in dispute?) were only cleanup and reference fixes. Issa Musse in particular was a mess, and I cleaned it up. When a reference said Somalia, I wrote Somalia; when new references were added that said Somaliland, I backed away from editing, because I have no knowledge of or interest in the dispute over where any of the people or places are located. I'l add some supporting links from the edit history in a few minutes. Capewearer (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

My initial cleanup of Issa Musse: [122], [123], [124], [125], [126].

A little later, following some back and forth between Lion Pappa and Aqooni, a reFill format of three new bare references: [127].

And on Oodweyne District, my initial cleanup, just as neutral as in the other article: [128]; then a re-format of the same bare reference [129]; then added a reliable source to a poorly sourced article: [130], [131], [132]. Editor Lion Pappa, who in addition to their edit warring and inflammatory edit summaries has clearly stated at User talk:David Biddulph that he or she is "here for justice" [133], and needs to state clearly what I've done wrong in all this. Capewearer (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have been accused sockpuppetry by User:Lion Pappa quite a number of times and I hope the administrators can do the necessary checks to verify the invalidity of such a preposterous claim. I want to point your attention that the user User:Lion Pappa has been vandalising multiple pages and removing sourced information on the article do not state. He has also made multiple editions WITHOUT any references. The user has been notified twice already and haven't stopped. Please refer back to the history section of these articles to see the horrific levels of vandalism:

[[134]] (Oodweyne District) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[135]] (Gadabuursi) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[136]] (Berbera) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[137]] (Sahil, Somaliland) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[138]] (Somalia) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[139]] (Zeila) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[140]] (Issa Musse) - Created an entire article without any references

[[141]] (Awdal) - Constant vandalising of this page without references

[[142]] (Borama) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[143]] (Lughaya District) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

[[144]] (Lughaya) - Constant vandalism of this page by this user and removal of sourced references

Aqooni (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

All three editors need to stop accusing each other of Vandalism (and perhaps read Wikipedia:Vandalism) - while you appear to be involved in a content dispute, and there seems to be some edit-warring, there does not seem to be any vandalism. Have any of you attempted to discuss the matters at the article talk pages?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

All three of us? I'm not in a content dispute, and I haven't accused anyone of vandalism. I'm here because a notice at my talk page said I may have been involved in this somehow. But as I explained in detail above, all I did was try to tidy up two pages. How about I just volunteer to never, ever edit another Somalia-related article again? Capewearer (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Being involved in editing in this topic, I thought I'd like to put my thought into this:

While all sides are engaging in an edit war, Aqooni has had a history of initiating edit wars, as proven by his history and talk page that is filled with blocks and reports. Aqooni seems to have a tribal bias and tends to remove any mentions of Somaliland despite Somaliland having complete, albeit unrecognized, independence from Somalia and Somali government control and despite promising Lion Pappa in Lion Pappa's page to leave articles alone, he's still at it if that's how I understood correctly.

I hope this resolves quickly. Mushteeg (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

As Mushteeq had chosen to join this discussion, it will be noticed that his recent edit changed Somalia to Somaliland, with an edit summary claiming "removed unsourced content", although the 3 references for the text in question all referred to Somalia rather than Somaliland. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Admins investigating this problem may wish also to consider User:Zaki199105 who was involved in editing many of the same articles (and undoing numerous edits by User:Aqooni) but is now blocked for sockpuppetry. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And another doing the same (& also blocked for sockpuppetry) was User:MahamedHaashi; I haven't notified this one, as I assume that if one instance of the sock knows about this thread then there's no need to notify each one separately). --David Biddulph (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I apologized on my talk page. I should be more careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mushteeg (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Just one thing I propose:

All towns and districts of Somaliland should have its flag and push-in map, however, it should come with some sort of disclaimer that states that Somaliland is a de facto country that's internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia.

Now, the way to put it in the articles can be debated and wrong wordings would probably spark even more edit warring, but that is what I propose to put an end to this. Mushteeg (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mushteeg that we need to aim at a long-lasting solution. Pinging Kzl55, who is the paramount authority on Somaliland that I know of on Wikipedia. A centralized discussion somewhere (probably not here) in the form of a Request for Comment seems like a sound approach to moving forward. El_C 06:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

On returning from a block for edit-warring, User:Lion Pappa has resumed his previous behaviour of deliberately contradicting 3 cited references. Mushteeg has been blocked for sock-puppetry, but it looks as if this conflict (on multiple articles) will continue for as long as User:Lion Pappa is allowed to edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging El C, I see we are back to square one on the Somaliland/Somalia question again :). This issue almost always draws excessive emotional/nationalistic responses, members of the community who are familiar with the project know all about how long it has been going. As such it would seem beneficial to try and discuss the facts on the ground, away from nationalistic rhetoric (on both sides). Somaliland is a self-declared but internationally unrecognised de facto state, meaning that it has physical presence and control on the ground with all the trappings of a state (currency, government, army etc) whilst not being recognised internationally as a separate state by any country.

There is another fact that is important to acknowledge here; just like Somaliland is NOT a full state in the complete sense of the word (owing to lack of international recognition), Somalia too isn’t a full state in the complete sense of the word. Yes, it is recognised as a sovereign state by the UN and most countries in the world, but its government is very fragile and exerts little control on the ground, relying on +20,000 African Union soldiers to exist. Therefore Somalia has the opposite problem of Somaliland, it is a recognised state de jure, but lacks full de facto control on the ground.

Note: I am putting aside the history of Somaliland and Somalia being two separate, sovereign states that chose to form a union for now, just focusing on the reality on the ground today.

As such the two ‘states’ are not full states in the conventional sense of the word, Somalia has international recognition but de facto controls limited area and requires the protection of foreign soldiers, whilst Somaliland is de facto in control of its territory but no other state recognises it. Its a very unique issue. The problem with presenting Somaliland as an "autonomous region" within Somalia is that Somalia already has autonomous regions within the framework of its federal system (e.g. Galmudug, Puntland, Jubaland..etc) of which Somaliland is not part of, that would not be helpful to Wikipedia readership.

I think as a community we have two options to try and resolve the issue:

- If Wikipedia articles are reflecting the neutral reality on the ground, then a nuanced approach is needed. Something similar to the treatment of Taiwan on Wikipedia in relation to the PRC, or that of Sahrawi Republic would be apt. By that I mean describing Somaliland in a neutral language that describes reality on the ground, e.g. "self-declared state that is internationally unrecognised". This would be satisfy those who believe statehood does not necessarily mean international recognition but instead mean existence and effective control on the ground.

- On the other hand if Wikipedia is strictly focusing on the status of UN/international community recognition, then a de facto/de jure treatment might be the way to go, e.g. "Somaliland is a self-declared state, internationally recognised to be part of Somalia".

Addendum: just hours ago, Somaliland rejected another proposed visit by Ethiopia's PM Abiye Ahmed accompanied by Somalia's President Farmajo to Somaliland [145]. Also, NY Times reported five days ago the first ever meeting between heads of Somalia and Somaliland, which happened in the office of Ethiopia's PM during the recent AU summit [146]. It is worth noting that both were accorded presidential welcomes in Adis Ababa upon arrival. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Somalia, Somaliland: Lion Pappa reported by David Biddulph

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Lion Pappa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Djibouti (diff): vandalism after final warning. Obviously not a typo so a deliberately deceptive edit summary. Part of this editor's political campaign. David Biddulph (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Context:

• Special:Diff/942070169
• Special:PermanentLink/940930921#ANI_notice
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1030#Somalia/_Somaliland_political_dispute

~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Content dispute, still. Please use dispute resolution. Again, I recommend a centralized RfC. The Somalia—Somaliland dispute should not be decided through administrative intervention. El_C 16:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

In my view, repeated edits in contradiction of the cited sources, and edits such as this claiming "fixed unwarranted typo error" but in that respect obviously a deliberately deceptive edit summary, makes this a conduct issue, rather than a simple content dispute. Does the admin community regard this sort of conduct as acceptable? --David Biddulph (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)