Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smatrah (talk | contribs) at 18:57, 29 February 2020 (→User:Pepperbeast). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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)[reply]

    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!!!"
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]


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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Sock puppet investigation

    Main page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisneyMetalhead

    The sock puppet investigation has been filed.

    DarkKnight2149 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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. Impru20talk 00:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. Impru20talk 01:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @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. Impru20talk 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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). Impru20talk 14:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    @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". Impru20talk 00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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. Impru20talk 12:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Tagging Doug Weller, who blocked Lorem ipsum5656/Burningblue52 the first time. DarkKnight2149 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    If DMH has been doing that, shouldn't they be blocked by this point? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We're still waiting for an administrator response. DarkKnight2149 23:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Just a note to let everyone know that an admin is reviewing this discussion & taking appropriate actions. -- llywrch (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [21], [22], [23], 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)[reply]

    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 [24][25][26][27] "support" for this thread. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920, how is that inflammatory comment?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Bus stop that's not what he/she said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam—why are you saying "that's not what he/she said"? Of course that's "what he/she said". And Mr. Vernon goes on to say "If she were of another race, there wouldn't be this kind of coverage." Also User:LaraGingerbread responds to Mr. Vernon saying "So Tessa's case got attention because she's white?" The whiteness of a victim is not a reason to delete an article. Such comments can be considered extraneous to a deletion discussion. And possibly a violation of WP:FORUM. Mr. Vernon is still writing (4 days ago) "Furthermore Missing white woman syndrome is an input here. She is getting significant coverage because she's a young attractive white woman." I don't think Wikipedia second-guesses sources and looks skeptically on sources based on our belief that we know what motivates sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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 [28] [29]. This is an honest question - is this ok to do? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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 [34][35][36][37] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    All involved need to stop bickering here and at the AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, which is why I suggested a warning about bludgeoning with no sanction. O3000 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[38] 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)[reply]
    Bus stop I see that you have learned nothing from your recently expired topic ban. --JBL (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JBL—there are often two sides to a story, and I feel it is important to support somebody being treated shabbily. I think I am weighing in to this discussion in a measured manner. Thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't want to be blocked again. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • @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)

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    @Wikieditor19920: where is the restoring multiple times? The only time they seemed to restore comments you deleted is here [39] [40]. While generally speaking editors should not restore comments that an editor deleted from their talk page, the explanation [41] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    The comment was perfect.
    Has this thread gone far enough into the Twilight Zone yet? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call ANI.
    I think of ANI as more like the Towaway Zone. EEng 01:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have. Not according to ctrl+F. You have made the double amount of comments made by Mr. Vernon.[42][43]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your contributions to this discussion have been partisan and sloppy, SharabSalam. I really don't even want to engage with you on this, but note that Ctrl F captures a) pings (including yours) and other editors citing my username when agreeing with my arguments "Per Wikieditor19920..." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920, omg, do you think I would search only for "Wikieditor19920"? I searched "Wikieditor19920 (talk)" see the screenshots.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Does that include my responses to yourfour comments you made under my vote demanding some further explanation? Enough. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    O3000—I didn't ask Mr. Vernon to initiate a section on WP:AN/I about Wikieditor19920. If it has been "discussed enough" then maybe Mr. Vernon can request that this thread be closed. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, the issue now seems to be bludgeoning. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever sticks, right? As discussed above, my participation at the AfD under discussion has been essentially equal to the user filing the report and mostly in response to pings. Further, my arguments persuaded - his did not. Another editor might see a problem with the fact that the filing editor a) engaged in improper canvassing for this report and b) this same editor's refusal to allow me to blank my own page per WP:OWNTALK. This has been an enormous waste of time, esp. considering the extremely long report does not name any specific basis for coming to ANI, and the reason that this discussion has become so drawn out is precisely because of the filing editor's canvassing. Note that I did not at any time ping Bus Stop to become involved in this conversation or otherwise notify him about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk)

    The filer was incorrect in restoring an edit on your TP, and you were incorrect in striking the filer’s edit on the AfD. Your comment persuaded on your incorrect statement that GNG overrules NOTNEWS when GNG is a guideline and NOTNEWS is a policy. As to canvassing, this is not an example of bringing like-minded folk to an AfD or RfC. This is bringing involved people to an AN/I discussion and seems kosher to me. And, your whatever sticks, right is uncalled for. O3000 (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    Black Kite Objective3000, Wikieditor19920 has made more than 50 comments in Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede? (based on ctrl-F "Wikieditor19920 (talk)"). This is bizarre. However, I don't think it has reached the point that it is sanctionable but I would support a warning for this behaviour.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just ignore that “RfC”. It is way overdue for closure, there is no way the consensus will change, and requests for closure are heavily backlogged. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with O3000 that that discussion is due for closure, though I think we'll disagree on how it should be closed. I haven't commented on that discussion in almost a month, and I think you'll see pretty extensive involvement in that discussion from several editors. SharabSalam is the type of user who will pester me multiple times at an AFD to expound on my vote [44][45][46][47] and then come to ANI and try to pile on accusations of bludgeoning for my replies at that same page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920, because your vote was "Speedy keep, snow" which is something that would require more clarification, and yet even if we removed the comments you made in response to me, the number of comments you made is still more than the number of comments made by -Mr. Vernon. Also, I am not the only one here accusing you of bludgeoning. There is also O3000 and Black Kite. I have seen the same bludgeoning by you in this discussion where you made 53 comments in that RfC including some three to four unindented bullet comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam, There is nothing in the sources that suggest that this is any different from any "murder" or "killing" that happens in the U.S. in daily basis. This is why wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.? Your repeated pings and comments under my vote were not about "clarification," you were merely quibbling me over my vote. Which you also did to other editors at that page.[48][49]. When I reply, don't come to ANI and complain that I've "bludgeoned" the discussion by responding to you. This is a perfect illustration of why canvassing at ANI is prohibited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920, In addition to that RfC and that AfD. Here is another recent example of your bludgeoning [50]. Note: I wasn't even in that discussion so you can't say I forced you to reply. An editor there, S Marshall noted your response to every vote and said From the large number of times you've posted in this discussion, I would tend to suspect that you might be very concerned about the outcome. It's up to you, but I do suggest that you consider not replying quite so much. And yet you continued.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam If a user makes a comment about me as the nominator at an AfD or the propriety of the nomination, I'm allowed to address it. As for threads where we've been mutually involved, you, tend pester me and others for responses to inane or pointed questions long after everyone's begun ignoring you, and then you come here to cite my replies to your pings as bludgeoning. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Enough. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    your incorrect statement that GNG overrules NOTNEWS... I'm not going to rehash our positions at the AfD here. Canvassing is equally inappropriate at ANI as at article discussion pages. User Vernon only pinged editors who either a) disagreed with me at the AfD and agreed with him, b) have had disagreements with me in the past, or c) both. You and SharabSalam are included under c). I have not had any prior interactions with Black Kite but he opened the AfD discussion and Vernon has been a strong advocate of deletion. Further, the message that he pinged with was a copy-paste, in rapid succession, on four users pages and completely non-neutral, making it clear that he was expecting your "support." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm asking nicely: please stop.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikieditor19920, I don't believe that we've ever interacted (or if we have, I'm not remembering) and I don't think I've ever interacted non-trivially with any of the other main parties here, so I think I'm fairly uninvolved here and can look at this without any sort of bias. As such, please hear me when I say that while others may not be guiltless, you really aren't doing yourself any favors right now. You keep responding frequently and somewhat aggressively to most of the statements here (hence the repeated references above to WP:BLUDGEON), and it's really not helping your case. It seems like this behavior is what Mr. Vernon was concerned about when filing this, so you're actually proving them right and drawing attention away from any potential misdeeds of theirs. I suggest you take a moment to listen to the concerns of others, even if you disagree with them, then try to see it from their perspective. They're not crazy, just passionate about Wikipedia, too. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [51]. 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": [52] & [53]. 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. [54].

    For reference, Toomim's post I was responding to was this: [55]. 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:

    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)[reply]

    Not an ANI matter. EEng 16:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
    • WP:NONAZIS. Bishonen | talk 18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Toomim does appear to be rather straightforwardly arguing that the alt-right deserves a voice on Wikipedia, that it's not fringe, and that we should ignore NONAZIS because it is not a policy. Is this really a "good faith" editor who should be editing fucking Race and Intelligence? ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And the alt-right has a history of pretending to be something else (hell, they started off as Nazis pretending to be something else). Anyone want some Flavor-Aid before they try to argue with this? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yah I'm a bit bit surprised SPA on Race and Intelligence who wants to make sure we don't discriminate against the pro-Nazi point of view hasn't generated action (perhaps because the subject is civil and suffering from ANI flu?). --JBL (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joel B. Lewis: I think it may be because they don't edit the article, they just talk. Anyway, I'll say I think K.e.coffman was right to bring it here, and I've watchlisted their pages (Toomim's, not KEC's). Bishonen | tålk 19:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

    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 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)[reply]

    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 [57] [58] with ZiaLater about the type of interaction/relationship between the White Helmets and al-Qaeda, because ZiaLater quoted other sources to say [59] that GrayZone disseminates propaganda and attacks about that topic. I quoted [60] 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 [61] 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 [62]. That other editor had also attempted to damage my reputation and discredit my future edits by making a false statement of fact about me [63].
    • ZiaLater's second diff links to a 31 hours block against me for an 1RR violation that I unsuccessfully appealed [64], 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)[reply]
    From my observation, Xenagoras has been the kind of balanced, fair, and considered editor that Wikipedia seeks to attract. His acknowledgement of his missteps itself shows that as well. Humanengr (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Like others, I have found Xenagoras' editing on Tulsi Gabbard to be uncollaborative and obstructionist. And I do not think that a character reference from Humanengr helps X's case. [65]. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just that, I discussed the user's edits ([66][67]) at Talk:Second Cold War about adding content related to Adam Schiff's speech. I don't know what to describe the user's response, but I can say that the user called my edits "one-sided", told (if not advised) me not to revert the user's edits on "Second Cold War", and that the user claims to have followed the lettering of the policy. Unsure whether the user followed the spirit of policies. Speaking of Gabbard, the user attempted this edit related to Gabbard, eventually reverted as "NOTNEWS". George Ho (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SPECIFICO: Please WP:AGF and remember to try to treat others with dignity. Humanengr (talk) 04:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what you're referring to. If it refers to this ANI, please be explicit. If it's something else, you're always welcome on my talk page. BTW your link is dead.. SPECIFICO talk 12:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    Ok. Do not make me immune from blocking, just tell which my edit do not foliow which section of wikipedia so mentioned guidrlines, so that i may improve. Furthermore pepperbeast was not explaining reason of his undoing even on his talk page but still undoing. So what i came here to seek justice.

    Smatrah (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC) The places to discuss that issue are Talk:Women in Islam and Talk:Iddah, not here. The issue is simply whether content belongs in the articles or not, for which there is no need for any administrative involvement, which is what this page is for. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [[Talk:User:Pepperbeast]] Smatrah (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So, just generally, this is pretty characteristic of all my discussions with Smatrah-- combattiveness, edit warring, no apparent interest in the idea of encyclopedic or the spirit of Wikipedia policies, and any attempt to point out how editing policy works brings a fresh demand for more detailed explanations of rules. It's rather exhausting to deal with. PepperBeast (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pepperbeast why are you not explaining this single guideline.

    Smatrah (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Smatrah, drop the "explain this guideline" bit. It's tendentious and may result in a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok i will not undo my edits, please explain this guideline so that there may be no bisedness in future edita. Thanks. Smatrah (talk) 13:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Smatrah, you are in danger of talking your way into a block here. When you are reverted the next step is (and I make it the fourth time I'm telling you this) for you to explain on the article talk page why you think your edit is an improvement. That is what is expected by policy and guidelines. Why have you not said anything on Talk:Women in Islam or Talk:Iddah? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    + He said my edits are uniteligible and that quotation is too lengthy so i asked what is standard of considering a quotation lengthy is? He removed already present quotation without explanation so instead of edit warring i asked him its reason but he did not reply on his own talk page. So i came here. Thanks. Smatrah (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Meetup- related MfD ban for WilliamJE

    This thread's been open for almost a week and nobody can even make a proposal that gets consensus except for "close this thread". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User William has started an MfD seemingly to "attack" an meetup. I do not take this lightly as meetups are a major part of our community. I propose that he be community banned from creating XfDs related to Wikipedia Meetups. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 06:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Zppix is referring to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Meetup:Kansas City/Women in Jazz March 2020, which I have speedy closed as it clearly isn't going anywhere and was a bad idea from the start. Having recently defended WilliamJE during his signature dust-up at AN, I'm disappointed to see that he's thrust himself right back into the thick of controversy. It seems hasty to me to jump straight to proposing a ban over a single MfD, but this one was a really bad idea. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lepricavark, did he modify the confusing signature, as was explicitly asked in the closing statement of AN thread yet ? --DBigXrayᗙ 08:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DBigXray, he has unfortunately refused to make the requested changes. I do wish he would reconsider. This reminds me of a recent experience in which myself and several others were repeatedly rebuffed by one editor who refused to listen to anyone who didn't tell him exactly what he wanted to hear. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still confused why this specific article was up for MfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zppix, did you discuss this concern with William before escalating it to ANI ? if yes, what was his response ? DBigXrayᗙ 08:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DBigXray I don't speak for Zppix directly but this ANI report was filed because the user was committing abusive deletion spam, failing to have ever explained it, and failing to even respond to all the pings on the MfD page itself all day. This is consistent with the user's overall behavior. This is not good faith behavior, or something that can be reasoned with. I hope that's informative to your question. — Smuckola(talk) 08:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Before MfD this was put on CSD, and denied. I also note that this user has a long block log. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my goodness that's even more extreme than I'd realized. How many blocks, how many instances of WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:TENDENTIOUS and grudges, until that's enough? What's the policy on this? Five thousand strikes and you're out? Today's was one of his more passive aggressive form of bullying; to repeatedly delete a component of Wikipedia itself, particularly a Meetup invitation which is our literal welcome mat to the world saying that Wikipedia is the place to be. A safe and decent place. That's what got deleted today. The librarian who built a world class art museum Meetup host for a curated orientation for Wikipedians, and promoted Wikipedia on the metro TV news, was met with a giant failure message in the ultimate WP:BITE. The user page, the behavior log, everything, is intolerable by civil society. Any regular person walking into Wikipedia for the first time and seeing any of this would be horrified that this behavior is routinely constantly enabled and tolerated at Wikipedia. And they'd never return. And rightfully so. Maybe just save yourselves, good citizens! It's like finding that someone has 10 DUIs. Just how?! At what point are admins effectively complicit in it? Should anyone feel safe going out, or bother to obey rule of law? I want to know the policy on how many hundreds of belligerent tendentious offenses until a permanent block. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 09:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Smuckola, I think you'll find that nothing was deleted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Decency was. Time was. All the time and integrity wasted for all the people he insulted who either disappeared or who stopped him. A WP:TENDENTIOUS abuser was stopped by decent people—it doesn't matter. The ends justify the means—no they don't. That's not how anything works. Anyone who's making excuses is complicit and need not reply. — Smuckola(talk) 22:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AT MFD
    WITH TEMPERS ABOUND
    LET'S AVOID
    A BATTLEGROUND
    Burma-shave

    --OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Zppix. It was deletion spamming, with a speedy delete which was immediately overturned and then a MfD here which was immediately overturned. Both with nonsensical reasons given. In trying to delete a basic WP:MEETUP notice! I assume there's no way an experienced user doesn't know that this spam is an abuse of Wikipedians and of Wikipedia itself. I see the user's history is of open belligerence and polemic toward the community and Wikipedia itself, down to its very infrastructure and ability to operate, which is WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:NOTHERE. This is my first encounter, but multiple very senior Wikipedians have told me that the user is so hostile, belligerent, and tendentious as to be beyond reason, and to have bullied them into letting him go with it just to avoid him rather than even speak to him. On another point, the user page is advertising a personal business of Amazon ebooks, verbally soliciting commercial traffic, and bragging about sales. And the user page, and Wikipedia's image hosting,[68] are abused as a personal family photo album. This is a bunch of WP:UPNOT, such as WP:POLEMIC WP:USERBIO WP:NOTWEBHOST. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 08:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see where he is adverting his books? All I see his him saying that he has made and published them. No links to any of the books. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Smuckola, I would hardly consider the following to be advertising: I have personally written twenty-five fiction ebooks. All of which are for sale at Amazon. Has anyone bought my work? I sold just over 100 ebooks my first month. The rest I'll let you guess. Also, you'll find that many editors have pictures of themselves on their userpage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lepricavark, Hell, an Admin has one! And its amazing! LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 13:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin with picture of themself on their userpage? You're talking about Drmies Drmies (fixed broken link) right? DMacks (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DMacks, no, I was talking about the hair god, Oshwah. (No offence Drmies)LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 13:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea why this is at ANI. Yes clearly the WilliamJE should not have opened that MfD. But as always, you should talk to an editor before opening an ANI. And by talk, I mean on their talk page. If you fail to do so, your ANI is generally an instant fail. I appreciate that talking to WilliamJE hasn't been successful in the past on other matters, but you still need to try. Also, even if you had talked to WilliamJE and they refused to accept they were wrong, I don't see how opening that single MfD is enough for any sort of topic ban. If there were a pattern here, maybe. But not just a single wrong MfD. P.S. That CSD doesn't seem to establish a pattern. Opening a XfD if you were wrong about CSD is the norm. All it shows is the editor was strongly mistaken about the page being unsuited for Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it says above in headers that "Consider first discussing the issue on the user's talk page" not that "it is mandatory" to do so. Zppix can only explain why they did not "consider" it. As explained by Smuckola above, I would guess that outrageous anti-social behavior might be a reason. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: is right I made a mistake. Not the first time at deletion discussions, which BTW I have a long history at. NE writes= "Opening a XfD if you were wrong about CSD is the norm." Have done that before. NE is also right, this MFD should have never been opened.
      • @Smuckola: Your diatribe concerning my User page is as disgraceful as it is untrue. Where in it is one mention of any book title of mine or the name of my business? There isn't any or anywhere else on WP because I have never mentioned them here. So your claim 'the user page is advertising a personal business of Amazon ebooks, verbally soliciting commercial traffic' is an 'absolute lie'. As for attack on me for image hosting, your diatribe is almost as bad. Personal photos aren't disallowed on WP, and two- The photo is being used in the biography of Gerald Barbarito. The only one WP has. Shame on you Smuckola for both these totally wrong attacks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Smuckola: Smuckola's above comparison of my block history to 10 DUIs shows a utterly irrational vindictiveness in this editor especially when you combine it with the lies about my User page. DUI kills 30 people a day in the United States, posting or getting blocked at WP never will. I think this statement of theirs can compare to people calling someone a Nazi or Hitler, and we know what the community thinks of that behavior. Secondly, I don't drink and never been drunk in my life. Anyone who accuses me of such or compares me to people who do, deserve nothing but riddicule....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to hear from @WilliamJE: before commenting further about their actions regarding this meetup page. Nick (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick he has said something above. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 14:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    LakesideMiners, looking at the timestamps, Nick had asked this question before WilliamJE responded. But WilliamJE edit warred to move his response up, against timestamp chronology. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DBigXray, no, I saw the timestamps things. that's why I told him. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 15:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn’t bring it up on his talk page due to his anti-social behaviour and past history (block logs/past an thread/etc) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 14:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Zippix: Your failure to assume good faith pathetic as your jumping to conclusions. You start this discussion in the time period (Between 930 at night and six in the morning my time) I'm always off WP for me instead of waiting. Two- A study of me at deletion discussions will show I do withdraw nominations. One of you will ask, when was that, 6 years ago? How about less than a month ago[69]. If you did didn't shit around in my talk page or block history and instead looked at my deletion discussion history this would have been easily findable. @Smuckola: When are you going to withdraw the lies about my user page and personal attack (DUI) you made against me? Considering the level of those attacks, maybe it is time to open a discussion on whether those are sanctionable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading WilliamJE's response and invoking Godwin's law - I know WP:AGF but I'm not sure how here. Was an editor involved in this meetup also involved in asking him to change his signature recently? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Vernon Looking though quickly, no. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 19:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Vernon, how would you respond if someone compared your editing history to drunk driving? I agree that there are concerns with WilliamJE's demeanor, but some of the statements above are plainly unfair. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lepricavark I'd look at my behavior to see what I did to draw such a comparison. I'd have probably considered my behavior long before I got that many blocks. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Vernon, that's a reasonable attitude and I do agree that WilliamJE should examine his own conduct. That said, the analogy was inappropriate and anyone could have predicted that it would lead to more heat than light. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lepricavark One of the themes in this ANI is that WilliamJE has had a lot of chances to correct their behavior. The friendly feedback isn't working, even the more on-the-nose feedback isn't working. The request to change his signature to make it readable came across more like an intervention than anything else. For the record, I've nominated 94 articles for deletion, and even I don't understand what the point of this MfD was. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Vernon, I share your concerns. Having interacted with WilliamJE in the past, I regard him as a valuable, good-faith contributor. It's important to take feedback on board and I hope what I wrote here will be effective. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Vernon to answer your question, no, this is my tragic introduction to this user, and I'm the only person at the Meetup with any background in Wikipedia internals like this (beneath the articles), but still I avoid ANI like the plague because I know it's a WP:BATTLEGROUND in itself. I have only rarely ever pursued any administrative action except when it's a patent assault against Wikipedia or Wikipedians. And even that is super rare, because I have all but shut down my activity for years simply due to Wikipedia's infamously institutionally toxic culture like this. Like thousands of others have, I thought "okay, you want it, you can have it" and all but quit editing (instead of engaging in any form of community leadership until this Meetup). So I strolled into a beautiful friendly public facility full of new friends and we stepped on this guy's cyber-landmine. Two repeated deletion requests is not an accident or a valid mistake after 100,000 edits. Challenging the policy and nature of WP:MEETUP by destroying it is not valid behavior but abuse. Soliciting a deletion discussion with no discussion is abuse. The nonsensical premise of "wikipedia is not a social network" (he says in soliciting worldwide discussion among our networked society) is not an actual mistake or due process, but a destruction of WP:MEETUP which is effectively an attack on Wikipedia even more actively than is his signature against archival bots. He just now said in this thread that it shouldn't have even happened (unapologetically, but just out of having been caught). The analogy I stated was clearly made over the entire process here, and to everyone who isn't calling for a block, to consider whether they themselves are complicit with a chronic malignant abuser. One person in this thread even said that surely the user's good edits outweigh the bad—which means that we all simply need to spam 100,000 edits to reach wikigodhood, and we're above the law. Like a fine for a toxic dump, a block is just the cost of doing business. Look at the block log alone, to demolish any assumption of good faith. I clearly said that when you see such an egregious record, whatever the charges or reason or outcome (DUI doesn't matter at all, just a prime example), you just automatically know that the system has failed because everyone has let it happen. And you know that only once or twice was already enough. The particular charge or the outcome of the case doesn't matter anymore when it's gone this far, and anyone who doesn't call for a block has to critically consider how jaded and complicit they may be toward serious Wikipedia abuse. All that's needed is for decent people to do nothing, or just use bureaucratic platitudes to make themselves feel like they did something. So now we'll add WP:NPA within this very thread to this very thread, along with the countless such incidents named in the extensive block log already. It is already stated countless times in the block log and various discussions, this is a hostile anti-repentant anti-corrective WP:TENDENTIOUS abuser who sees criticism as a personal attack and instantly escalates to maximal (even Godwin) personal attack response in order to sabotage conversation and process. Beyond reason, beyond discussion. This is the opposite of Wikipedia, and can't be tolerated. This is the portrait of a way-past-endgame scenario of WP:TEND WP:NOTHERE. Hence this ANI, among others. The user is clearly not examining behavior except to creatively weaponize it—to use Wikipedia and the decency of its admins, as a personal WP:BATTLEGROUND. Even asking the user anymore to examine behavior makes no sense whatsoever to the point where I'd assume the user's abuse history hasn't been read at all. I know the system is insufficient, and I assume nobody here built it, but I want citation of the letter and spirit of how it's even being followed as is. — Smuckola(talk) 22:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Smuckola, no, I did not say that their good edits outweigh the bad. Please don't twist my words. And please stop being overly dramatic. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This. WilliamJE's behavior was unacceptable, but wasn't so extreme or damaging as you paint it. He started a bad MfD that was an obvious non-starter and which was closed very quickly, and he made some comments in this thread in his own defense that were ill-considered and only hurt his own case. But with these two posts, you've done just as much to hurt your own credibility as you have in pleading your case. Certainly there are problems in the Wikipedia community, and I don't mean to deny that. But by painting this matter as emblematic of those very serious problems, you're serving to dilute the story of those who face those problems on a day-to-day basis. I think you might want to disengage from this thread, Smuckola. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Smuckola, RE: His Sig. His sig doesn't screw with bots. its annoying yes. but it doesn't screw with the bots. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 13:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't know such MEETUP pages existed, until today. Interesting. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • This looks like a mistake; there was still a redirect from the main namespace. Twinkle was used so it's possible the fact it was an MFD and not AFD was not noticed. It's still at "Wikipedia:Meetup:" which (although not the only page with that prefix) should probably be "Wikipedia:Meetup/" to make it a subpage and add a link to the main Meetup page. Peter James (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would encourage WilliamJE to (re)read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Editing while angry as hell with this garbage (diff) is a formula for a block. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question WilliamJE I've been trying to read through the various posts above to get a sense for this. I don't think Smuckola's commentary is particularly helpful, and I agree that they have said things about you that they should not. However, while I see you responding to draw attention to their unnecessary invective, I can't see if you have explained anywhere why you nominated this particular MEETUP notice for deletion. The 'not a social network' rationale doesn't seem to make any sense, unless it's your contention that all MEETUP notices should be deleted, and you were intending to start nominating them as soon as they popped up. Why start with this one? Apologies if I've overlooked an explanation somewhere, feel free to point me at it if you've already explained. GirthSummit (blether) 18:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Botched previous ping, not sure last notification was sent - apologies for spamming you if you already received this WilliamJE GirthSummit (blether) 19:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

    Proposal: Two way interaction ban between WilliamJE and Smuckola

    WilliamJE and Smuckola are both exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and refusing to WP:drop the stick. To avoid further disruption, both users should be subject to a two way interaction ban. (retroactive signature per Nil Einne's comment) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal two: don't skip proposal numbers

    Place holder joke

    • Support with caveat - I think someone saw Proposal: Two and made a mistake so this proposal can be snow closed :-P BTW generally speaking proposers should sign their proposals which wasn't done here ;-) Nil Einne (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    someone should probably make a proposal about that. It could be Proposal 87.Jacona (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal Three: Topic ban for WilliamJE

    WilliamJE is topic banned from editing or nominating any WP:MEETUP related pages unless its to denote his participation or to organize one for a period of 6 months then which he could then appeal.

    Proposal Four: Close

    This has acquired no useful direction since being opened, and is not likely to miraculously adopt one now. Close this and shoo away the patrons: "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here". Mr rnddude (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WilliamJE, some people might find it difficult to believe that an editor of your experience didn't know that meetups were a thing - personally, I've never been to one, but most of the time my watchlist has an advert for a meetup in London, Oxford or Manchester plastered across it, and consequently they were one of the first 'things' I knew about when I started editing Wikipedia. HOWEVER - I'm happy to assume good faith and accept that you didn't know about them - perhaps there's a way to turn such notifications off, or perhaps nobody organises them in your neck of the woods and you don't get the adverts on your watchlist.
    I know a bit about checking new pages, through working at NPP. If I were to come across a new page in project space, and I didn't know what it was, I would try to find out more before doing anything about it. If you had searched for MEETUP, or if you had tried putting WP:MEETUP in square brackets, it would have been very easy to find out what a meetup was. To stick a CSD tag on a project page because you don't know what it was seems rather reckless; to follow up with an MfD nomination after the CSD is declined, without taking some trivial steps to find out more, is very hard for me to understand. I'd like to see an undertaking from you that you will be more careful with nominations for deletion in future - 'I don't know what this is' is not, on its own, a valid reason for deletion, and invalid deletion nominations are disruptive, and unpleasant for the people on the receiving end. Please consider making such an undertaking so that we can move on. GirthSummit (blether) 07:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit:I meant I never knew about the pages, not that I didn't know about the meetings. I did nothing reckless and for about the third time since this started, I made a mistake.
    @Smuckola: I may not be dropping the matter about Smuckola's allegations here. His clear cut violation of Aspersions, other false statements, and non withdrawal of his statements may leave me no other choice than take it to ARBCOM because he violated one of their rulings. His false allegations are all out there for anyone to see and as I wrote below, can be used for ammunition against me again. Where was this community when he accused me without evidence? One editor didn't know about meetup pages, about 10 editors here didn't know about WP:ASPERSIONS. What is the worse case of ignorance?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @WilliamJE: yes, you should definitely raise your concerns in another AN/I filing. ——SN54129 11:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WilliamJE, I have to confess that I find your response a bit concerning. You didn't know what a page was, so your first response was to CSD it - and then, when that was declined, to send it to MfD - but you don't think that's a reckless course of action? I'm not looking to crucify you for making a mistake, but I want you to recognise that your mistake was very easily avoidable, and undertake not to repeat it. I also note that you didn't go the author's talk page to apologise, which is certainly what I would have done if I'd made such a mistake.
    As for Smuckola and Arbcom, I think that you do have another choice. The first two sentences of WP:NPA#First_offenses_and_isolated_incidents runs Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it. Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates editors tend to overreact. A far as I know there has been no prior history between yourself and Smuckola; they overreacted to your deletion nominations, and wrote a couple of overheated walls of text above. Nobody has taken them seriously, and several people have told them to cool it, and they have stopped posting now. Your best option here is therefore probably to let this slide, but to report it if Smuckola tries to continue this elsewhere. If you were to make the undertaking I've requested above, I would be content for this to be closed with no action towards yourself, and a warning for Smuckola that they watch what they're saying about other editors on noticeboards. GirthSummit (blether) 14:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support - This whole thread has generated more heat than light. There are no long lasting intractable, or severe issues that warrant admin intervention. Michepman (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support — closing. More heat than light. The sig "William, is the complaint department really on the roof" alludes to "The Complaint Department Is On The Roof", a phrase found embossed on metal signs sometimes posted in a small business such as an old, traditional hardware store. The implied message being, if customers have a complaint, they can go jump off the roof. I've seen this kind of message posted at a couple of places; once at a still photo and motion picture supply house in Chicago or New York City, perhaps forty years ago. It worked as a joke if the business had responsive customer service (the sign could be bought as a novelty item in sign shops.) I don't think the phrase as a sig is actionable, but it seems to indicate time sink ahead — Neonorange (Phil) 10:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal Five: A block for User Smuckola for violating WP:ASPERSIONS

    It is a open and shut case that @Smuckola: violated ASPERSIONS and an arbcom ruling[71] when he claimed[72] 'advertising a personal business of Amazon ebooks, verbally soliciting commercial traffic' aka I used my User page to promote my ebooks or solicit business and provided no evidence for such claims. My User page has never been used for such purposes. Smuckola has had plenty of time to remove his baseless accusations and has failed to do so....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support As editor bringing this proposal....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as punitive. An insufficient record has been developed in this thread to support a need for sanctions as a preventive measure against Smuckola. That said, I agree that Smuckola’s posts are in violation of the policies William has cited and that it’s appropriate to warn him of this. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, for the same reasons that I opposed any sanction against William, because nothing rises to the level where sanctions should be applied. But, @WilliamJE:, please change your signature so it doesn't become an issue that is raised every time you are involved in a discussion. Just as a matter of common courtesy rather than sonething mandated by Wikipedia policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for obvious reasons stated prior to my !vote Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 22:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be too late for a block at this stage, but a warning is in order. Smuckola's reckless accusations of policy violations and the over-the-top tone of their posts do not bode well for their future participation at ANI if they don't make adjustments. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Phil Bridger: Are all of you forgetting that Smuckola also said I was using my User page as a personal photo album- totally untrue - and compared my block log to DUI. So he violates aspersions, commits personal attacks, and makes other false allegations and that's all not worthy of a block then what is? He violated a arbcom decision and has had 4 days to withdraw his statements (Actually he thinks[73] the DUI comparison was fine) and hasn't....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore why didn't any of you who commented earlier when this whole ANI started that Smuckola was out of line in his claims even if they were true. They were violating aspersions due to not providing evidence. His non-withdrawal of his attack is problematic too. What's there to stop from resurrecting that claim one night and a kangaroo court forming here (while I'm asleep) without a bit of checking before hand? Nothing, because it almost happened here. I had to point out the aspersions violation and false claims and the first should have been obvious to any experienced editor....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're essentially asking for a punitive sanction to dissuade him from doing the same thing in the future. Even if I agree that's the right thing to do—and I don't agree—it's a violation of Wikipedia policy to use sanctions in such a manner. The all-too-common argument along the lines of "he hasn't withdrawn his statement so the harm is ongoing" is sophistry of the highest order. The statement was made, and it's done. It would be nice if he withdrew it. And the fact that he didn't would be useful evidence when claiming of a pattern of disruption were he to start doing it again. But from all appearances this thread is done and dusted.
        At the same time, your pushing for sanctioning and taking matters to his user talk page demanding retraction despite everything that's happened in this thread, is going to get you sanctioned if you keep it up. This is one of those things that you just have to let go for now. At a certain point the harm you're inflicting on your own reputation is going to far and away outweigh any harm he's done or can do. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd get sanctioned for asking for justice for someone who without question attacked me/violated an ARBCOM ruling. I guess you would argue a rape victim deserves jail for pointing their finger at an attacker caught on video tape too because they refuse to get over it. I posted to Smuckola's talk page BEFORE this proposal began and notified them of it as is required. Since when too has blocks not been handed down punitively. You violate some community restriction, perform a PA, get blocked. It happens at WP every month. People can't predict the future or what anyone else will do. So what else is the reason?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • A rape victim? Really? Do you genuinely think that’s an even remotely appropriate analogy? 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • You oppose sanctions against an editor who compared me to someone who has had 10 DUIs. DUI driving kills thousands of people[74] every year in the United States alone and my editing here is compared to it. Take that analogy on....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              WilliamJE, two wrongs are not making a right here. Their analogy was stupid, and you're now accusing the IP of being a rape apologist. We can achieve a better level of discourse here if we really put our backs into it. GirthSummit (blether) 18:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              WilliamJE, of course Smuckola should not have compared you to a drink-driver, but, by exactly the same token, you should not have compared that editor to a rapist. Both are serious allegations of criminality. So far I have opposed sanctions against either of you, but if Smuckola is sanctioned I see no reason why you shouldn't be too. You seem to have a problem with the concept that rules that apply to other editors also apply to you. If the term hadn't been hijacked by people that want to refuse other people privileges that they demand for themselves I would say that you are demonstrating snowflake behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again someone is putting words in my mouth. I didn't compare the IP to a rapist, just the people who make excuses for them or other criminals. It is an open and shut case that Smuckola violated aspersions, committed personal attacks, and made false accusations. Editors make excuses for it or don't say anything at all. You are condoning what they did. They wiki assaulted me aka took multiple swipes(DUI, my user page being used to promote my business, my user page being used as a personal album at least!) at me. Does it take me going to ARBCOM to get enforcement of one of their rulings. It shouldn't, either that or the whole community shouldn't be enforcing their rulings. They have no meaning....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                I didn't compare the IP to a rapist, just the people who make excuses for them or other criminals. How about we all agree not to compare anyone to rapists or rape apologists? Or criminals or terrorists or Nazis or Hitler or the devil or Levivich, etc. Levivich (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Smuckola also wrote 'Should anyone feel safe going out, or bother to obey rule of law?' I'm a threat to people going out of their homes? All of you don't consider this an outrageous personal attack? He implied I am a monster....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as WP:PUNITIVE. ——SN54129 13:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This is nowhere near as bad as rape and the comparison is frankly silly. Blocks are preventive not punitive. Michepman (talk) 00:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal six: Civility restriction on WilliamJE

    WilliamJE should be subject to a community imposed WP:Civility restriction. WilliamJE may be sanctioned (including a block) if he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or to be an assumption of bad faith. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Personal attacks by User:Amaury

    At Big City Greens, I got into an editing dispute with User:Amaury. I admit that I probably let the dispute go on too long before starting an actual discussion on it, but after I finally started an RFC User:Amaury continuously talked about my conduct in the RFC instead of the issue on hand. I made it clear that it was the wrong place to be discussing that and if he had an issue with my conduct, he should bring it here. Not only did he ignore that, but he started making completely uncalled for personal attacks. See [75] and [76]. I removed the personal attacks from his comments, but left the rest of the comments up [77] [78] and warned him about making personal attacks, and again called for him to either start a discussion here about my conduct or just focus on discussing the actual topic on hand at Talk:Big City Greens. Instead, he just readds his personal attacks at Talk:Big City Greens [79]. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Amaury probably shouldn't have been so agressive in their responses to you. However, you violated WP:3RR in your insistence that you were right, which is a bright line no-no for Wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I admitted as much. If he reported me, I would have accepted any consequences that came of it, and I told him multiple times that he can report me. However, just because I edit warred does not at give him permission to make personal attacks. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't have removed Amaury's comments. They were not the kind of personal attacks that need to be removed, and from the edit summary, it is clear that Amaury reinserted them because he felt you had no right to remove them ("refactor"). As for the comments themselves, they are borderline personal attacks. They are more inflammatory rhetoric and certainly uncalled for. In this lovely uncivil environment we call Wikipedia, I doubt they rise to the level of sanctions, although they probably deserve a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:AussieLegend removed them after he re-added them [80], so apparently he agreed that they don't belong there. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Feenyfan2019 is a sock, but they were still right that this is not an isolated incident. [81] whether you're right or wrong, that's not an appropriate edit summary. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Amaury - Accusing my account of being a Sockpuppet and giving no reasons why. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good removal and endorse the warning issued by Aussie. Amaury's aggression had clearly gotten way out of control and it was appropriate for someone to step in. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • After seeing why was last blocked, it seems like he has a history of attacking users instead of ideas when confronted when edit he doesn't like. He also seems more than happy to edit war when he feels that he's right, which is an issue that I also have, but it makes it pretty hypocritical of him to attack me for that when he has the same problem. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three things:
      1. I really don’t understand Amaury’s comment, ... now you went running for an RFC because you weren't getting your way. Isn’t an RFC an acceptable form of dispute resolution when we don’t get our way?
      2. Amaury making and reinstating the statement ... you're a goody two-shoes and mommy's little angel. You probably never once misbehaved and always followed mommy's rules to the letter. is well over the line. Calling someone a momma’s boy is not only a clear cut PA, it also invokes outdated gender roles and stereotypes. It’s misogynistic and has no place in a collegial environment.
      3. Amaury’s statement above, In any case, if a warning is the outcome of this report, then I will gladly accept it, but this is really all I will post on the matter. is, in my view, totally unacceptable. We cannot allow editors to choose to make a PA and then “gladly accept” the warning. Editors don’t get to “trade” a PA for a warning. I would have agreed with Bbb’s suggestion of a warning above until I read this. Obviously a warning is not going to be enough to change Amaury’s behavior here; a stronger sanction is likely called for. Perhaps a one way interaction ban or partial block from the page where the PAs were made? If you’re going to make PAs against an editor on an article talk page, and refuse to stop or retract (“gladly” accepting a warning), then you shouldn’t be allowed to interact with that editor and/or edit that page. – Levivich (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Levivich:
      1. Exactly my thought. He was complaining that I was editing without discussion, but somehow when I did try to discuss I was still in the wrong.
      2. Exactly why I reported him.
      3. He already claims to have given up on that debate, so I don't know if blocking from that page is really going to accomplish anything. I don't really know how an one way interaction ban would work. While it's obviously not my decision to make, if it was, I would go with a temporary block and a warning that any further personal attacks would result in a longer block. But again, it's obviously not my call and I'm obviously biased here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 05:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely support a report and any sanction against Amaury for their actions, after having been subjected to personal attacks, hounding, battleground behaviour and tag-teaming by the editor. Both editors have violated policy here, but one editor violating policy is not an excuse or a reason for another editor to do so as well. This has been going on for years, even resulting in a block only six months ago; a warning will not do anything to deter them from their behaviour. -- /Alex/21 00:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: My plan is to avoid them from now on within reason. Amaury • 03:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sanctions per Alex 21 - Amaury isn't actually apologizing anywhere here for the personal attacks, disruptive editing, or any of the other serious problems shown in the diffs above. Given how long his block log is already, I don't think a warning alone is going to do it. Ahiroy (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I find it interesting how the reported user closed an ANI thread about personal attacks, on the same page where a report exists against them for exactly the same conduct. -- /Alex/21 13:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alex 21: He's been closing a couple of discussions here. Not breaking any rules, but not exactly the best behavior in my opinion from an user with an open discussion here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don’t see recognition from Amaury here that any of his actions were unacceptable, let alone a retraction or apology. Point 2 brought up by Levivich are particularly egregious examples of misconduct, and point 3 suggests poor attitude and awareness. — MarkH21talk 12:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I did, for example see Scientific Reports or Plos One. Kenji1987 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Right: that's the small amount of WP:POINTy argumentation I mentioned. --JBL (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    This was archived with no action, but I feel prematurely -- several editors have weighed in above to confirm the problems with the editing. I am not particularly tied to my original proposal, and would appreciate if any other administrators could take a look and consider an indef, a topic ban, or at a minimum administering a clear warning about the problematic behavior. (Given Kenji1987's response to previous feedback, I doubt that the last one will be successful in preventing problems.) --JBL (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I look forward to hearing about my "fate" - I have laid out my arguments, and I have nothing further to add, but at the same time, I would like to ask the administrators to comment on JBL's way of approaching me, since September 2019. I have added the links above (just search for "go away" in the page). Kenji1987 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse topic ban or WP:NOTHERE block. I formed the same conclusion myself based on edits to articles on my watchilist. Guy (help!) 00:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that Kenji has been somewhat unwilling to listen to other editors. I noticed that when told to stop, he replied with This is off-topic. I've noticed a lot of POV-pushing, and an edit relating to the topic area of race and intelligence. I will endorse a topic ban and partial block, with the amount disruptive editing from Kenji, along with Kenji also refusing to listen to other editors. I think the partial block is necessary, with the tendency from Kenji to not listen to other editors. I'd consider adding a notice saying that this section is related to race and intelligence, due to the use of "broadly construed" in most arbitration sanctions, but I'm unsure if one edit from the subject of an ANI discussion is really enough for that. InvalidOS (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a paragraph on a controversial article on race and intelligence in MDPI, something which is terrible the publisher allowed. Something which opponents should welcome, so I dont know why this is mentioned here. I liked this to be rectified. Controversies is a section where we add these kinds of information,but it is now used to justify a ban. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kenji1987: You saying I added a paragraph on a controversial article on race and intelligence in MDPI, something which is terrible the publisher allowed. Something which opponents should welcome... seems to suggest that you did this to push a point of view. I wasn't using the race and intelligence edit to justify a ban, I was just pointing it out due to the extreme amounts of controversy in that topic area on here. But now, you've provided evidence of your aims being POV-pushing. And that POV-pushing is what was being used to justify a ban. InvalidOS (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didnt see it as relevant why you mentioned this edit, and I still dont see it, hence I interpreted it as another justification for a ban. Why did you mention it? Just because the topic is controversial? What view am I pushing? Additional edit: im accused of whitewashing MDPI and Frontiers Wikinpages, if any it would make little sense then to add controversial information. But I am genuinely interested why you mentioned my edit.Kenji1987 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    to state: "I'm taking a break from Wikipedia. I find the athmosphere on academic publishing pages quite toxic (making use of my freedom of expression), and several editors have asked for a ban. While this regardless of the outcome of a ban, might be good news for editors with opposing views, I find it sad that new editors are not able to establish themselves". As a new editor, no one really knows me except for people that fervently oppose my views - so I dont expect people to support me here (I do trust Randykitty - and in my absence I entrust them to safeguard some pages from vandalism). But above example which was used against me (or not? I dont know, still awaiting answer why this was mentioned) on the race intelligence controversy on MDPI which I added (but initially did not mention here) shows that I have no interest whitewashing a publisher or two. The fact that JBL does not let go is fine by me as I am also eager to find out what is allowed here and what not, but it also shows you the atmosphere new editors who do not think MDPI or Frontiers is total crap have to work with. Any edit I make is observed. Sure I made some novice mistakes, but I also feel compelled to take a small break as this is consuming way too much of my time and emotional state of mind. Kenji1987 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Dear JBL, Ill keep on responding to this particular thread until it is resolved, as a new editor, I dont have the social capital to ask others to defend me (and before you know it you are labelled in the same group as the race intelligence fanatics - and yes I stil await a response to my question from the other editor). I wont edit other pages as stated on my user page, temporarily that is (as a new dad I need to use my spare time for family now :) ). I'd like to add that JBL left the following quote on Amaury's talk page: " Particularly, anything Kenji says should be viewed with skepticism, including the idea that they're stepping away (obviously, since they responded to my comment)". I personally take offense in this particular statement and I believe that this is against Wikipedia rules. Setting up other editors against one another is (at least that's how I see it JBL might see otherwise), once again, a reason why I say that the atmosphere is toxic and why I stopped editing. Thanks to the editor that closed this discussion, but I say lets keep it open, and Id like the admins to comment not only on my behaviour but also JBL's (if I am allowed to request this). In the meanwhile, Id like to ask JBL to refrain from talking about me, unless its here. That's a kind request. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Protection solicited after repeated disruptive editing from Gamesmasterg9

    1. User:Gamesmasterg9 has repeatedly reverted in full this corrected version of the article Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, and replaced it with an older version which contains multiple fact-errors and untruthful/discrediting statements on individual doctors (living persons). All while referring to sources whose actual content do not support the false claims. [82]

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

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

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

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

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

    Best regards, Toverster (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Dear Grandpallama:

    When you say that I call “vandalism” edits that I "don’t like, and you say that without any proof, and despite that I had given fact-based reasons for my edits (put forward in the Talk page), you ascribe me bad faith in my work as new editor in Wikipedia. What a welcome. Nevertheless, with that you concomitantly give me the reciprocal right to assume, that you would have reverted the sum of all my work just because “you didn’t like the edits”. But I gladly abstain of being reciprocal, because my query is instead about the neutrality and verifiability of the content that this article should have according to, yes, the Wikipedia rules. Perhaps, you might change your stance after your read “Necessary edits”. [83]

    My complain is not about “not-liked edits”, Grandpallama. Instead, it is about the compact erasing of all my edits (the rationale for each of them explicated in the said Talk page) and the 50 new references to verifiable sources which I added in trying to correct the article according to Wikipedia policies. It is about the deletion of nearly the full page of the article, as a package. And without referring no comment whatsoever about the content of the different new edits erased as a block by Gamesmasterg9. I might be wrong in my interpretation of what vandalism refers to in Wikipedia, and in that case I settle for only WP:DE, which you did not comment. You have the editing experience, and I trust you are right on the use of “vandalism”. Nonetheless, I did not infer the concept “vandalism” out of the blue. This is what “Wikipedia: Vandalism” says (excerpted): “The malicious removal of encyclopedic content…without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research…” [84].

    My contention (and I would believe that you or any other experienced administrator like you that would take the time to read “Necessary edits” [85] would agree), is that several key statements about SWEDHR in the older version infringe the core policy of neutral point of view. Likewise, that most of the references (among the 22 that the old version contains) do not pass the test of verifiability in correspondence to the respective statements given in the article. In other words, a biased article, main characterized by a pristine negation of neutral point of view and verifiability.

    You posted yesterday in the article’s edits-history the following line, on top of my las edit: “Your edits are contested; don't revert them back in during a discussion.” [86]. However:

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

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

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

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

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

    c) The mainstream media cited in references in the old version have never referred to SWEDHR as “a Russian propaganda site”, as it is affirmed in the article. What they say is that findings in investigations done by SWEDHR have afterwards been used or misused for propaganda aims, even after the organization’s protests. One mainstream media source that I found recently sums up the false claim against SWEDHR as “irony”. It says in the article “Propaganda, lies and videos: Russian media and the Khan Sheikhun massacre”: “This fake news has continued to spread, even after the Swedish organization attributed and linked to the report refuted it”. [87]. (Anyone wishing to establish which organizations and publications in the views of mainstream media, are listed as "Russian propaganda sites", should instead check the list at PropOrNot, where neither SWEDHR nor its publication The Indicter are listed. [88]).

    e) The false personal imputations regarding Dr. Leif Elinder, which the older version incurred.

    3) In addition, regarding verifiability, the new edits are sourced in a total of 70 references. The old version (the one Gamesmasterg9 and you reverted to) contained only 22 references.

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

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

    To give you a freshest example, reading today, as I do every morning, Sweden’s largest newspaper Aftonbladet (according to Wikipedia “one of the largest daily newspapers in the Nordic countries” [89]) I saw one main article signed by the professors in the leadership of “Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights, SWEDHR”. The article’s title (translated) is “Government: demand the freedom of Julian Assange” (“Regeringen, kräv att Julian Assange friges“). [90] Last week, through an article in Sydsvenka Dagbladet, another Swedish mainstream newspaper, the reader was informed that SWEDHR doctors formed part of the signatories in an article published by The Lancet, also about the Julian Assange human rights theme. I dare say that The Lancet is world most known medical journal.

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

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

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

    Thanks for taking your time on this. Toverster (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please offer your thoughts more succinctly; no one is going to read this wall of text. More importantly, what I stated before is true: a revert of your edits is not "vandalism," and your edits have been contested.
    The OP needs some admin attention, and the article needs more eyes. Despite the discussion occurring here, Toverster attempted to reinsert edits that largely removed, or weaseled the wording of, well-sourced statements about SWEDHR's role as a propaganda arm of the Russian government with the false edit summary that the edits were "cosmetic" in nature. [91] I'm not sure if these edits are COI (although they feel like it), but they are definitely trying to push a particular POV not in line with RS, which this article has had to fend off multiple times (most notably in May 2017, when the sock of an LTA suddenly emerged to make very similar edits). The OP isn't just a brand new account here, but also only just created an account today on the Swedish wiki [92], where their edits have all been regarding Wikileaks and Julian Assange, as well as a draft of a SWEDHR article (that largely just copies the lead of the enwiki article). Grandpallama (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    After my comment above, and instead of replying, user Grandpallama just proceeded to delete without explanation small edits I have done, and that I have announced (see above) in order to reach some compromise. He deleted even those edits not at all controversial (such as inserting of "[[ ]]" for linking to a Wikipedia article). Of course I will not insist in the edits until all this is clarified. But, by whom, or where is the ongoing discussion? Can anyone one tell me please? If any administrator see this post, please advise me what to do. For I really don't know, honestly, how to proceed in order to correct the falsehoods contained in that Wikipedia article [93]. If it is not possible at all to do changes, just tell me that clear, and I will comply. Toverster (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But, by whom, or where is the ongoing discussion? For now, since you initiated a conduct discussion, it's occurring right here. Your edits were objected to as COI, and you reported another user for behavior and asked for intervention. Potential conduct concerns need to be sorted out at this stage separately from a content discussion (which does not belong on this page). You shouldn't be trying to edit war the material back in until there is some closure around the allegations you have made, though, which is exactly what you did despite your claim that Of course I will not insist in the edits until all this is clarified. Also, pinging Gamesmasterg9 again, who should really be chiming in. Grandpallama (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Also pinging Drmies and El C as admins who helped clean up the article in 2017. Grandpallama (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, dear god! Out for 2 days and this. Grandpallama, I'm going to need some time to respond here, but in short - SWEDHR is a POV-pushing organization that chiefly exists to provide an "outside" reference for Russian government propaganda. Russian media linked to the WP page, which was created by the organization itself, and greatly exaggerated their own significance, and cited entirely to blogs run by the organization and its members. We went through a massive clean-up, during which I and other editors were called out as Western imperialist stooges by the organization's newsletter, but ultimately we prevailed. Now, a new user (who happens to be a Swedish doctor) creates an account for the purpose of making edits to exactly one page, and reinserts much of the exaggeration and self-referential citations that had been previously removed. To me, it seems like a clear case of WP:COI, but I'll let others weight in.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Grandpallama: You wrote, “Restoring the article to its last stable version while a discussion is ongoing is standard practice". Then, where are yours and Gamesmaster G-9 arguments in this “ongoing discussion” (here or in the article’s Talk page), debating the reasons I put forward for the edits that you blocked? For example: Is the fact-based info I provided in my previous entry (above), about the fake 2-8 references, wrong? If so, do state why. And if not wrong, you HAVE to “allow” the corrected edit to be in the article. Otherwise you (or Gamesmasterg9) are exercising a “power” you do not have as WP editor. Or assuming that you have it, you may be abusing it. The same about the rest of my arguments stated in the Talk page [94] explaining the edits you erased. Where are your arguments in the “ongoing discussion” ?

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

    “We have chosen a cooperation approach, instead of a membership approach with NATO” (“Vi har valt en samarbetslinje och inte en medlemslinje i förhållande till Nato.”) [95].

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

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


    Important consultation to administrators: 1) Does it exist in Wikipedia a rule saying it is enough that a simple editor arbitrarely tags another editor with “COI” in the summary at the edit-history of the article (with no explanation given as to why “COI”, neither a COI complain reported to WP), [96] for deleting all the edits by the tagged editor, and the subsequent banning for his further edits? 2) Is that simple tagging enough for WP to consider the tagged user “contested” (Grandpallama, see above and [97]), and 3) for that same reason issuing a prohibition against the the tagged editor to further edit in the article? Toverster (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Toverster, please stop posting walls of text. You've been asked this more than once. Please keep your content discussion on the talkpage of the article in question.
    However, it would be nice if you'd address a few things. Like how a new user was so familiar with the existence of ANI, COIN, and the details of a specific AfD that occurred three years ago; this is not impossible, but it is not the general behavior of someone without a past on Wikipedia. Are you a member of SWEDHR? Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Grandpallama, I am not sure what you need from me right now, but I'd be happy to answer specific questions regarding the previous AfD and rewrite. However, I will not be able to respond point-by-point to the wall-of-text accusations above, and I'm not even going to try. In the meantime, just to give you an idea of what is going on here - has a page where they respond to every criticism in the mainstream media in a similar fashion. As you can see, their opponents include Huffington Post, Der Spiegel, Expressen, Dagens Nyheter, and Le Figaro.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Gamesmasterg9: what we need from you is easy: for a start, go to the Talk:Swedish_Doctors_for_Human_Rights#Break and counter Toverster objections to the 7 references to that sentence in the lead, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also with couple of observations and pointers:

    1. I don't really remember this article from my limited involvement in it three years ago.
    2. Huldra had marked the article as {{unbalanced}} already back then, just as she has recently. So far consistent.
    3. Toverster seems to be in a conflict of interest with regards to this article. They should have proposed their edits on the talk page rather than edit directly. → However, their edits should not have been reverted on the basis of their COI alone but on the merit of the content.
    4. The length of Toverster's comments in this noticeboard report are rather excessive → they're new, but still. Who burdens members of a volunteer project with so much text? That's not right.
    5. Dispute resolution and gaining more outside input through accompanying requests is how each side in the dispute ought to advance their position with respect to their preferred version.
    6. I am not familiar with this dispute in any way (have not caught up to the latest or refreshed my mind about the past) and otherwise am agnostic as to the merits of either version. El_C 22:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:El C Ok, a question here: Why do you say Toverster have a COI? Because he is a Swedish Doctor? Does all Swedish doctors have a COI wrt SWEDHR? Huldra (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Huldra, don't be silly. I agree with El C that the nature of the edits suggest we are likely dealing with a COI-editor here, trying to promote an organization and its points of view. For the record, I am also a Swedish doctor--it's one of many talents I have. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL@Drmies! So many talents... Anyway, Huldra, the reason I said Toverster seems to be in a conflict of interest was due to their rather limited contributions otherwise, which set them (thus far) as a likely single purpose account. And like many single purpose accounts, their single-mindedness is also reflected in the excessive length of their comments. All of which are indicators to me of a conflict of interest being likely. El_C 23:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, well, User:El C: it reminds me of what I was met with, when I started editing the Palestinian articles nearly 15 years ago. Not the excessive length, though. But the editor I most often have seen accused of having posts of excessive length is no SPA. So, sorry, I don't "buy" your argument, And User:Drmies: "trying to promote an organization and its points of view", well you could also have said removing falsehoods (...that NATO statement, again). Presently the article is no more than an ATTACK-article.
    SWEDHR opinions are not mainstream, for sure. But I vividly recall the viciousness that people were met with, back in 2003, if you didn't believe that Saddam had WMD, and how the French were vilified for doubting it (recall those US leaders who wanted to rename French fries to Freedom fries? Seriously, you couldn't make this up.
    I absolutely hate to say this, but Russian and Chinese media were far more correct wrt to those WMDs, than Western MSM were. (And recall those alleged WMD were the Casus belli of the 2003 invasions, and all the misery that has followed.) Sooooooooo, that Russian media use SWEDHR is to me no automatic reason to vilify SWEDHR (which is exactly what Wikipedia is presently doing), Huldra (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Huldra: first, I'm not "selling" an argument. These are my impressions based on my extensive experience with COI edits and SPA editors. Second, as an avid Nishidani reader, I can state without reservation that they are not even remotely as lengthy as Toverster has been here. El_C 00:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Huldra, lesigh. Your experience from so many years ago is not to the point. I'm not really interested in this kind of whataboutism, but the restoration of that information touting members was fluff ("Anders Romelsjö is the publisher of [http://globalpolitics.se/ “GlobalPolitics.se”, which has been placed since several years among the first three top posts in the annual ranking of best Swedish political blog as done by blogtoplist.se"), and denying that is silly. I don't know what you mean with "that NATO statement" and I really don't care. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Huldra, if "the Russian media" got something right that "the Western media" got wrong (and these generalizations are already unwarranted), that doesn't mean that in this case it's the same thing--17 years later on a different matter in a different world. And at any rate that is a matter for RSN, not for here. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


    To Grandpallama: Why I am posting HERE, you ask. It's because you indicated that to me. I asked, where is the ongoing discussion about the edits? You answered: “it's occurring right here”. Your attack ad hominem against me as new editor (unfounded tags COI, Single PA, etc.) seems rather aimed to divert from the main issues at stake. It won’t work. The you wonder how come that I know rules at WP. Anyone wondering about an editor go to the editor’s presentation. Anyone can read there [98]: “The first task for me was trying to understand the rules and intricate instructions about editing articles in Wikipedia.” I don’t mean to claim that I know them well. But learning I am also thanks to this discussion. You contradict yourself assuming that I knew “what to do” in addressing my complain. For it was you who proven to me that I was mistaken about “vandalism” (then I changed the headline). You know already my answers to you, ref. your “COI suspicions”. It’s all in this thread. Not such a thing. About how I know what COI is, it was after I saw it in Gammesmaster reverting summary. I found in Google a link to a WP list of abbreviations, with super links. How do I know about “the details of a specific AfD that occurred three years ago”? The info and link about that AfD is highlighted in a BAN at the very top of the article’s Talk page. The ban reads: “This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. That ban “You can’t miss” each time you start to edit the Talk page.

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

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

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

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

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


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

    On the other hand, if it so the case that Wikipedia will FORCE me to edit simultaneously other articles for otherwise I will be suspected as a 'COI' troll or something, then Wikipedia may not be a thing for me. Have a good night. Toverster (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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

    I agree in some, disagree in others:

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

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

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


    To Gamesmaster G-9:

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

    Regarding your “revelation” in this thread about a SWEDHR page with links to rebuttals to 4 right-wing media in a 5-years period: That info was already given, with further details and references, in the Section “The 2017 Controversies” of the article’s version [99] that you have been arbitrarily reverting since 19 Feb 2020. There it reads: 

    “The domestic and international spreading by Russian governmental channels of SWEDHR's ‘alternative views’ on a variety of geopolitical issues, have also elicited critical comments in the European mainstream media. For instance Der Spiegel,[31] Le Figaro,[32], De Groene Amsterdammer, [33] and Dagens Nyheter. [34] SWEDHR has published its respective rebuttals to those media in The Indicter. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]  In its replies, SWEDHR's has insisted that the criticism of those media does not address the arguments or the results of the doctors’ investigations. That, “apparently, for them,  it is not about what we say, but rather to whom we are saying it.” SWEDHR has repeatedly argued that the right to express opinions in any media “regardless of frontiers”, is guaranteed by Article 19 in the Universal Declarations of Human Rights. [40]“

    You should have also referred that in comparison with those 4 media reports in the 5-year period, there were many more media in the same period 2015-2020 reporting SWEDHR views in a non-critical way. Most recently in a full-page of Sweden’s largest mainstream newspaper Aftonbladet (Feb 26, 2020). Toverster (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Feinoa continuing ownership issues, ignoring consensus and refusal to collaborate

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

    1. Long term edit warring/ignoring consensus at Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak - Repeated insertion of a phrase 12 Feb, 14 Feb, 15 Feb, 15 Feb, 16 Feb, 24 Feb. This is despite the fact that the edit in question has been removed by multiple editors and there is also consensus on the talk [100] for its removal.
    2. WP:OWN at Singapore. For example, the editor is adamant about removing/de-emphasising the fact that "Malay in the national language of Singapore" from the infobox -
      1. Edits by Feinoa - 22 Feb 2020, 22 Feb 2020, 16 Jan 2020, 31 Oct 2019, 27 Oct 2019
      2. Note that these edits have been either reverted or changed by multiple editors 16 Jan 2020,1 Nov 2019,27 Oct 2019
      3. Editor has never taken the initiative to open a discussion. I created one finally [101] (there is some amount of local consensus), but they don't participate.
    3. Edit warring and reverting multiple editors, despite being asked to discuss on the talk
      1. Original edit, Revert 1 by Feinoa
      2. Reinstated (1), Revert 2 by Feinoa
      3. Reinstated (2), Revert 3 by Feinoa
      4. Reinstated (3) Feinoa is warned [102] and urged to discuss. They are also informed that discussion takes place on the talk, instead of through edit summaries.
      5. Revert 4 by Feinoa with the edit summary "Did you even bother to read or do you just love reverting my edits? I made my point twice in the edit summary over a minor edit, the fact that you somehow didn't find that sufficient enough suggests that we're supposed to make a new 'discussion' in the talk page for every single edit now?"
    4. Adding unsourced (and clearly incorrect) information - [103] Added Okinawan and Yamato as Southeast Asian ethnic groups, while removing others which are actually originated in Southeast Asia. Also added Shinto as one of the religions, without any source.

    I am not sure what should be done, but I think enough warnings have been given already and some of it is starting to be disruptive.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, we have partial blocking available now... if other admins and/or the community agrees that enough is enough and that Feinoa (and any other users) are causing more harm than good to these articles, I'm not against blocking them from editing those specific articles while allowing them to contribute positively to other articles and pages within the project... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Malfunctioning bot at AIV

    This edit (and an earlier one) by the helper bot removed a report on the basis that a rangeblock was in place, but the rangeblock is only a partial block so the vandal is continuing his spree of vandalism. The bot is therefore obviously malfunctioning, presumably not properly taking account of the recent concept of partial blocks. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Keith D blocked them, but this is probably something that needs to be raised with the bot operator. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that David Biddulph has already flagged down the botop. They are somewhat inactive though so it might take a while. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Quod erat expectandum: This is something that could use some community input at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#Proposal:_Partial_blocks_clerking_algorithm, where I have pointed out this problem over a month ago. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SharabSalam

    User repeatedly engages in personal attacks and shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors. Responded to a merger I proposed at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders with this remark, threatening a misuse of ANI and failing to acknowledge a distinction between a deletion review and a merger discussion. Also, continues to make combative taunts[104]. Made an unfounded accusation of tagteaming and "trolling" over a content dispute at an ANI thread. There are probably many more examples, but this should be enough to justify a warning. Edit: Note that user has been previously temp blocked for personal attacks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The section up this page was closed to stop the bickering. Please don't start again. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User has continued to make taunts on other article talk pages after the discussion was closed (see diffs above). These are uncalled for and should stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Making a personal attack, followed by restoring the personal attack after it was replaced with {{npa}}. --WMSR (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WMSR, that's not a personal attack. This editor has an issue with identifying personal attack. Removing my comment is disruptive and might get you blocked if repeated.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't threaten me. You were taunting another editor. --WMSR (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't start again. Huh, maybe you should have dealt with it, then, instead of sweeping it under the rug. --Calton | Talk 06:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sharab's comments were taunting, thus could warrant a short block. But that's not gonna fix the underlying issue: Sharab and Wikieditor are deadlocked in a drawn-out struggle over Bernie Sanders (Is this what BernieBros are?) and can't seem to get along. Not sure what the next step is here. An IBan? Topic bans? I think a close of the thread above involving WikiEditor might go a ways to help solve this mess. I'm dissapointed to see Sharab at ANI...again. A perusal of the archives shows that Sharab has been at the noticeboards an awful lot over the last few months. So to Sharab: please remember to keep cool headed, and civil at all times. If you can't discuss an issue calmly, please seek outside help. Dispute resolution is an excellent tool. Please use it. If you can't, you may find yourself with an American politics topic-ban, or worse. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CaptainEek, When was the last time I was reported in an ANI thread? The OP has a thread #Wikieditor19920 above which I added some links to where he made comments under each vote in AfD, review deletion and RfC. He doesn't have disagreements with, he is probably following me after I reverted him in Jeremy Corbyn article and his ANI thread.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also what's this comment about "Berniebros"? I am not even American!. I don't know where are the civility issues with me but your comment is absolutely insulting and warrants a short block.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam, Don't play coy, you know very well: you were at reported at ANI twice in the last month; [105], [106]. You also brought two, rather spurious, claims just two months ago [107], showing that you were already not making good use of dispute resolution and instead running to the "drama boards". I'm not sure what you mean about you and WikiEditor not having a disagreement, it seems plain that you are disagreeing about Bernie Sanders. Correct me if I am wrong, but WikiEditor wants Media coverage of Bernie Sanders deleted, and you don't, which has culminated in an ANI thread. I would call that a disagreement.
    As to your last point, I see my attempt at levity has backfired, I will remove the comment. You might wish to learn a lesson from my action: when someone suggests that you may have been in the wrong, more often than not, they are right, and you might wish to follow their suggestions, such as striking an alleged NPA, even if you think it isn't. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • These petty civility issues are not the problem. The problem is the war over the article, putting staunch advocates of deletion against supporters of keeping the topic. The former have engaged in relentless trimming of sourced text and repeated attempts at deletion or merger, despite overwhelming consensus to this point that the article is warranted. That consensus may change perhaps after enough supporters are topic banned or blocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Just noting that the filer of this report also initiated a largely frivolous DRV link recently. At this point further efforts such as the merge discussion recently opened are disruptive. Responding to such repeated efforts can be frustrating and editors should be given a bit of leeway for that. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That DrV was opened in good faith and was not without any agreement in my position. This has nothing to do with edit warring. I partially agreed with a point SharabSalam made on talk page and implemented it in the article, even though I didn't like how he was arguing it. I've never been involved, that I can immediately recall, in edit warring or even extensive editing at Bernie Sanders-related articles. Several opposers to deletion suggested they didn't like the idea of "nuking" the article, but would be open to a merger. Maybe the merger discussion should've come first, but I don't see why that's disruptive now. That's why I also opened a section on the merger to field responses on it before formally proposing one. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pro tip: Starting an ANI section accusing another editor of personal attacks with the sentence "...(he) shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors" is not the brightest idea ever, especially just after you've written the following about them in another section on this page; " SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another". Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bring on the Boomerang. This is a waste of everyone's time. I have reviewed all the diffs by OP and I dont see this worthy of ANI. You seem to have content disputes, Follow WP:DR. ANI cannot be used in attempts to sanction folks you disagree with. I suggest this thread be closed immediately and OP be warned for WP:BOOMERANG if he repeats this in future. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang See what the OP started with, he said that there is a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors. Also, he said that I failed to acknowledge the distinction between a deletion review and a merger when I said that there a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue with the editor who is starting a merge discussion after his deletion review (of the third deletion request) got denied. Indeed, there is a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue with the editor and he cited the same diff saying that I am "threatening to misuse ANI". Also he said that made a trolling accusation, I didn't make a trolling accusation, I said that reverting for typos might be trolling. You can't revert someone's work and say "contains typos". FWIW, the editor has made a clear accusation to me saying "SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another" and that I should not be allowed to make a comment here unless I am involved, he made that comment in an ANI thread which I was involved. After his accusation, he joined the discussion in the article against me and also requested a merge and he also filled a report against me. Sounds like clear harassment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's amazing how an issue can be misconstrued and then blanket bans suggested for all involved like candy. I have not bludgeoned any discussions nor, frankly, have I had any protracted disputes with SharabSalam about content. My interactions with him have been pretty limited, other than an ANI thread here that he's been piling onto. This was not about a content dispute. I can handle an editor disagreeing with my proposal. What I have a problem with, and what the diffs I provided in my report show, are personalized taunts directed at me on an article's talk page. Despite several editors on this thread dismissing SharabSalam's comments and characterizing my calling his behavior here immature as a "personal attack," the kind of remarks that brought me here are expressly prohibited by WP:NPA. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Hopefully, when Sanders either wins the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination or drops out of the race, this delete/keep dispute over the related Media coverage article, will come to an end. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Withdrawn by proposer. Thanks for the feedback all. This appears to be a premature at this time, based on the feedback given by several people. I will take the advice given to heart, and improve my own work here at Wikipedia. I only hope the two editors at the center of this can also do the same. --Jayron32 18:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    OK. Enough. Here's how we fix this:

    Proposal: User:SharabSalam and Wikieditor19920 are placed under an indefinite interaction ban under the standard conditions of WP:IBAN. In addition, each user is also indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Bernie Sanders broadly construed, including editing any content or participating in any discussion anywhere on Wikipedia where Bernie Sanders is a subject.
    Could you show me the reason why I would I get IBAN or a topic ban?. This is a ridiculous proposal --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The reasons on this page alone, including comments you've made here and links to diffs of comments you've made elsewhere, are legion and those who will vote on this matter below do not need me to repeat them. --Jayron32 13:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a vague response. You need to show me what are the comments and why they are bad. I literally didn't editwar or made any policy violation edit.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an unduly harsh proposal. I've never had any issues editing at any Bernie Sanders-related articles to warrant any sort of sanction, let alone a topic ban. An IBAN will limit both of our ability's to make constructive edits to the project, which I believe SharabSalam is capable of the issues I raised here notwithstanding. I am willing to work with SharabSalam if they will stop the taunts and focus on content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. I have never made any policy violation in any of these articles. Also, I am focusing on the content. You have made a merge proposal just two days after your deletion review of the third deletion request got denied. How is saying WP:NOTGETTINGIT a taunt here? Anyway, I also think I can work with you. At least we both agree that this proposal is unduly harsh.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam: It's shocking how fast you disproved your own statement. It took all of the width of a space character to do that. You state "I am focusing on the content." and then immediately start a sentence with "You" and go on to discuss a user, and not content. Perhaps that is some of the source of the problems you are having. You make assertions you aren't doing something and then in the next breath you do it. Consider that going forward, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. --Jayron32 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't support that, although I think the editor is attacking me. What are the things that warrants a topic ban here? I have literally started getting involved in these discussions. I didnt editwar or made any non-policy based arguments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as presented. --Please establish with specific evidence that each user has behaviourial issues regarding the other that isn't part of a general pattern of their behaviour with regard to every other user, and please establish that each user has violated content policies and/or behaviourial guidelines in the topic area that isn't part of a general pattern with their approach to all areas. Fault needs to be established on each user's part justifying each of the sanctions before I'll reconsider. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with Usedtobecool. It's not necessary to assign blame before we decide that these behaviours are a timesink and they need to be contained. They certainly are a timesink and they certainly do need to be contained, but I think this specific proposal is the wrong container. A better solution would be some kind of throttle. I can see good grounds to restrict the number of discussion page posts that Wikieditor19920 can make in a 24 hour period, because, damn. I would also suggest a limit on the number of times they can reply to each other in a 24 hour period. The problem is not so much their edits as the fact that they're hurting the signal-to-noise ratio on talk pages and thereby drowning out other editors. —S Marshall T/C 15:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that these two editors are constantly bludgeoning discussions and bickering with one another (and others), is borne out by their behavior in this very thread. How about this: The first one of them to admit their part in this problem doesn’t get TBanned. (Only half kidding.) O3000 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had moderately decent success tamping down feuds by warning everyone on both sides that they would be blocked for 1 month for feuding the very next time they did anything remotely feud-like. A one month block for a personal attack, a one month block for frivolous AN/ANI reports, a one month block for broad baseless accusations, a one month block for gravedancing... Not great success (this can be gamed like any other sanction), but moderately decent success. The editors who are here just to feud get ID'd fairly quickly, because they can't seem to help themselves. The editors who just got caught up in the heat of the moment get a wake up call and often stop. Any support for that? If not, Jayron's proposal seems like a good alternative, so I support both my suggestion and Jayron's suggestion, whichever gains more traction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd also be fine with your suggestion. Anything which stops these kind of time-sinks and which also would serve as a way to discourage future time sinks. --Jayron32 16:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't hand down the same restriction to both editors. Their behaviours aren't equivalent. Wikieditor19920 is bludgeoning discussion pages where SharabSalam isn't, or isn't noticeably.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Floquenbeam, (edit conflict) I would stop whatever this thing we are doing. But could you review what happened here? Yesterday, I was having a content dispute in Bernie Sanders article, an editor reverted another editor for "contains typos" then the other editor started making personal attacks and I was involved in that then Wikieditor19920 jumped into the discussion saying that I am biased and that I should not be allowed to make any comment here. Then after his discussion ended he went and made a revert in that article. Who do you think is the attacker here? Anyways, I have not made any policy-violation or any sort of editwar in that article, I have been discussing and basing my argument on policies and reliable sources.
    Here is what the dispute of yesterday was about
    So Chris Matthews from MSNBC compared Bernie Sanders victory to the Nazis takeover of France.Even CNN covered this story What is MSNBC's problem with Bernie Sanders?
    Yesterday, I added the reason why this was a controversial comment: all sources say that the core reason this was a controversial comment is that Bernie Sanders is Jewish and his family were killed by the same people who Chris Matthews compared his Nevada victory to. And I have even noted this reliable source from Australia just to show that there is international coverage of this story Mr Sanders was born in New York to a family of Jewish immigrants from Poland. Many of his relatives were killed in Nazi death camps during the Holocaust.[108]
    Their argument for deleting this content kept changing from, this isnt Chris Matthews article to family of Bernie Sanders killed by Nazis is true of most people with Ashkenazic backgrounds[109] and a deletion argument This is what happens when we have an article exclusively focused on a niche subject like "coverage of a candidate." This could be summed up in a paragraph or two at Bernie Sanders. SharabSalam, I presume you're familiar with WP:NOTNEWS since you've cited it before. How do you feel that policy applies to a page like this?[110].
    Anyways, I apologies if I caused some stress to other editors. I dont and didnt intend to do that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Usedtobecool's reasoning. The "a pox on both your houses" approach is lazy and ineffectual. It won't solve anything, it just punishes editors for complaining too much. The reason there are so many complaints is because this article is an absolute dumpster fire, and it has spread to ANEW, ANI, AE, AFD, DRV, user talk pages and other article talk pages. As one who has been watching this article for some time now, I don't think that either Sharab or Wikieditor are at the core of the problem, and thus I don't think IBANing or TBANing them will make a difference to stability at that article. A real fix requires a careful and in-depth examination of evidence–evidence which takes a very long time to put together. I've started digging and have posted a few diffs in other venues; I know other editors have done the same and are continuing to prepare evidence for community review in some appropriate forum. I predict this will go one of two ways: either by the time the evidence has been collected, it will be stale, because the editors involved will have voluntarily cleaned up their act in response to these community grumblings. Or, they won't have cleaned up their act, and by the time the evidence is collected, it won't be stale, it'll be damning. We'll see which one happens. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Comment I’ve had the opportunity to see both of these editors on pages I watch interact with each other, and with the editors in a particular topic area. And I’ll say that they’re both generally net positives for the encyclopedia, though occasionally problematic in certain topic areas, or in terms of certain behaviour. I’ve interacted with both of them, but only minimally. I will say that Sharab is very good at editing articles related to Yemen, and while there is a bit of intrinsic bias, it isn’t overriding or interfering with his editing. He does less good work in articles related to Israel and Palestine, Islam (though he’s been somewhat amenable there), and AmPol. As far as the latter, I think it’s mainly due to a lack of familiarity with the nuances of American Politics, which is perfectly understandable. I do think there’s a definite battleground mentality in certain topic areas, though. Likewise with Wikieditor. A certain degree of battleground mentality, but most of their edits and proposals are firmly within policy and generally based on reason. They edit in highly contentious areas where they’re likely to encounter entrenched editors though, and bludgeon the talk page. They’re both decent editors learning the ropes. I don’t think the sanction for either, is unreasonable. But I do think there needs to be less battleground behaviour, irrespective of whether they’re the ones trading barbs. I think Wikieditor was right to bring this up as well, as he has been on the receiving end a bit more, and Sharab isn’t providing the full context. But I’d urge both editors to just drop it, and be less reactive. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal #2

    A two-part proposal. (1) SharabSalam and Wikieditor19920 are restricted not to reply to each other more than once in a rolling 24 hour period, and (2) Wikieditor19920 is restricted to a maximum of three edits to each discussion page in a rolling 24 hour period, both restrictions to be lifted 90 days after implementation.—S Marshall T/C 21:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    An unbalanced and vindictive proposal. So I'm to be subjected to a severe three-month sanction for reporting a personal attack, and in-turn, the editor who made the personal attacks is let off with this "mutual restriction."
    I'm not sure what entitles you to make a proposal for sanction as a non-admin, but your comments here are consistent in a) criticizing/punishing me based on vague innuendo and b) overlooking the blatant personal attacks by SharabSalam that were the basis of this report. This follows a content dispute between you and I over my recent AfD nom of the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders article, where you disagreed with my proposal. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why these "proposals" involve me at all. This seems a purely punitive measure for my filing this report, perhaps egged on by users who chimed in here and have personalized content disagreements with me in the past. SharabSalam, nor any user, is not permitted to make personal attacks in response to content suggestions, which is what occurred. My response consisted of a warning, and then a resort to ANI when the conduct continued. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920, call it a sort of WP:BOOMERANG if you want. This case acc/ to me was trivial and should have been resolved at each other's user talk. It should not have been dragged to ANI, but you thought it was a good idea. So here we are. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 22:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me that Marshall has suggested a milder sanction (albeit a tad difficult to follow). Your response is to suggest that they are doing this as retribution for a content dispute, which is not a good move IMO. I suggest less combative responses would work better. And anyone can make a proposal here. O3000 (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920, 1) your whole report here is a boomerang, you said I "threatened to misuse the ANI"? What does this mean? and the diff shows that I said This is probably a WP:NOTGETTINGIT issue. I think I should note this in your ANI thread after you start again a merge proposal just days after your deletion review which you filled with comments under each vote and yet got denied and I didnt even participate. You also said that I "failed to acknowledge the distinction between a merge and a deletion", OMG, what does this mean? I failed to acknowledge? because I said that starting a merge proposal after a deletion review of the third deletion request is probably a WP:NOTGETTINGIT? Did any admin actually read Wikieditor19920 report?.
    2) The section diff I pointed out that an editor revert because of typos is absurd might be trolling, that's not a personal attack, I also wasn't talking to you nor that you were involved at that time.
    3) Then you added that I made a tag-team accusation, I didn't accuse you and I didn't make a direct accusation. I have also pointed out that the same editors who got involved were previously accused of tag-team also I didn't accuse you.
    4) You said I was blocked for a personal attack, yea, that was at my beginning times in Wikipedia, I said to an editor who has insulted me, to stop acting like "something insulting" and I appealed for unblock, the editor who insulted turned to be a sockpuppet. I am asking admins to actually review this editor report, its baseless.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this appears innovative to me, is not hard to follow and most importantly isnt anything remotely draconian. Unless there are strong oppositions from SharabSalam and Wikieditor19920, I would support this and ask both to give this a try. These are much milder than TBANs or IBANs that will eventually come if the community starts loosing patience. Both editors are requested to use the extra volunteer time (saved by not replying to each other) in other more productive work elsewhere. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 22:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DBigXray, Perhaps you're familiar with WP:NPA, perhaps not, but I'll repeat again that SharabSalam's comments on that threat were clearly personalized taunts/jeers, and this was noted by myself and WSMR at the talk page, and additional users here at the ANI thread. SharabSalam's responses in the closed discussion above continued this pattern of personalized comments. SharabSalam has been banned for personal attacks before (see block history above). I have never been blocked for any such behavior (discounting a mistaken block that was immediately lifted and still shows up on my block log) and none of my participation here or anywhere else justifies a sanction. No editor is required to tolerate personal attacks and ANI is the appropriate forum for resolution of these issues. I resent that I've had to answer these kind of charges for filing an appropriate report and worry about the kind of precedent this sets.
    Perhaps you would be fine with an editor making similar comments towards you following a content proposal. Maybe you wouldn't have filed a report. But that doesn't mean that other editors aren't within their right to do so, like I've done here, and it certainly doesn't mean they should be subject to punishment for it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920, I looked at your diffs again, Just to make sure I had not missed anything. No sir. You are way over reacting. Can you list the actual PAs that you are referring to ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 22:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs are included in my report summary and you are free to scroll up and review them anytime, along with other editors' comments agreeing that they were personal attacks (which, indeed, another editor tried to strike, an attempt which SharabSalam reverted). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor19920: SharabSalam is the type of user who will pester me multiple times at an AFD to expound on my vote.
    Wikieditor19920: SharabSalam Is someone who likes to have a regular presence at ANI to stir the pot. This user's comments are almost always biased for one reason or another (prejudiced by past content disagreements/possible disputes with user) and should be wholly disregarded, and probably forbidden from commenting on threads unless they have a reason to be directly involved
    Wikieditor19920: [SharabSalam] shows a general lack of maturity in dealing with other editors.
    This is all just in this page. Compare to what I said. And you have just accused the editor who made the proposal of being biased just because you had a disagreement with him..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam, each of the improperly presented comment "excerpts" above are specific references to behavior originally supported by diffs or other context, and made at the appropriate forum (here). You should focus on providing diffs, as required, not disruptive higtqighting/other inappropriate formatting. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all on this page. Anyone can see them. And they are not supported by evidences, they also shows how you don't assume good faith which is also a personal attack if repeated, just like your accusation against the editor who started this proposal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support obviously. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem I have is that I see zero realization from Wikieditor19920 that they have any part in the problem. Without that, it’s difficult to see how behavior will change. Looks to me like a “deep end of the pool problem” as the articles are higtqy controversial. That’s not to say that SharʿabSalam, with a longer history and a block log, doesn’t also have responsibility here. But at least that editor is asking for a bit of guidance. I like to see some indication that there will be a change that won't bring us back here once again. And, timesink is a real problem and applies. O3000 (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have said that I apologize if I have caused any stress to other editors and that it wasn't my intention to do so.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I observe with some amusement that these users' conduct in this very thread justifies my proposal as written. I know it's a novel idea, but I think tbans and ibans would be disproportionate. Neither of these editors is irretrievably disruptive. Both are congenitally incapable of stopping themselves from replying to each other, so the community needs to assist them to do so. Wikieditor19920's the more problematic because he can't stop himself replying to anyone.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      S Marshall, both of them have a right to defend themselves on an ANI thread about them. No defendant should be shamed for defending themselves. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Absolutely agreed. They have the right to defend themselves. This' self-defence is taking over the board. It's not any individual edit that's problematic, it's the sheer volume of edits that's the issue here.—S Marshall T/C 13:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Something needs to be done. Where my proposal was adjudged too harsh, I think this one is a good start to calming things down for a while. --Jayron32 13:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This may be relevant. If there are any global CUs or someone with advanced permissions on Wikivoyage, that may be helpful in getting to the bottom of that. --Jayron32 14:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall Nothing I've done justifies this kind of draconian talk page community sanction, and this proposal is only more unfair than the prior one in how completely unbalanced it is. Notice that SharabSalam has gone ahead and continued the very same behavior that I and others have justfiably pointed out as problematic here on this page. Jayron32, you remarked on this earlier, and I'd say your warning had little effect:
    • When you say "I'm not doing anything wrong", when the wrong thing you are doing is "not disengaging from the situation with SharabSalam and backing away", you then (like he did in my comment you alude to) ALSO disprove yourself. If you want to make this sort of thing go away, stop making yourself the self-appointed SharabSalam investigator. It's the repeated refusal to back away and disengage from him, including stopping trying to catch him doing something wrong and trying to play "gotcha!" which is THE PROBLEM everyone is trying to sanction you for. You can't say "I'm not doing that" and then immediately with the next breath do that. --Jayron32 17:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use quotes when you are paraphrasing me, because that's not what I said. I said that there is no basis for this ridiculous proposed sanction against me (because that's essentially all it is), I never claimed perfection. Others have offered constructive feedback that I'm completely willing to consider going forward.
    Further, I'm allowed to present evidence of the issue I raised in my report. I don't appreciate SharabSalam's remarks towards me, and I don't think that it contributes to a healthy talk page discussion when he does it to others. With those headers, the talk page looks like a war zone. Naming editors in headers is explicitly prohibited, (edit) and I pointed this problem out[111] to the user previously when I had to change another problematic header they created. Perhaps as an administrator you should try to assume good faith, not just accusing me of being petty or selfish. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didnt know that talk headers should not contain a name of an editor. There was a lot of problems in that editor edits and I didnt know what would the title of that header be
    Wikieditor19920, Which remarks I made against you?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the two folk under discussion have made clear in this filing that they cannot make a point and then sit back – but must respond to every parry even when in view of the community as a whole. I don’t think much of IBans. I’ll not make a formal proposal. But, I think it would help both the project and the two editors if they were both TBanned from all articles under any DS for two months, giving them the opportunity to edit elsewhere, better familiarize themselves with the concepts of consensus, and how to gain such, while dealing with a less fraught environment. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reminder, Wikieditor19920 edited my comments in violation of WP:TPO. This editor can quote guidelines but refuses to obey them. Their entire goal on Wikipedia is making it a WP:BATTLEGROUND; while I have apologized and volunteered to take responsibility for my errors on ANI, in their mind they have never made a mistake, and never will. I'm not going to defend everything SharabSalam has done but judging by their contributions they have made Wikipedia better by helping build an encyclopedia; I cannot say the same about Wikieditor19920. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing these two go at it makes clear that this is necessary. Personally, I think that the iban proposal would have worked better, so I tend to think that that was closed prematurely, but I guess this is sufficient. Worldlywise (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam—I think you should read WP:TALKNEW. We debated this at Talk:Religion in Israel. Here are diffs from that debate including one to my User Talk page. [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], and this on my Talk page. And I just gave up. The section header now reads "A chart that is about religion". The simple rule of thumb is that section headings "should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." You suggested a section heading of "Chart that is actually about religion". I find that not quite neutral because whether or not nonobservant Jews have a "religion" is part of the question. In essence you are creating a section heading that provides an answer for an aspect of that which is being disputed, when all that is called for in a section heading is that it "indicate what the topic is". Bus stop (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus stop, how is thata non-neutral header? The chart was about religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm) and I was trying to solve that issue.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then just write "religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm)". There's your section header, SharabSalam. It is one of many neutral headers. Shortly after another editor said "Replace with a chart that is actually about religion, not ethnicity" you changed the section header to "Chart that is actually about religion" from the entirely neutral section heading "Proposing a new chart". They are permitted to make that argument in Talk page discussion space but in my opinion you are not permitted to make that argument as a section header. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Innovative and fairly applicable to the situation, but too complicated to implement in practicality. I much prefer Floq's suggestion above in the first proposal (1 month blocks handed out to anyone who continues to push the envelope). This is seriously getting out of control. They're essentially flooding several talkpages/noticeboards with this immature behavior and apparently simply can not help themselves. We're not in primary school, and are expected to act like mature people with a goal of collaborating to build an encyclopedia. Waggie (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree; there's nothing overly complex about it. If you have the English comprehension, analytical skills and mature good judgment necessary to edit encyclopaedia articles, then you can certainly follow this restriction. And these users will police each other -- or they won't, in which case, the sanction has worked.—S Marshall T/C 11:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Waggie Yes it is seriously out of control and what would be helpful is if the people who realized this would support proposals that might improve the situation, rather than oppose them. (And if those proposals are inadequate, then at least there will be precedent for the idea that there is a problem and that something should be done about it.) --JBL (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Joel B. Lewis—disjointed communication is the antithesis of interaction. You are only partially correct when you say that we are looking for "proposals that might improve the situation". Shouldn't there also be interaction on this noticeboard? Should I be content with "Bus stop, how is thata non-neutral header? The chart was about religion(Judaism, Islam and Durzismm) and I was trying to solve that issue"? Is SharabSalam really interacting with me? What does it mean that they were "trying to solve that issue"? They changed a neutral section heading to a section heading that advanced a specific view about the topic being discussed. They changed the section header from "Proposing a new chart" to "Chart that is actually about religion". The first is neutral, the second advances a viewpoint on the very issue being discussed under that section heading. They chose to use the section header to advance their argument which in this instance happens to be that the term "religion" would not apply to nonobservant Jews. The question is valid, but need that question be touched upon in the section heading? I don't think so. It is not necessary that this question be addressed in a section heading, but SharabSalam does not seem to grasp this point—if I am to judge by their interaction with me on this noticeboard. Why did they change the section heading from "Proposing a new chart" to "Chart that is actually about religion"? WP:TALKNEW tells us: "Keep headings neutral: A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been spending too much of my life on ANI recently, so please stop tempting me to open a thread requesting that your topic ban be reinstated. --JBL (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joel B. Lewis: Perhaps it's time that you stop showing up to stir the pot. Bus Stop, You bring up a valid point, but I think enough has been said about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A measure of how entrenched the problems with your behavior are (and hence why restrictions are necessary): I first asked you to stop pinging me more than 10 months ago. --JBL (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal #3

    User:Wikieditor19920 gets an WP:IBAN for User:SharabSalam. This seems to solve the root of the problem, WE19920's battlegrounding and abuse of Wikipedia policy. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Berrocca addict at Violet-Anne Wynne

    Berrocca addict (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly restoring BLP violating material at Violet-Anne Wynne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

    They first added criticism of a living person referenced to Twitter at 12:47, 13 February 2020. I removed the BLP violating, and off-topic material at 15:16, 13 February 2020 mentioning WP:TWITTER in my edit summary. It was then restored at 08:44, 14 February 2020 claiming Passes WP:Twitter threshold for inclusion. I then removed it again at 08:57, 14 February 2020, and left clear messages regarding how the material wasn't acceptable per WP:TWITTER and WP:BLPSPS. This was ignored, and the material restored again at 10:45, 14 February 2020 claiming No BLP violation, clearly. All then went quite after I left a final warning at 11:09, 14 February 2020.

    However today they have again restored the material at 14:15, 26 February 2020. Their use of the Daily Express as a reference isn't acceptable as it's listed as a tabloid at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and even if it was acceptable it doesn't reference the criticism from the National Women's Council of Ireland which is solely referenced by Twitter and isn't acceptable per WP:BLPSPS as I've pointed out more than once. I've tried explaining to this user but they don't seem to get the point and keep restoring WP:BLP violation material without attempting to discuss it, so perhaps someone else could try getting through to them please? FDW777 (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've gone and protected the article. @Berrocca addict: Please carry on discussion on the article talk page, and establish consensus for adding your text before procedeing further. I can unprotect the article once we've reached consensus. This action was taken as an expedient, and is not meant to supplant or avoid any blocks the community may wish to impose. --Jayron32 14:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no attempt at consensus made by FDW777. The notability of statements made by the Prime Minister, as well as the National W omens Council, which is a national representative body, about statements made by a member of Parliament warrant inclusion. There is an apparent attempt at misusing the WP:BLPSPS to encourage censorship, as there was no effort made by FDW777 to use the talk page, just to remove remarkably notable people making notable statements regarding the subject of the article Berrocca addict (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please start that discussion presently, and then give it time to develop. This is not the time to throw around accusations against other editors. This is the time to start and carry on a civil discussion over the content at the article talk page. If you find that you are reaching an impasse, after giving it some time, go to WP:DR and seek additional input from uninvolved editors. I highly suggest when you start the discussion, you present your sources and only discuss their content and the words you intend to add to the article, and not even mention another editor or their actions. It will go much better for you if you do that. --Jayron32 16:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Imzadi1979 User:J947

    Hello, these users are deleting my pages and templates for no good reason. Please block these users. Spg1059-a6s (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Imzadi1979 hasn't deleted a page for three weeks; what is the page under contention? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 15:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Portal:Badges was deleted on 25 Feb by Hut 8.5 with the rationale "Test page". Perhaps he can lend some additional context to the situation. That is the only page created by the above user that has been deleted. I can find absolutely no reason why the complaint against Imzadi1979 or J947 has been lodged, as neither has deleted any work by the OP. --Jayron32 16:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Imzadi1979 comes into play here. There's nothing actionable in this thread as far as I can see.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but he didn't delete anything. He gave his opinion in a discussion. Are we now to expect to be dragged to ANI for giving opinions in discussions? --Jayron32 16:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The only contents of Portal:Badges was {{Badges}}. It never had any other content apart from a speedy deletion tag. I'm not sure exactly what the creator was trying to do there but it looked to me like an experiment with using the template, and hence a test page. It certainly didn't look like a portal. Even if it isn't a test page it certainly isn't any use to the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 18:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am considering a block for Spg1059-a6s for disruptive editing, including the creation of several inappropriate pages, the inappropriate filing of this ANI discussion, and comments like these: [117], [118], [119]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Spg1059-a6s is a new editor who is clearly clueless about how things work around here. As far as I can tell, this editor has never been welcomed to Wikipedia or offered any guidance on how we do things here. Given that the editor's clueless edits do not appear to be having any negative effect on any pages that readers might encounter, I don't think a preemptive block is warranted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They know enough about Wikipedia to post demands on ANI that two users be blocked for nominating their pages for deletion. If you want to give them some rope, go for it, but their edits have been almost exclusively disruptive so far. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Making an ANI post as an obviously new user with 20 edits is not a qualifier for competence and experience. The "disruption" you refer to is exceptionally petty, and they haven't even been given a chance to explain what they're even trying to do. Calm down. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stmky and attendance tables at 2020 Rugby Europe Championship

    I'm having some issues with User:Stmky at the 2020 Rugby Europe Championship article. There is a section in the article summarising all the attendance data for the tournament, but I feel this is a violation of WP:CRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS; however, when I have tried to remove this info, User:Stmky restores it with no comment. They have responded at the article talk page, but only after much cajoling and they still haven't provided a satisfactory response to my concerns. It is clear to me that they are not here to work collaboratively on the encyclopaedia as the aforementioned talk page post was their first on any form of talk page in more than two years editing here, and based on the content of that talk page message, I also believe they have issues of ownership of articles. Some input on this would be appreciated before I go absolutely nuts at the reluctance of WP:RU members to weigh in on the topic. – PeeJay 11:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A heads-up, or perhaps just an oddity

    I am not calling for any action, unless this behaviour rings a bell with anyone. I got an off-wiki email today from User:ARzip‬, asking me to browse and check Life imprisonment in Australia; a topic in which I have no interest at all, I don't seem even to have gnomed that page. ARzip has made precisely zero edits in English WP. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheARzip has edited User:ARzip's Talk Page: diff 1 and diff 2, and has made no other edits; which suggests that there may be more than something that is obvious to the eye. Narky Blert (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears they sent a bunch of e-mails to other users, four of which responded on the user talk page, and they immediately commented the responses out. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that may be the 3rd or 4th email I've had like that? all unconnected. I ignored the others, except for the one who was offering $ for assistance from someone with a high edit count. I was told the email addy of a team who are interested in that sort of thing, forwarded the email, and went back to doing something which felt more worthwhile. Narky Blert (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was one of ARzip's email recipients. On the off-chance that someone reading this doesn't know, it's unwise to reply to a WP email from someone you don't trust; if you do, the recipient has your email address. All the best, Miniapolis 23:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Miniapolis: Amen to that. Anyone mind if I block both their emails? Should these emails be forwarded to ArbCom?Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Were the e-mails complaining about edits made by Mwvr? Because that would seem to indicate that Mwvr isn't involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term genre warring at Swedish metal band Opeth articles

    (non-admin closure) User blocked for two weeks by Drmies. Amaury • 03:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Some IPs from Pasadena, Maryland, and the registered user Bravodeboer have been genre-warring over Opeth's genres for a year and a half, at least. Bravodeboer's first-ever edit was a complaint that Opeth's genres were wrong, but without reference to a published source. Much of Bravodeboer's work has been to change genres without citing a reference. Bravodeboer continued genre warring at Morningrise and Orchid (album) after two IPs were blocked. The Maryland IP Special:Contributions/71.127.149.106 was blocked most recently for this, while the related IP Special:Contributions/71.244.236.102 was blocked a few days ago for the same thing, and then jumped in for more genre warring today. To me, it looks like a violation of WP:MULTIPLE but without creating a second username as sockpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Seriously, can we just get rid of music genres? Nothing's worth this shit. EEng 16:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support keeping sourced genres. That'd trim close to 90% of them. Tiderolls 17:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, EEng. I always appreciate a good derailing. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm serious. It would solve the problem for you and, moreover, for generations unborn. EEng 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support the idea getting rid of music genres from infoboxes altogether. It's like the Judean Popular People's Front vs the People's Front of Judea. NO, this band isn't a classical black death melodic goth metal outfit, they're (pick any other combination)! WP:WikiProject Classical Music many years ago decided that assigning musical genres to people or pieces was more trouble than it was worth, and was nothing but a source of futile arguments. Narky Blert (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two week block for disruptive editing applied. Bravodeboer, the next one will be indefinite. I'd insert some joke involving "extremely low" or some assertion regarding the difference between blackened goth metal and gothicized black metal, but this genre shit is just too tiresome. See, it's making a dedicated admin like me use foul language, like "blackened". I sorry. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lea Tahuhu

    Handled by Drmies. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi. Please can someone revdel the recent IP edits and summaries at Lea Tahuhu's article? For example, stuff like this Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 22:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed. Thank you for sorting. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 22:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Andybasil

    The user refuses to formally declare his COI or stop editing EIFA International School London in violation of WP:COI and WP:PAID despite my {{Welcome-COI}} notice on the user's talk page and his admission that his wife works for the article's subject in this edit. See also the discussion at User talk:Jeff G.#EIFA International School London.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's a bit early to say that he refused to do anything. He asked for help, which seems to indicate a willingness to comply with our policies once they've been explained. 331dot looks to have explained the situation, so maybe we should see what happens next. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't refused to do anything!? I don't have a conflict of interest. I just wanted to learn how to use wiki and chose a subject matter I know something about. I've been transparent and honest. Why would I attempt to write about something I have no knowledge of? I also edited a Jaguar cars page but have noticed that has been deleted.. so I guess ths is all a learning curve. Frankly I'm very annoyed that jeff has taken this aggressive attitude towards me. Please delete the EIFA edits as you see fit. As for me, this is not the friendly environment I hoped it was and want nothing more to do with wiki editing, if this is the result. Jeff, grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybasil (talk • contribs) 08:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Andybasil: Please sign your posts. I'm sorry if I was unclear or overly strong in my use of the word "refuses". You claimed that c:File:Eifa International School London.jpg was your "own work" when you cross-wiki uploaded it for use here. What gave you the right to make that claim, and to license the file freely?   — Jeff G. ツ 14:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jeff G.: 1. I would sign my posts if I knew how to so kindly stop pointing out my errors without also providing the solution 2. I quote; "You claimed that c:File:Eifa International School London.jpg was your "own work" when you cross-wiki uploaded it for use here".. Yes, and I also ASKED for help, BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE WHAT I WAS DOING. Condemning people who make mistakes, especially new 'editors' who realise they have made a mistake and ASK for help, is not clever and not acceptable. You clearly wouldn't talk to me in person with that attitude so why should the anonymity of the internet be any different? There is enough abuse and rudeness floating about the internet as it is, without displaying it on a site such as Wiki. As a result of this unfortunate turn of events, I am remaining a 'member' only so long as this 'conversation' has breath to continue, after which time I shall cancel my account and resume life in the real world. Please, consider your tone, your response and the consequence of your accusational attitude. Hopefully I have even discovered how to sign this post.. User:Andybasil

    Dey Subrata

    Dey subrata blocked for 72 hours (AE block). Violating what vandalism is not again was the final straw. El_C 15:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Reverts my edit on North East Delhi riots by claiming that I provided "misleading edit summary" and I am engaging in "edit war"[120] when I never made a revert on this article and my edit summary was perfect.
    • Calls out a politician named Kapil Mishra on talk page, blaming him for the violence by claiming "the person who is cause of this violence", disregarding voices raised by most editors against this POV pushing.[121]
    • Leaves a note on my talk page claiming I am edit warring,[122] because I reverted him for the first time and told him to get consensus.[123]
    • He then reverted my edit claiming: "NPOV VIOLATION, MISLEADING AND DISRUPTIVE EDITS"
    • Leaves another note on my talk page saying that I am doing what is "considered a vandalism" and I am trying to "play over smart here", and also that if I don't reform then I will "get blocked again, and this will be permament"[124]

    Aside this, he made a revert on another article, falsely claiming that the POV section is being "restored removed section, inappropriate summary for wp:or" when the section was removed correctly weeks ago for WP:OR and other reasons per talk page.[125]

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

    Evidence of battleground mentality and POV pushing from this editor is clearly high. Some action would be appreciated here. El C what do you say? Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 11:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Aman.kumar.goel, Did you discuss the concerns with Dey, before escalating it to ANI ? Please share that diff. It is clear that you seem to disagree with his opinion on these content disputes, what do you expect ANI to do in this dispute ? --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can another administrator institute 1RR + Enforced BRD, matters seem to be getting a bit out of hand. I would do it myself but I've edited the page many times (albeit no dispute as such) but my reading of WP:INVOLVED tells me I should err on the safe side here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not tried any other resolution since the problem is serious enough to bring it to ANI and also the past history. These are the very conduct issues which are not tolerated in a subject such as this, and probably anywhere else. Dey Subrata has been warned enough times before for these same problems before too.[126] and he even had "final warning"[127] over his conduct issues after a recent ANI report.[128] Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 15:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dey subrata, before any possible sanctions are enforced against you, you have the opportunity to respond (briefly, please), which I highly recommend you do. El_C 15:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion should be Aman.kumar.goel your edits and the warning given to you. You are properly warned. Your first edit here with edit summary Per clear consensus on. This were already a violation per Edit war, as the the photographs removed several times by some user. There was a huge attempts going on to remove vital important about Kapil Mishra's provocative speech. You were warned with a soft warning for it. But immediately within four minute you reverted again with this edit. So explain this desperate move along with vandalising by removing an important material along with adding category Aam Admi Party, how and why. Again explain how and when you see a clear consensus as you edit summary says. Second, the consensus seems keeping the photo, as Kapil Mishra directly is the result of the topic and important for the subject as reader would like to know the person referring. Again, you said, while doing edit war, for the second time, Get consensus first, against the clear consensus on talk page, Question for you, "Is the discussion going on in the talk page or not? If yes, why do you revert the materials multiple times, rather participating in the discussion. You attempts are also can be seen that you already know that you will be warned for such, but still you attempted in the name of consensus to save yourself to get warned. And the consensus is about removal of the pictue not addition, so you should have participated in the discussion rather this disruptive edits and edit war. Dey subrata (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The thread got closed while I drafted. I dont disagree with the WP:NOTVANDAL block but since I have spent time in drafting my observation, I will post it anyway.

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

    Accusations of deceptive practices, long term

    This has been going on for months, with a user/users adopting multiple accounts to add accusations, without reliable sources. Articles need protection and possible action against the most active accounts. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Intervention requested

    @OhKayeSierra the user was banned for one day by the other Admin already. The reason for ban was "threatening"

    There are no edits, deleted contributions, filter log hits, or blocks for that IP. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be about a conflict on Ukrainian Wikipedia. See uk:Полуніна Олена Борисівна. The IP was blocked on uk.wiki and hasn't edit here. Dzvinok: we can't do anything about Ukrainian Wikipedia disputes here. This forum is only for English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=943241321"