Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Calling me "bonkers" and "shitty"

{{atop|User indeffed, page salted. They are free to request an unblock, which will be given due consideration if there's signs that adhering to policy will become a priority. El_C 22:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)}}

{{Userlinks|Prodicred}}

Hello all, this user is a single purpose account that has been around since 2017. They are singularly focused on creating an article for a seemingly not notable producer. The article has been A7ed at multiple titles throughout the years. This can be seen at the users talk page. Recently DiMuro Beats was salted due to the constant recreation, so they just created it at DiMuroBeats instead. We should probably put an end to this. StaticVapor message me! 22:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for creation or the help desk. Nothing here requires admin intervention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)}}

I created a page in English language : Planète Rap

I want to remove the draft: in the title.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Plan%C3%A8te_Rap

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.97.221.170 (talk • contribs)

:IP users cannot directly create articles; you may submit it for review using Articles for Creation. By the way, this isn't really the proper forum for this sort of request, in the future, try the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::And even then this draft would not be accepted because it's overtly promotional. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|ANI does not settle content disputes. You feel that Nyttend's photographs do not accurately represent the NRHP buildings whilst Nyttends feels to the contrary. There are t/p(s) to settle that between yourselves and failing so, other dispute-resolution mechanisms of which ANI ain't one. ∯WBG^converse 07:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC) }}

Hi, I am posting here now to try to beat User:Nyttend to it, I guess. A running issue has been their usurping the role of NRHP list-articles and individual articles in collecting photos by contributors of buildings and other historic resources listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A few other contributors have occasionally posted pics which accidentally were not of the intended subject, and there has not been any problem following from that being figured out and fixed by removal of the pic. And of course I am grateful and appreciative of new photos being collected by this editor. However non-encyclopedic photos are not helpful, and there is a lot of animosity pretty much precluding private discussion to settle any new editing issue. The last time I tried to raise an issue for discussion with them, they immediately instead opened an ANI proceeding (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive997#Doncram, 2018-11-28, calling me tendentious and seeking to have me banned or blocked I guess. The proceeding did attract some interest that way, actually, but mainly led to a RFC about the editing topic. I was not happy about the way the RFC was opened and ran but I have abided by its decision.

In a series of edits in October 2018, which I noticed only much later, Nyttend re-installed non-encyclopedic photos and, in edit summaries, complained about me. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Bourbon_County%2C_Kentucky&type=revision&diff=864935806&oldid=840834241 "why was this user unbannerd?"], restored [:File:Bayless Quarters through the trees.jpg]. Which i had previously removed to the article i created for the property, noting there that the house behind the trees was "A building on the property, not the National Register-listed quarters", which has not been disputed. I could provide more evidence of animosity in edit summaries.

Just now I noticed a few more suspect photo additions.

• About LaGrange (Harris Crossroads, North Carolina), Nyttend just added a photo, then in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALaGrange_%28Harris_Crossroads%2C_North_Carolina%29&type=revision&diff=895555003&oldid=596369400 this edit] I moved a pic of a modern house apparently mistakenly believed to be the historic house to the Talk page, and I explained there why I identify it as mistaken. I noticed it because this was an article I created long ago. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Vance_County,_North_Carolina&diff=prev&oldid=895555311 this edit] i removed it from the corresponding NRHP county list-article.
• About Dr. J. A. Savage House, Nyttend just added a photo of a vacant lot to the infobox, which I just removed out of it. And in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_Franklin_County%2C_North_Carolina&type=revision&diff=895556259&oldid=895555655 this edit I just removed it from the corresponding NRHP county list-article].

My usual practice when I have come across these is to remove the photo from the NRHP county list-article. Where the pic was added to a NRHP infobox in a separate article about the site, I have removed it from the infobox, because it is not a pic of the historic resource, but often/usually left it elsewhere in the article. Perhaps it would be better to remove the photo, obviously non-encyclopedic, to a Talk page instead, and I have a few times done that. Where there was not yet a separate article about the site, I have usually created the article and placed the photo outside the infobox.

I suppose it could be appropriate to have an RFC on this editing topic. It seems pretty obviously nonsensical to me, though, to even have a big discussion about it, because all the photos do is prove that one editor visited the site. They are suitable for a private website of their own photos, proving they visited various places. The photos provide no encyclopedic merit, and they discourage collection and submission of photos by other editors of the real things. Editors do seek to get missing photos in photo drives and all year round. Editors elsewhere do get around to finding suitable old photos and arranging for copyright exemptions where necessary (for one example, a historic photo was recently added to Marion Allsup House.) I don't exactly see how to pose an RFC question. Perhaps the community could just share, here, some views and settle the question, if it is one, of whether photos of not-the-subject-at-all should be accepted in place of the intended photos. --Doncram (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

P.S. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANyttend&type=revision&diff=895560660&oldid=895542349 Notice of this ANI proceeding] given. --Doncram (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment -- The banner at the top of the page states:- {{tq|This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems.}} ∯WBG^converse 06:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• :I am closing this but (anybody other than Doncram), remains free to reopen this. ∯WBG^converse 06:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

More importantly: can someone explain how the above request for sanctions is not boomerangable? For one thing, A running issue has been their usurping the role of NRHP list-articles and individual articles in collecting photos by contributors of buildings and other historic resources listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). I quote WP:NPA — one kind of personal attack is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki." When someone has been the focus of an arbitration case for his failure to adhere to expected standards of behavior and decorum, and when he's twice been blocked for personal attacks in other settings, why do we tolerate such a personal attack? Moreover, apparently I uploaded a picture of the wrong building — in what context is this even remotely appropriate to raise as a reason for sanctions, and how can this possibly be a good-faith accusation? When editors engage in prohibited behavior for yet another time, we don't merely say "go talk about this somewhere else": we enforce their absence. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{re|Nyttend}} I know you're probably having strong feelings about this but closing this and resolving this between each other is better than having the community come at both of you with pitchforks (we don't do it that often!). I do not disagree that Doncram might have overstepped somewhere causing you to retaliate — but the personal attack is more of a subjective analysis of your actions (maybe skewed) rather than how it might have actually occurred. While it's not a great thing to do, it's also what their perspective on the matter is, not much of a personal attack that way. The editor in question failed to follow good-faith, so you can assume good-faith here and talk it out - ANI is a point of no-return. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

{{ab}}

can't we remove unsourced details or unclear details and all dead links from the article? can you check this article? Jiho Lee

:it is made by thai fans but don't have too much details about his info. all links are dead, can't see any ref. about texts that they wrote about him in the article if it's real details and ref. links or not, they said this korean model is working in Thailand/Korea, so they dont have this page in Thai, and Korean page is also translated and use all dead links from this page too. can you check this article and this editor? {{User|Atlantic306}} because he said i can't do it, and always undo all, thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• There was no need to take this to ANI, the above editor slashed the article removing all the references and nearly all the content before prodding it. I deprodded it because it had claims of notability and suggested AFD but he then slashed nearly all the content again which I reverted but probably should have discussed it instead of just sending a template warning about removing references but the main point was that there should be an attempt to fix the references before removing them and I wanted to try to fix them but he keeps removing them, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Well, Ive just checked and most of the refs do actually work if you press the archive links but they don't seem very reliable apart from one which may be but is a dead link. Anyway the above editor has now opened an AFD on the article which I'll leave to others to decide. Perhaps this can be closed now as the AFD seems the best solution, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

at first time i removed some of unsourced detail and unclear details that we dont know about him, who is he right? so i dont need to remove all but this article just too short with unsourced/unclear texts. anyway if you disagree with me why you dont undo some of it that you think i was wrong, but you always undo all, or you should looking for source that make you sure about the texts that they wrote in the article, not only always undo and undo all by your opinion only.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

this Burmese editor {{user|MyanmarBBQ}} always like to use BAD WORDS (such as Stupid) and not polite for his reasons when he undo or remove other editor's edits. can you checking this editor? if it's not under the wiki rules, thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment This editor did WP:IDONTLIKE edit wars/content removed at :Haruehun Airry, without reason and citing a reliable source. And also many other Thailand related articles. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:: {{ping|MyanmarBBQ}} That is not a good reason to call someone stupid. Natureium (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::: No! bro! I did not call "stupid" on :Haruehun Airry article, please check [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haruehun_Airry&action=history]. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:he called me as Stupid on New Thai Queen page and also called other editors is Stupid in other pages, pls. check his contributions {{userlinks|MyanmarBBQ}}, thanks you.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:: {{ping|MyanmarBBQ}}it's not wars that i remove some of detail that unclear and unsoured, so i and other editors put the reasons why we remove some of deatial and ref. on Haruehun Airry already after you ask.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Yes bro! i called you as stupid on the queen article, because you did removed sourced personal info of the queen. I know my word that didn't seem very civil. sorry for that! I'll civilly edit on the future! And thanks for giving reasons on the article. Cheers. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|MyanmarBBQ}} on that page i didnt remove without reason, i put the reasons already that it's UNSOURCED, and on Thai page didnt put this detail yet. so you saw the reason alreaday but you still undo it. anyway i didnt angry you but i just want admin. checking your.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::I've one-time undo at the article!!! And please see the queen's birth date source [https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/from-air-stewardess-to-general-to-royalty-thailand-queen-suthida-11496884 here], Channel New Asia is reliable source. Thanks

:::I'm used to broken English, but from both of you this is more than a bit hard to follow. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::they didnt put the ref. before i remove, and on thai page no one is confrim this and put this detail yet. thanks.--Evrdkmkm (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::Now, some senior editor has been updated the info and added The NY Times source! MyanmarBBQ (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:Evrdkmkm you did not try to talk to MyanmarBBQ or even post a notice on his talk page about this dicussion. This should be your first step, not your last. You should not have brought this to WP:ANI. 209.152.44.201 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

FTR, {{U|Acroterion}} and {{U|The Bushranger}} gave MyanmarBBQ some civility warnings and advice half a month ago. Samsara 20:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:And {{U|Drmies}} did so a month before that. Samsara 20:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What User:The Blade of the Northern Lights said. If the two of you are going to be editing the English Wikipedia, both of you should be very careful before you post--lest it be misunderstood. MyanmarBBQ, do not use the word "bro" unless you are talking to your friend, for instance. That edit war on that Airry article was interesting since the article is a mess and the edit warring back and forth was even messier: both editors are at fault, not just for edit warring but also for being just absolutely lousy at communicating--I think Evrdkmkm needs to say more in their edit summaries, and Myanmar should probably say a lot less. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much...{{U|Drmies}} and all editor per above, I did undo or revert with Good faith please see my contributions! And proposer said "He didn't angry me". Please don’t bite me :'( , I’m a newbie! I'll careful edit in future! God bless you all MyanmarBBQ (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:: Check update case [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Jiho_Lee 1], and proposer's talk page, Now, he has warning and notice letter by senior editor! MyanmarBBQ (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result = I have read through most of this, and it is rather hard to follow, but I'm going to close this as no consensus for any sort of 1-way IBAN at this time. There was an early support for such a measure, but following several responses from Netoholic, and additional commentary, support for such a measure has evaporated; most of the recent opposes have swung this discussion in a different direction. I can't find a consensus from this to impose any sanction. --Jayron32 17:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)}}

User:Netoholic appears to make serial edits (flagging notability, nominating for AfD) based on his personal interpretation that they can ignore the notability criteria set out explicitly in WP:PROF because they perceive those to be in conflict with "core principles" regarding notability.

User:Netoholic has been told repeatedly by me ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&oldid=895003501 here]) and other users (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Kolodziejski&oldid=895011149 here]) that this is not the way to go about things, that if they perceive policies/guidelines to be in conflict, they should start a discussion on the appropriate pages and try to establish a consensus, in particular since WP:POINT is explicitly discouraged.

Their reaction was to call for the next AfD based on their criteria ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Kolodziejski&oldid=895011149 this one]), and later to single-handedly and without even mentioning the change on the relevant talk page, let alone establish a consensus, make a change to WP:PROF which supports their side of the argument ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)&diff=prev&oldid=895009661 here]).

There are several discussions that have been going on or are going on, as well as several tags and reverts, all based on User:Netoholic's view that they need not abide by WP:PROF, e.g.

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Kolodziejski
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_May_1#Ana_Ach%C3%BAcarro
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ana_Achúcarro
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ursula_Gibson&diff=prev&oldid=894699310 Re-tagging Ursula Gibson]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ursula_Gibson&oldid=894666842 Primary sources tag Ursula Gibson]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ana_Ach%C3%BAcarro&diff=prev&oldid=894834521 Notability Tag AnaAchúcarro]

All the problematic actions, in addition to other controversial actions such as a proposal to move Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Essays/Primer_for_AfD,_AfC_and_PROD out of the project's own space without prior consultation of project participants, involve Wikipedia articles about women, in particular women scientists.

Given the level of activity, the disruption caused by this is not likely to go away on its own. In the course of the discussions, the user had WP:PROF explained to them several times, and a number of users have told the user that they perceive their behaviour as Wikilawyering or bordering on harrassment (notably in this AfD). Could someone please look into this? Markus Pössel (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• All of these articles were created by {{u|Jesswade88}}, who Netoholic seems to be targeting with these tendentious nominations and tagging due to recent press coverage. I'd propose a one-way interaction ban with Jesswade88, including a prohibition on tagging or nominating pages created by her for deletion. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:* That sounds like a reasonable course of action. It would allow User:Netoholic to continue his positive contributions to topics such as superhero movies or collectible card games, and relieve Jesswade88 of the burden of specific targeting. Markus Pössel (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::* Real elitist of you, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Markus+P%C3%B6ssel&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end= you've only made 14 edits to the main article space this year]. -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:* Yup. GMG^talk 15:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:*Agreed with those above that this warrants a one-way interaction ban of Netoholic with Jesswade88. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:* I am also inclined to agree. But this and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)&diff=895009661&oldid=891188144 this] (discussion) seem like escalation that would not be covered by an IB. --JBL (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:* I'm not sure what triggered this "campaign", but it's a timesink and should stop: poor AfD nominations appealed to DRV, attempting to change a policy page without consensus, nominating moving a WikiProject page out of the WikiProject space without even bring it up with the WikiProject first... this is all disruptive and is requiring a bunch of other editors to take time to clean up and otherwise deal with. This should stop, like, today. I was hoping this ANI thread would bring a response of "OK, sorry, I'll slow down", but it hasn't, so unless this stops immediately, I would support Joe's proposal. Leviv ich 17:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Updated !vote: I said "unless this stops immediately", and it has stopped, which is good enough for me. On-boarding community feedback is all I ever ask of my colleagues. So long as it's not a repeated problem, I see no reason for a sanction. (Plus, sanctions make more work for other editors.) Leviv ich 13:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:*I support such an IBAN, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:*Support one-way IBAN. Beyond the individual articles, the kind of behavior exhibited here by Netoholic creates a toxic editing environment that is the opposite of what we should be aiming for. We should take all necessary steps to prevent it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:*Support one-way IBAN & endore fully David Eppstein's comment. Netoholic is very obviously causing distress to Jess Wade, who simply wants to be left in peace to write new articles. And Netoholic is creating a toxic environment for all those interested in Wikipedia's gender imbalance. Whilst acknowledging WP:NPA it is nevertheless the case that Netoholic's behaviour is pretty much indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling; and although I will extent WP:AGF to Netoholic, this toxicity needs to stop. If there are notability issues with Jess's articles, the community is large enough to address these without Netoholic's close policing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:*Support based on Netoholic's response below, which makes it clear this is unlikely to stop otherwise; following an editor around to "clean up" after them like this requires that there be a clear problem with their edits that the community would generally agree on. Obviously, going by the response in every venue where this has been raised, that's not the case here. (Full disclosure: I have had unpleasant disagreements with Netoholic in the past.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:*{{rpa}}

:*Support one way interaction ban Per User:Netoholic/Admins : "{{xt| I respect someone greatly who takes a short newbie article and improves it at least to a good stub level, or maybe even a decent redirect. Slapping {{tlx|delete}} or {{tlx|vfd}} on an article that was made only a short time ago is an insult to the author. Encouraging improvement is a more respectable stance.}}" Ironic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::* As you can see in the above cases, AfD was a last resort when every attempt to place cleanup tags and to point out the lack of WP:INDEPENDENT sources was removed within minutes. The problematic editing environment was due to popularizing a fresh stub/C-class page. Something about that needs to change. I'm stopping my involvement, but the problem will still remain. -- Netoholic @ 23:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:*Support per David Eppstein, Tagishsimon, Aquillion, and Ritchie3333. Gamaliel (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• There are two separate, but connected, issues here. One is Netoholic's recent actions, the other is the Clarice Phelps situation and actions from Rama, Jess Wade, and others. They need to be dealt with separately. Whether intended or not, Netoholic's actions towards Jess Wade are unacceptable and must stop, and to that end I support to proposed one-way interaction ban. However, I do not think that is sufficient, judging from the AfD and recent WT:PROF posts. Netoholic can easily target other bios of academics and make the same disruptive claims such as that fellowships in learned societies aren't evidence of notability unless they are posted on the front page of the New York Times (yes, exaggeration, but you get the point). Is a Nobel Prize evidence of impact in their field if the only citation supporting it is to the Nobel Prize website? I'd say yes, but I suspect Netoholic would argue. I suspect that a broader topic ban is or will be needed here. EdChem (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:* Despite Netoholic's statement and partial apology (below) I still support a one-way IBAN with JessWade or content she creates. But to go further, a TBAN on editing all academia-related articles could well be on the cards if Netoholic ignores consensus and advice, and continues to push, either at AFD or elsewhere, what seems to be promotion of a unilateral interpretation of WP:NPROF which does not have support from the community. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:* There seems to be a consensus for imposing a one-way IBAN, and Netoholic as accepted it below. Can somebody please close this section? This is an ongoing problem, so we should wait for the discussion below on a separate topic ban to finish. – Joe (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::* Per the Back to the subject section below - there is no consensus for an IBAN at the moment. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::*What is the procedure, then? From what I can see, the three administrators involved in this discussion all support the one-way IBAN. It is true, as you say, that a number of non-administrator users have stated their opposition. So do we need consensus among the administrators themselves or among all the users who have participated in the discussion? Markus Pössel (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:*Note the (same) discussion continues below. ——SerialNumber54129 12:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Support per David Eppstein, Tagishsimon, Aquillion, and Ritchie3333. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It goes without saying that no one expects a full-fledged article to be perfect from the start. But likewise, when a new article that lacks independent sourcing is tagged {{tl|notability}}, {{tl|third-party}}, or likewise, those tags should be retained as long as they reflect valid concerns. That's not exactly been happening lately in User:Jesswade88's brand-new WIR articles, which are written and posted on twitter to a sizable following immediately. If admins want to check those page histories, you'll see me tagging for non-trivial concerns, and then the tags are removed immediately, usually without addressing the concern at all. Jesswade88 removes a lot of them, but isn't the only one - her posts get a lot of attention. There are two interpretations for why the tags are being removed - I (and others) could be just wrong about the concerns.... or her following feels a sense of pride for these articles and that visible cleanup tags detract from the experience. Overall though, her most recent article at least has had a lot of the concerns taken care of, and other editors have found at least some independent sourcing. But perhaps it all points to a change which should be made in how Jesswade88 popularizes these daily articles. Maybe create them in Draft: space and do twitter posts linking there, inviting others to make improvements without the immediate pressure of them being "live" pages? Or write them and ask for help from the WikiProject WIR folks to do a quick assessment to make sure its decently "ready to go", then popularize it a few days later? The recent "media coverage" with regards Jesswade88's Clarice Phelps article is I think is strong evidence that her current method can backfire. And I wasn't even involved in that one. So yeah, I guess admins could IBAN me (after only about two days since I even learned of her existence)... I think that just encourages even more of a bubble around her daily project. Wikipedia would be better of if instead we were forced to work on articles together. I'd like to note that though I wasn't named by her, [https://twitter.com/jesswade/status/1123547261928202240 she has targetted me to her followers] outside of Wikipedia. I'll be on the losing end of this no matter what. -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::You are not addressing the main problem here. You flagged and nominated for deletion articles that are considerably better than the average new WP article, and which pass a specific notability criterion defined for their class (academic biographies). Instead of abiding by WP:PROF, you followed your own personal interpretation for why they should be deleted, which interpretation runs counter to what is explicitly stated in WP:PROF. In addition, in the AfD cases, you did not perform proper WP:BEFORE, detailing your reservations on the talk pages and leaving people time to react. Do you really have no idea at all why such behaviour is seen as problematic here on Wikipedia? Markus Pössel (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::You are not addressing the main problem here. You are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Markus_P%C3%B6ssel&offset=&limit=500&target=Markus+P%C3%B6ssel an incredibly infrequent]] Wikipedian who showed up on May 1 and have been stalking any of my edits that come in contact with with WIR content. I also note that your last major spree of activity was in October 2018 and revolved around JessWade/WIR content as well (Donna Strickland). You're a twitter attack dog, and this ANI thread is just part of that. -- Netoholic @ 16:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: I don't edit Wikipedia in the day (I have a job) so didn't know you were the editor who tagged it. >> I didn't 'target' you to any followers, I simply commented on how ridiculous it is that within moments of the page being shared, you'd claimed a Professor at MIT wasn't notable, then flagged it for deletion. As for creating as drafts - I'm quite sure the biographies I write don't need help. This isn't about my 'pride', so please don't be so patronising. I remove your relentless criticisms because the the tags are inappropriate, and you only seem to put them on pages about women scientists. Jesswade88 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::Please comply with WP:CIV, Netoholic, and cut out the ad hominem, insinuations and insults. Markus Pössel (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::This user is just wasting people's time. They are nominating c class articles for deletion and when multiple experienced editors point out the irrationality of these nominations then this is repeatedly ignored. I have no idea of the editors motives but they are making this user entirely unconstructive. The editor seems annoyed that no one is taking his/her point of view seriously. Whereas the exact opposite is true, they are not appreciating that their nominations are unanimously agreed as lacking any credible supporting evidence. Surely if you have just had a SNOW Keep then it shows poor judgement and then very very poor judgement to then demonstrate the same poor judgement on a similar article. I strongly support the idea that this user should be obliged to not edit articles relating to @JessWade (and/or even women in general). (Note the revenge-like move proposal at the Women in Red project). I think and hope that they will find that they are better appreciated in other areas of the project. Oh and I do have a COI (I support Women in Red, my mother was not a bloke) Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::Generally speaking, having an opinion about the article's topic is not considered sufficient to qualify as a WP:COI (if it were, most articles would be wastelands, since the most dedicated editors on a topic usually have some opinion on that topic.) See WP:COINOTBIAS. A COI means something like having a personal connection to the article's subject or some direct personal stake in their success; simply wanting them to succeed (or fail, for that matter) is insufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I will say sorry, I'll slow down, as Levivich suggested. In fact, I'll go further and say I will stop paying any more attention to Jesswade88's daily articles. I have only interacted with her articles for the last 2 days, and it was not specifically targeting her, but simply being one of many she drew attention to those articles by her posts via social media like many other editors. I trust those editors to help her improve these articles. But I would suggest to her and those editors that if someone raises an issue, places a cleanup message on the article... rather than react as you have as if it is an insult, that you AGF, relax, and really focus on making articles better quality rather than attack the person raising the concern - even if you think they are wrong. And please be responsible with your comments on twitter, Jesswade88. While you may not have intended it, you have caused a dog pile against me. -- Netoholic @ 22:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:What comes to mind is that Wikipedia is in the real world. Last night, I was in a pub with 60 other people, most of whom are on Facebook, many of whom are on Twitter. I would hazard a guess that the odds that anyone except me had ever edited Wikipedia are approximately zero. The systemic bias is very real, and this is one way it manifests itself - the cross section of editors commenting on Twitter is not going to have the same demographics as that on an ANI thread. You can't really have a go at Jess for expressing an opinion that lots of people happen to agree with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:: FWIW I've just blocked User:Lancewiggs (here for 6 years, 7 edits) indefinitely for accusing Netoholic of being misogynist and associated with Nazism, and have removed their post. That, unfortunately, is the sort of thing that gets imported from social media. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Netoholic, Jess Wade has not precipitated a pile-on on you by anything she has done on Twitter. You have brought this on yourself. We need to be very very clear about this. Jess Wade has the freedom to express her dismay at the treatment her articles have received. Wikipedians experienced enough to look through contribution and article histories have the freedom to express their views based on what they see. Your attempt here to police her twitter output is as unwelcome and as in fact more inappropriate than was your policing of her on-wiki work.

:::And that sentiment goes for you, too, Black Kite, to the extent that any of your post about Lancewiggs and your speculation on the connection between social media and that user's actions pertains to Jess Wade. She is the aggrieved party in this matter, and any suggestion that she should shoulder any responsibility for the actions of anyone who has involved themselves in this matter, or curtail her freedom to talk about whatever she damn well feels like talking about, is repugnant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Again, User:Netoholic's description that they merely placed tags and pointed out problems, and that the reaction of other users to this was because those users felt insulted by this very action, conveniently leaves out the facts that (a) they did not follow key parts of WP:BEFORE but jumped to AfD after less than 14 hours, and (b) that in their argument, they deliberately ignored that the articles met the criteria explicitly set out in WP:PROF, claiming that because in their personal opinion there was a fundamental conflict between WP:PROF and general criteria for notability that they could just ignore WP:PROF. Several users pointed this out to User:Netoholic; it played a key role both for people removing the notability tags and for the two SNOW closures of the AfDs. That User:Netoholic leaves out those key facts makes for a significantly distorted version of what really happened. Markus Pössel (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::::{{reply to|Tagishsimon}} No-one is curtailing anyone's freedom to talk about anything, other than curtailing Lancewiggs' ability to post here, given his totally unnecessary personal attack. And no-one is suggesting that Jesswade is responsible for his edits, either. However, I don't think that speculating that an editor who hadn't edited for 7 months came here to deliver that attack on the basic of the issue blowing up in social media is unreasonable. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::{{reply to|Black Kite}} Netoholic is seeking to do exactly that in their comment "And please be responsible with your comments on twitter, Jesswade88. While you may not have intended it, you have caused a dog pile against me". Your FWIW can be mistaken for endorsing Netoholic's policing of Jess Wade's twitter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::: {{reply to|Tagishsimon}} It certainly wasn't meant to do that. Once something appears in the social media realm, it doesn't matter how it got there. Jesswade was not responsible for Lancewiggs' edits, however Lancewiggs became aware of the issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{ping|Netoholic}} This primarily relates to your first message, I'm posting it here to reduce the chance it will be lost. I don't really understand your reasoning. If you believe Jesswade88 or others from Twitter are editing the article after creation inappropriately such as removing cleanup tags when the reason for the cleanup is either obvious or discussed on the talk page, and has not been resolved, or otherwise that the articles have problems that need to be resolved or should be in draft space; then there are ways these concerns could be dealt with. Most likely this would entail first talking to Jesswade88 and if the problems persist, bringing it to wider attention in an appropriate place. Perhaps even ANI. WP:AFD is clearly not the place to deal with these problems, that should only be for articles that you genuinely feel do not meet our WP:Notability requirements (GNG or subject specific) based on the available evidence and generally also some basic research if necessary. WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. If you keep bringing articles to AfD and these keep being kept, this generally means you're doing something wrong. In other words, if you had been smarter about how you handled you concerns and assuming they are correct, we may now be discussing them here on ANI instead of discussing your behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Nil Einne}} I've only taken two articles to AfD, and I did a pretty thorough WP:BEFORE check ahead of time. I'm pretty diligent and resourceful, and could not find WP:INDEPENDENT sources for them. I have no intention of further AfDs or even interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles after this ANI closes. I've learned a lesson from this. -- Netoholic @ 04:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Just to re-iterate, no, you demonstrably did not comply with WP:BEFORE e.g. in the case of WP:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_Kolodziejski: C2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." – you nominated the article for AfD less than 14 hours after it was created. C3 "try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page" – you did not address your concerns on the article's talk page, even though there was a small discussion about notability issues already there. It's great that you're learning from this; re-reading what WP:BEFORE should probably be a part of this. Markus Pössel (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: Full context of WP:BEFORE C3: {{tq|try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{tl|notability}}}} . Which you know I did. Why'd you misquote the line? -- 06:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:I've reviewed Jess's posts on Twitter and there is nothing untoward about them. Stop attempting to deflect valid criticism. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Which this isn't directly related to Netoholic, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about these creations. I am very much in support of this effort to create more biographies of notable women, but from what I can tell at RSN, it's looking like the creator of the article was the first to claim that Phelps was the first black woman to help discover an element. This, combined with other misunderstandings of either Wikipedia policy (verifiability, synth, OR, notability, off-wiki canvassing) or the United States academic system (claiming that a 29-year-old postdoc is a tenured professor), have me getting worried. I don't want to start fact checking the other 300 articles started by this editor, but I'm starting to think that this may be necessary. Natureium (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:Thanks for your evidence-free assertions, Natureium. We'll get back to you. We've just been through a whole thread on the close policing of Jess Wade, and here you are, popping up just as the dust settles, suggesting that that's exactly what is required. smh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::Jess Wade has had 8 rticles deleted out of 592 created since 28-09-2017. 1.5 years is probably a long enough time period for the community to evaluate her input, and the indication is that the community does not share your 'concern'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::: Do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just trying to be rude? Natureium (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: {{reply to|Natureium}} Yes. Whatever community sanction is determined for Netoholic should be applied to you too. You're cut from exactly the same cloth, and seemingly incapable of seeing that your "but I'm starting to think that this may be necessary" is wildly offensive, is not supported by the statistic I constructively adduced, and per my comments lower down, might as well apply to you in a motes & beams fashion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Tagishsimon}} How would you preferred she phrase that idea so as to not be wildly offensive? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::{{reply to|Barkeep49}} Per the instructions at the top of this page, include diffs demonstrating the problem. Don't denigrate editors by making evidence-free sweeping assertions; especially from within a glass house. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks {{u|Tagishsimon}} for the reply. I was unsure if it was the phrasing, the lack of diffs, or both, which were upsetting you. Now that I know it's the lack of diffs, could I trouble you to post the diff which enumerates the 4 problems you've found with Heather Wakelee? I looked in the edit history and on the (currently non-existant) talk page and didn't see anything. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::That's a hypocritical garbage gripe, considering you made your own assertions without providing any diffs. Grandpallama (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::I take your point, Barkeep49, but no. If you have a look through you'll spot three sentences in which four assertions are made; none of the sentences are referenced. References for other sentences may cover these assertions; who knows. Much the same attaches to Jess's assertions. The article lacks defaultsort and authority control, both of which are dealt with in the MoS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::What I see are two women who are attempting to bring more coverage to women in STEM fields. There's no reason that despite this shared area of interest that one, or both, can't criticize the content of the other in order to increase the quality of the encyclopedia. This is qualitatively different than nominating clearly notable people for deletion - what Netoholic did. Instead of going to deletion, he should taken to the talk page to discuss why his improvement tags should not have been removed or if it was across too many articles to hold simultaneous discussions gone to BLPN to raise the issue. I don't think he and Natureium are are at all cut from the same cloth. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::I have now looked at the four assertions made without citation at the article's talk page and found all of them to be compliant with requirements around sourcing, though one assertion was incorrect by a year which I've now corrected. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::::: I'll ignore the personal attacks, and list some examples. The synth, verifiability, and OR issues are already being discussed here. One instance of off-wiki canvassing was discussed here, and I don't have to to find diffs for others right now. This AfD is where she claims that a 29-year has a tenured professor position. With regard to notability issues, as you said there are many articles and I haven't had much time to go through them, but here are a few that I've come across so far where notability should be examined:

:::::* Pippa Grange

:::::* Camille Petit

:::::* Sarah Tuttle

:::::* Katharina Sophia Volz

:::::* Rylie Green

:::::* Lisa Jones (scientist)

:::::* DeAndrea Salvador

:::::* Nia Imara

:::::* Joanna Bauldreay

:::::* Oluwatoyin Asojo

:::::* Ciara Sivels

:::::Natureium (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:(ec) I first encountered Jess at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbie Hutty, cleaning up the article and improving it so it was kept. I recall the article needed improvements and additional references, and some of the claims in the article didn't seem to be backed up by sources at that point. Some of these are documented in :Template:Did you know nominations/Abbie Hutty. I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Kolodziejski as "snow keep" today; the article has been improved significantly from its original state by {{u|GreenMeansGo}}. However, it is not and has never been policy to demand that editors are perfect and should produce high-quality content from the outset, and editors should be encouraged to improve articles by collaborative means, not whacking them with a big stick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:: {{tq|some of the claims in the article didn't seem to be backed up by sources at that point}} is a real problem. It's better to create a stub, than to create an article with information that can't be verified, especially if it's a BLP. I've created many stubs when I've come across people that have been determined by SNG to merit an article but for whom information and sources are lacking. We don't need perfect articles, but we need articles that are compliant with policy. Natureium (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::: And regarding community improvement, I have just spent the last little while trying to get some of the recent creations by this editor in line with the MOS, but going through the lot of them is going to take some time. Natureium (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::::There are by my count 4 claims in Heather Wakelee that don't seem to be backed up by sources, and at least a couple of MoS issues. I don't want to start fact & MoS checking the other 202 articles started by you, but I'm starting to think that this may be necessary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::::: Go ahead. I don't mind. I welcome any improvements to articles I've started. Natureium (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::: As do I. I don’t make claims that aren’t backed up by sources - Abbie was one of the first bios I made, and since then almost every statement I write is cited. But this isn’t about ‘improving’ articles - this is about deeming them not notable/ worthy of deletion (which Netoholic has, for every recent article i’ve made. As for Clarice Phelps, the claim came from a book (https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/superheavy-9781472953896/), I didn’t write a biography based on something I had imagined. Jesswade88 (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability: {{tq|If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.}} This has always been my only concern. You can cite every statement but if the citations are no good for determining notability, we shouldn't have an article. I would suggest you start first by finding 2-3 truly independent biographical sources... if you can't find that many, its probably better to try a different subject. Once you have those, then you can use university/organization profiles as you've done. In these two (and only been two not "every") articles, I tried to tag them for lacking these independent sources and you kept removing the tags. I am a fairly staunch inclusionist/eventualist... but you make it really hard when you remove cleanup notices. That to me tells you think the article demonstrates notability as it is, and so AfD is the only way to determine that. I don't actually feel bad that the AfDs failed... because at least it prompted others to gather some independent sources and put them in the articles - as was always the only point of me tagging them in the first place. -- Netoholic @ 03:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Again, you are deliberately sweeping under the carpet WP:PROF and the criteria set forth there in, plus the current consensus of what constitutes a realiable and independent (of the BLP subject) source for satisfying those criteria. You are putting your personal opinion about what WP:IS means in this case above the consensus set out in WP:PROF. So no, you were not just implementing WP policies and guidelines here, you were using personal judgement to set aside the guideline WP:PROF that is most specifically applicable here. Do you really see no problem with this? In your rather lengthy answers, you do not appear to be addressing this problem at all, even though it was/is at the heart of the ANI here. Markus Pössel (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::: For Phelps the claim did not come, back in August 2018, from [https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/superheavy-9781472953896/ a book due to be published in June 2019] (nor does the book quite back up the claim - at least not the quote Jesswade88 provided from the unpublished back in the beginning of April). This is the version published by Jesswade88 in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Clarice_Phelps&oldid=857470625 August 31 2018]. There are a number of problems there:

:::::::# "Phelps earned a Bachelors degree in chemistry from Tennessee State University in 2003" - cited to - [http://www.tnstate.edu/publications/documents/AlumniLife_2015.pdf] - doesn't support chemistry.

:::::::# "She graduated from the University of Tennessee with a PhD in chemistry in 2014" - incorrect. Phelps claims no such thing. The cited ref - [https://utsports.com/news/2017/9/15/softball-ywca-spotlights-karen-weekly-at-annual-tribute-to-women.aspx] only says {{tq|"Clarice Phelps, a researcher/program manager for industrial use isotopes at ORNL, won the Technology, Research, Innovation Award."}} - and doesn't support this at all.

:::::::# " Phelps completed a Masters degree at the University of Texas at Austin Nuclear and Radiation Engineering Program." - cited to [http://www.nuclear.engr.utexas.edu/current-students/our-students/68-ms-students/277-clarice-phelps] - doesn't support this. It does support she is currently enrolled as a student.

:::::::# "She was involved with the discovery of Tennessine, and is the first African-American woman to identify an element." - cited to [https://www.ornl.gov/content/phelps-wins-ywca-tribute-women ORNL PR] which says {{tq|" Phelps was part of the team that discovered the superheavy element tennessine"}} - nothing about being "first" (it actually doesn't even say Phelps is African American or black - so even that bit is WP:OR in relation to the citation)

::::::: Looking at Leslie Kolodziejski (who is notable due to WP:NPROF, despite probably failing (like most wikiNotable academics) WP:GNG) - there were certainly plenty of primary sources used in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leslie_Kolodziejski&oldid=894927449 this initial version] which was subsequently challenged by other users. Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:I don't really want to have a dog in this fight, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Essays/Primer_for_AfD,_AfC_and_PROD&diff=prev&oldid=894914161 this comment] where Netaholic is making WP:OWN accusations on {{u|Rosiestep}} - who is (in my opinion) one of the most sensible, level-headed and drama-averse editors on the entire project - is just so far out of whack I have difficulty comprehending how someone could make such a comment in good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Support, and ... (I failed to vote formally before) - I'm worried that this editor has agreed to stop annoying Jess Wade's articles but the response above does not give me any confidence that they understand that the consensus is clearly against their behaviour. Trying to undermine another person's arguments by counting their edits etc etc is just desperate. This user has been told that they do not understand PROF and that notability only applies to the existence of an article, so there is no point in restating that again here. I think some formality is required here to remind the editor that their wider actions cause concern and that the ban being proposed here can be extended. Victuallers (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

: Agreed; I found it quite frustrating that Netoholic framed this matter as them pointing out problems and other editors taking those pointers as an insult. As far as I can see, so far, he hasn't demonstrated any understanding that his setting aside WP:PROF due to his personal non-consensus opinion regarding a supposed conflict with other policies/guidelines was problematic. Markus Pössel (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1-way IBAN (created TBAN below) - I realise I started the TBAN, so can't vote for that, but should still support the 1-way IBAN, for the repeated issues that the editor doesn't seem to sufficiently understand (at least in some areas, others could be viewed as the errors of a newer editor). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• No Massive over-reaction. Conflict (and even dumb ones like this) are a part of collaboration. Unless, this becomes a patrern, I am uncomfortable with the IBan given that there have been only two AfDs and two days of crossing paths.∯WBG^converse 10:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Two bad AfD noms (Passed WP:NPROF which is a very specific guideline, but not WP:GNG) is an over-reaction here. Some of the tags were correct - while we do allow academics to pass notability without independent, reliable, secondary sources - WP:BLP (and WP:BLPSOURCES), WP:V still apply to article contents in BLPs. I will also note that there is a lively discussion going on Twitter concurrent to the discussion here. Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Opppse insufficient evidence of either egregious lack of judgement (per WP:CIR) or deliberate vindictiveness (per WP:HOUND); subjecting an editor's articles to closer examination—when there may be, pace JessWade, cause—is very much in the spirit of protecting the integrity of the encyclopaedia, if over-enthusiastically approached in this case. Still, I'm sure they've got the message by now. ——SerialNumber54129 11:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose These AfDs look pointy to me, but I don't think that this merits an interaction ban, especially after such a short period of time. Natureium (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: So I've been watching this for some time. I think a hearty round of trouting is necessary, quite frankly, but anything more is simply disproportionate to any delict committed here. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose while there were certainly problems with Netoholic's conduct, the rush to suggest an iBan and the hasty accumulation of supports for that suggestion is less than ideal. As Netoholic appears to have gotten the message, no sanctions are necessary. Also, {{u|Tagishsimon}} would be wise to review the ongoing thread about Legacypac at AN and note that battleground behavior eventually results in sanctions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this or any other sanction is an over-reaction, especially bearing in mind Netoholic's response. I regularly go through the edits of certain people and tag, revert, delete etc. I'm known for it and thanked for it. It isn't hounding to do so if there is genuine cause for concern (as there has been here, based on the Phelps palaver). The idea that in this case it is some sort of crusade against someone, based on two days' activity, seems extreme. It is also extreme to think that, for example, it is targeting women - Jesswade88's edits mostly seem to relate to women and thus it is inevitable that any sifting through those edits is going to relate to them also.{{pb}}I don't use Twitter but I do think that if people choose to use it (or any other social media platform) to promote their work on Wikipedia then they're probably opening themselves and their followers up to malign accusations, whether rightly or wrongly: the person tweeting creates the situation and it is entirely possible for them to avoid it simply by not tweeting about it in the first instance - no tweet, no twitterstorm etc. What people do off-wiki is entirely up to them but, regardless of what policies are put into place on WP, public pronouncements on public forums may result in unintended consequences. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:* I am a regular Twitter user but occasional editor, with a life outside both. If I become aware of articles that I can help to improve via Twitter, does it devalue my efforts to improve a page simply because of how I hear about it? If so, we risk losing out on the constructive contributions of many casual editors. I've been following this discussion for hours now since the Leslie Kolodziejski AfD, and the general tenor doesn't fill me with enthusiasm to contribute more in future. I'm sure many others feel the same way. DWeir (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::*Like I said, it is up to you but there may be unintended consequences. In the Phelps debacle, for example, a very experienced Wikipedian suddenly began whinging became concerned because their Twitter use had come under scrutiny and they were concerned for the safety of themselves and people whom they know. YMMV. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I have run into Netoholic before in cases of requested moves. I have found they are a stickler for how policy/guidelines were written to a point that it passed what WP:NOT#BURO cautions against. Eg, there are common sense consensus decisions, times where IAR applies, etc., and that P&G are descriptive, not prescriptive of how to use them. I read pretty much the same issue here, and nothing related to any specific vindictiveness against this topic area, but mostly just their insistence that policy be followed to the letter. That needs to back off a bit, but that is something not actionable outside of TROUTs. --Masem (t) 16:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• How does this square with their behavior with respect to NPROF? --JBL (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|result=Consensus is clearly against this proposal, so let's focus on the other discussions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)}}

I think an IBAN might initially have sufficed, but judging by the conversation above, the primary issue area doesn't seem to be accepted & resolved. The editor would appear to have made some contributory edits, and the once mooted "academic TBAN" enough would sever that, and is very broad. I suggest the following:

TBAN on PROD and AfD activity

I've deliberately not made it a TBAN against deletions in general, as we don't seem to have had issues with speedies, COIN, DRV etc.

I've suggested a general PROD/AfD TBAN, but if a narrower one on submissions wants to be made, I'm also game for that. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Can I please ask for a bit of sanity check here? This is getting out of control. I have literally only AfD'd two articles in the last two days... and probably no more than 20 in my entire editing history. This whole thing is running amok. -- Netoholic @ 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::Netoholic: Have a closer look at the rationale given for the sanctions. This is not only about the AfDs you have made so far, but about your deliberate setting aside of WP:PROF, based on your personal interpretation that the consensus reached at WP:PROF is in conflict with some more fundamental principles, and that you are therefore free to ignore the criteria (in particular as regards suitable sources for the specific criteria) of WP:PROF. You have conspicuously not addressed this problem so far; you have not indicated that you even understand why others see this as a problem; your summary of what you claim you did wrong, as well as this last comment of yours, give no indication that you are willing to acknowledge this key aspect of the problem. That, as far as I can see, is the key to sanctions beyond the Jesswade88-specific ones: that you have shown behaviour that is likely to lead to lots of additional time-wasting conflicts, and that so far you appear to be completely unwilling to even acknowledge that the problem in question even exists. Markus Pössel (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::More generally, please take a step back and consider, in light of the two WP:SNOW reversions as well as in light of the considerable number of experienced Wikipedians trying to get through to you here, that this is not a "consensus of idiots" as per the jwales quote on your user page, or a process that is "running amok", but that instead you are fundamentally wrong at least in some of the aspects of what you have been doing, have so far not shown indication of realizing and/or admitting that fact, and that *this* combination is what has a number of people here (all of whom would rather be spending their time on something else, I would assume) worried about your future behaviour. Markus Pössel (talk) 10:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::: {{ping|Markus Pössel}} Please stop WP:BADGERING me with the same thing over and over again. This is now the 7th direct comment to me in this section, largely repeating the same demands of me. You have no grounds to claim I am "deliberately" doing any such thing. I am engaged in some pretty collaborative discussions over at WT:PROF (where you have badgered my comments as well) over what appropriate level of conformity to WP:Verifiability#Notability should be communicated on the WP:PROF page. I have no problems with WP:PROF criteria at all... just that interpretation of it by editors is often forgetting that independent sources are needed for those criteria in order to base articles upon. Maybe after that discussion my mind will change or I'll understand the rationale a bit better. I don't know, but I certainly have no desire to involve myself with AfD anytime soon. So to say I've "not addressed" the feedback from the AfDs is just flawed, at best. -- Netoholic @ 10:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: Since WP:PROF was a key part of the incident report here, and had so far remained unacknowledged in your replies, politely (if repeatedly) asking about this was appropriate, I think, and certainly not WP:BADGERING at all. My description of this as being deliberate is not an unfounded claim; instead it directly follows from the discussion we had on your user page, where you are fairly explicit about not abiding by certain aspects of the WP:PROF consensus since in your view it contradicts core policy. Also, the issue is not some vague "interpretation" of WP:PROF criteria, as you claim; you are going counter to an explicit criterion and the specific guideline laid down in WP:PROF as to when that criterion is satisfied. Markus Pössel (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, having looked at [https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=Netoholic&max=500&startdate=&altname= Netoholic's AfD stats], it shows he has started 17 AfDs in 15 years, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Next (programming block), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Edelstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aloy (rapper) which all closed as "delete" without issue. I did think Netoholic was a bit hyperactive about Edelstein, but consensus proved him right in the end. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - I did deem Netoholic's slapping of a notability template to be acutely dumb over my edit-sum and was shocked to see the AfD but we don't TBan folks for heat-of-the-moment lapses in judgement or temporal dumbness. Per Ritchie. ∯WBG^converse 10:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No, this would be excessive right now. A TBAN should only be something to consider in the future if issues around WP:NPROF and WP:IS were to continue against consensus. It's clear Netoholic has got the message he/she overstepped the mark, and I'm sure they'll want to take a little more care in the future. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose If there's an issue, it is not, per Ritchie333, with their general competence at XfD. ——SerialNumber54129 11:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose We're not going to ban someone for having a more stringent view of WP:N than usual. Reyk _YO! 11:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an overreaction. Netoholic needs to understand that the community has decided that NPROF is the rule here. He is not disruptive at AfD in general, unless there's more that hasn't been brought up here. Natureium (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: No TBAN, per above arguments. Simply too excessive. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 11:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I've made way more bad AfD and DRV noms than Netoholic and I've only been here six months. If I understand the situation, Net tagged some articles, the tags were removed without (in Net's view) the underlying issues being addressed, and Net interpreted that as meaning the article creation process was "done", and since the article didn't (in Net's view) support notability, AfD was an appropriate next step. This was a mistake. First, because we're supposed to AfD based on the status of sourcing, not the status of the article (so tagging or not tagging, creation being complete or not complete, should all be irrelevant to a decision to AfD an article), and second because if you think an editor is doing something wrong at an article, nominating that article for deletion is never the right way to address it–that "takes it out on the article" instead of "taking it out on the editor". It seems that Net has taken these lessons on-board. We shouldn't TBAN each other from areas where we make mistakes. As long as it's not a repeated ongoing problem, there is no need for a sanction. Leviv ich 13:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose good grief no! This is beyond overkill. Lepricavark (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it would be excessive at this juncture. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=895182725&oldid=895181752 my comment in the IBAN proposal]. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{archive top|result = This post-closure discussion appears to have run its course. If there's a fresh incident requiring administrator attention then we can revisit. Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)}}

I see that there is no consensus for any kind of sanction for Netoholic, but I was still hoping that the discussion under Section break could continue so we can shed some light on the issue of cleaning up some of these articles. Natureium (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:ANI is not for discussing content? Leviv ich 20:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::Straight off this discussion Netoholic is back to participating in AfDs focusing on the same editor's creations and expressing the same dogmatic views counter to the consensus interpretation of WP:PROF. The lesson learned appears to be: ANI doesn't care so keep doing the same things. This is what happens when you say "oh, he isn't that bad, he only went after two articles": he continues the same focus on hounding a productive editor that caused him to be taken here in the first place. How many good editors will have to be driven away by toxic ones like this before we only have the bad ones left? (For the record: I am not expressing an opinion about the merits of the article under AfD or the decision to take it to AfD. But Netoholic needs to learn that hounding is wrong, and seems to have instead learned the opposite. Other people can and will decide the AfD appropriately; his involvement on it is unnecessary and, because of the past history involved, unhelpful.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::What part of that !vote is problematic? It looks perfectly legitimate to me. It certainly doesn't warrant that kind of personal rhetoric. Lepricavark (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I rarely notice who created the articles I !vote on in AfDs. I've also been accused of being disruptive because of the views on notability I've expressed at AfDs (whether !voting keep or delete). Freeze peaches and all that. Leviv ich 04:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Above Netoholic said they would "stop paying attention to Jesswade88's articles". Several people opposed a formal IBAN on that basis. This shows that Netoholic's word is worthless. ANI has once again decided to respond to toxicity with an ineffective slap on the wrist (if that). – Joe (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::The original IBAN proposal was made by you without Netoholic having been given a chance to defend himself. I'm not sure you ever gave his word a chance to be worth something. And I don't think his behavior was bad enough to justify the initial reaction. That being said, while I am not entirely convinced that we should assume Netoholic checked to see who created the Sarah Tuttle article before !voting in the AfD (I know I usually don't check that before !voting in an AfD), I can understand why his participation in that AfD looks bad. Lepricavark (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::: The participation in the AfD, and the trying to change NPROF while involved in disputes about the meaning of NPROF, and trying to move a WiR advice essay out of the WiR project space .... --JBL (talk) 10:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:Update: Netoholic has now joined a fourth AfD on articles created by the same editor he has already been credibly accused of hounding. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::Honestly, I see a big difference between initiating AfDs and tagging articles and simply !voting in AfDs. Like, there is a massive difference between those two things. Furthermore, I think we all know that this thread never would have blown up like this if the articles in question had not been about women. The second comment in this thread is a sitting arb proposing a one-way IBAN without waiting to hear what Netoholic had to say for himself. Netoholic was unfairly jumped on and should not have had to agree to any restrictions, but the understandable desire to protect articles about women overrode concerns like fairness. It seems like Netoholic was identified, fairly or otherwise, as an enemy of Women in Red and therefore he needed to be stopped by all measures, reasonable or otherwise. That being said, once Netoholic gives his word, he needs to keep it. Lepricavark (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::: Since no one goes around systematically trying to delete new articles on male scientists, for example, we're not going to have an ANI thread about it. --JBL (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: Does anyone go around systematically trying to create new articles on male scientists? There has been a commendable and concerted effort to create articles about women scientists, but sometimes good intentions can go too far and result in the creation of articles on non-notable individuals. And when that happens, some editor or subset of editors are likely to tag such pages for deletion. Sometimes these editors will also take good intentions (yes, keeping Wikipedia free of articles on non-notable subjects is a good intention) too far and tag some articles that actually do have notable subjects for deletion. But in both cases, we should not jump on good-faith editors for taking good intentions too far. Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Netholic crossed the line quite some time ago from quality control to hounding. Normally when scrutiny of a longtime, respected co-worker is done, it's done in the spirit of mentoring that person and showing them constructively how to improve their work. If I was subject to the kind of campaign that Netholic (and a few others) have been carrying on in the past few days, I would certainly feel as if people are not out to help me but to discredit and destroy as much of my work as possible. That's not the environment we want here. I support a one-way I-ban - it's really not too much to ask to have Netholic check who created an article he's thinking of commenting on, and do something else if the creator is Jesswade88. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{yo|Netoholic}} would you voluntarily agree for a while to {{tq|check who created an article he's thinking of commenting on, and do something else if the creator is Jesswade88}}? Leviv ich 16:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::Wow I didn't realize I was still so popular. No one could be bothered to ping me back here before now? I think the HOUNDING may be switching the other direction.
I said above that "I will stop paying any more attention to Jesswade88's daily articles", and I have. Right now, I am participating in some deletion discussions related to academics only to get a feel for now WP:PROF has been working out. It seems like several editors may be independently taking recent events into consideration and nominating a couple of her articles, but I am not looking at the page's creator - only the quality of the articles as they are in the order they are nominated. I am actually spending a lot of time [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nia_Imara&diff=prev&oldid=895330923 improving articles up for AFD], even when I still don't think they pass notability thresholds, to give them a fair chance and the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps as Clayoquot said above - "showing them constructively how to improve their work". If someone thinks that is disruptive or unwelcome... I dunno what to say. -- Netoholic @ 16:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::: Pinging {{yo|Jesswade88}} so she can opine on whether your improvements are disruptive or unwelcome. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::: It is difficult to reconcile "{{tq|I have no intention of further AfDs or even interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles}}" and "{{tq|I certainly have no desire to involve myself with AfD anytime soon}}" with "{{tq|I am participating in some deletion discussions related to academics only to get a feel for how WP:PROF has been working out}}" and "{{tq|I am actually spending a lot of time improving articles up for AFD}}". I agree with Jayron below that there are no sanctions in place preventing Net from doing anything, but at the same time, there seem to be some mixed signals from Net. I, too, am curious whether Jesswade88 thinks there is need for community involvement here. Leviv ich 17:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:As far as I can tell from the OP, Netoholic nominated two articles for deletion and tagged two articles, all of them created by Jesswade88. Then this thread was opened and immediately escalated to a one-way IBAN discussion. Since that point, Netoholic has !voted (not initiated mind you, just !voted) in two AfDs of articles created by Jesswade88. And all of this has happened over the span of a few days. Not weeks or months. Days. Not only is that not a campaign, that's not even sufficient cause to informally ask Netoholic to stay away from Jesswade88's articles. This thread was rushed to banning phase far too quickly and we need to stop looking for a reason to ban Netoholic. Lepricavark (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::Since Netoholic has conveniently only quoted one of the statements that are of relevance here, and omitted the others, here are some reminders: Netoholic followed his statement "I will say sorry, I'll slow down, as Levivich suggested. In fact, I'll go further and say I will stop paying any more attention to Jesswade88's daily articles." [22:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)] with "I have no intention of further AfDs or even interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles after this ANI closes. I've learned a lesson from this." [04:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC] and "I don't know, but I certainly have no desire to involve myself with AfD anytime soon." [see above 10:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)]. Several editors opposing sanctions specifically noted that their reason for doing so was that Netoholic had learned his lessons, and appeared "to have gotten the message, no sanctions are necessary". The ANI was closed on 7:46, 2 May 2019 by {{Ping|Jayron32}}. Less than 24 hours after that, Netoholic, in direct contradiction to what he promised to do, went and participated in this and this AfD for articles created by Jesswade1988. He said he would not involve himself with AfD ("involve", not restricted to "initiate"), but he did. He said he would stop "interacting with this unsavory environment around her articles after this ANI closes", and he did, by actively participating in AfDs for two of Jesswade88's articles. Does WP have any procedures for dealing with editors who flout ANI in this way? Markus Pössel (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::No sanctions were imposed by the community to be "flouted". When I closed the discussion, which had been open for some time, there was significant opposition to imposing sanctions above, and that opposition was growing (not shrinking) over time. Now, if you want to start a new discussion about a specific sanction based on new evidence, feel free to do that. But to claim that Netholic is violating anything simply isn't true. There has not been any expressed community consensus for any sanctions. Please note, that does NOT mean that I am endorsing their actions here. They may (or may not, I'm also not saying they are) commiting horrifying atrocities that need to be addressed. Or maybe not. Doesn't matter here; what matters is they haven't acted in opposition to any community sanction as yet. If you want to put a community sanction into force, create a thread to enact one, give it time to develop a consensus. If one develops, you'll have something to work from. --Jayron32 17:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::"Flouting" did not refer to any sanctions (I am aware there were none), but to the fact that the consensus-finding process itself was influenced by Netoholic's assertions, which he then went back on directly after ANI closed. I haven't got sufficient experience in the more unsavoury side of WP conflicts to say whether or not this kind of backtracking behaviour is considered par for the course by administrators, so I for one am not going to take any further initiative here. Markus Pössel (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::It's quite simple. Start a discussion proposing that Netoholic be sanctioned. When people comment, consensus may develop to enact those sanctions. When those are enacted, administrators will enforce them. You haven't given administrators anything to enforce yet. Unless he's violating an established rule like edit warring or personal attacks or something like that, unless we have some community imposed sanction, I'm not sure what you want admins to do. --Jayron32 18:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::If you as an admin find nothing objectionable in what is going on here, I'll certainly not presume to know better. Markus Pössel (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::: You should note that I said the exact opposite of what you just claimed I said. If you want help from admins like myself, you might want to start by not doing that. Usually, directly accusing someone of saying the exact opposite thing they said, especially when that thing is a few lines of text above you, will not go well for you. I've offered to help. I even explained exactly what you needed to do to get that help. I've even conceded that everything you claimed could have been true. If you'd done the thing you were told to do, this would have already been fixed. --Jayron32 22:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: Apologies; that obviously came across the wrong way, and I certainly did not mean to misrepresent you. What I wrote was short for: If you as an admin find nothing sufficiently objectionable in what is going on here to take this to the next level yourself, I'll certainly not presume to know better and demand that it be taken to the next level. Markus Pössel (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::{{Yo|Lepricavark}}, the fact that Netholic's scrutiny of Jesswade's work has all taken place in just a few days makes it look more like a campaign, not less. If he had taken his time about it, he might have absorbed some community feedback that some of his criticisms were based on flaws in his own thinking. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::: I could use the same sort of accusation - "the fact that Clayoquot's scrutiny of Netoholic's work has all taken place in just a few days makes it look more like a campaign" - see how it just makes your skin crawl to hear that? Flawed thinking, indeed. Sometimes, just sometimes, everyone gets a bug to look into something intently. 4 days ago, for me, it was jesswade88's daily article. 1 days ago, it was academic biographies in general. Two weeks ago it was an article about a reporter. A year ago, I was writing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passing_on_the_Right&offset=&limit=500&action=history about] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Lucifer_Effect&action=history books]. Mostly, I hang out on WP:RM because it scratches all kinds of surprising research itches and I get to spaz out and tackle tons of different topics. Don't get all bent about what I've entangled my head in for any particular 2 day period and think its a "campaign". -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: You're avoiding addressing the substance of our concerns about you: that your overall style of interacting with Jesswade88 does not appear to be collegial and constructive, e.g. taking the Keep closure of Ana Achúcarro to DRV[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_May_1&diff=894954219&oldid=894934898]. If that was a 2-day thing for you, how about gracefully bowing out and moving on now that it's May 3? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::: {{Ping|Clayoquot}} – sadly, my experience with Netoholic is similar when it comes to avoiding / leaving out the central and most problematic issues. How someone can get the kind of specific feedback Netoholic has gotten in this process, state that they will not go near the problematic area again, go back on that statement and do so anyway as soon as the ANI is closed, and then later on claim that it's all some harmless fancy like others they have had before, is beyond me. Markus Pössel (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It might also be worth pointing out (not sure which side this supports) that in the last few days the issue of female scientist on Wikipedia has attracted some outside attention, and thus will have generated some internal attention as well.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:While we're scrutinizing Netoholic's behavior, let me add that personally, I found the following sequence of events extremely creepy:

:#I start interacting with Netoholic both here and at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) regarding Netoholic's unusual views about academic notability.

:#Netoholic very quickly determines that there is a Wikipedia article about me (not exactly a secret, but already indicating more than the usual level of editor-specific scrutiny), threatens to change the standards for academic notability to push for its deletion, and at the same time uses that threat to attempt to push me out of the policy discussion as having a conflict of interest. (See Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Alternate wording).

:#Netoholic starts editing the article about me, adding low-quality non-academic sources about true but uninteresting and non-notable things I've done. (See recent edit history of David Eppstein).

:#When called on this misbehavior, Netoholic implausibly claims to be a white knight trying to save me from the lobotomized version of academic notability he wants to impose. (See User talk:Netoholic#Article about me.)

:This is not about the existence or content of the article about me; I've long since passed the point in my career where the level of publicity it provides is in any way useful (except as a crutch for people introducing me at talks to find something to say), so I don't actually care about its existence, and my opinion is that the somewhat sketchy, haphazard, and incomplete state of the article reflects much more on other Wikipedia editors (because it's their problem and certainly not mine) than it does on me. So I do not actually feel threatened by any of this behavior. But it certainly conveys the appearance to me that Netoholic is either completely oblivious to the effects of his actions on others, or deliberately trying to simultaneously be threatening and maintain plausible deniability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::For anyone who is wondering, here are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895308647&oldid=892526710&title=David_Eppstein&type=revision the changes] that Netoholic made to Eppstein's article. He added some sourcing to the infobox and lede, included sourced information about Eppstein having won an award, and included sourced information about Eppstein being a photographer. This information came from the following {{tq|low-quality non-academic}} sources: the Los Angeles Times, the National Science Foundation, and Daily Press. Whereas Netoholic has pointed to a lack of independent coverage in some articles, the sources added to Eppstein's article are all independent sources. Lepricavark (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:: After reading that I was expecting to find weird and creepy personal information being added, but that all seemed rather normal. Natureium (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:: I have access to Newspapers.com, a subscription service, via WP:The Wikipedia Library. I make use of it in just about every context I encounter on Wikipedia because its not something to which a lot of people have access, and I think its a shame that we tend to rely too heavily on current-day online resources rather than print sources. What people should find even more concerning than my edits is how the subject of the article has edited it, intensely participated in its talk page for many years making multiple requests for additions and removals, and is now casting aspersions about an editor of it. This is precisely why we have COI guidelines. Occasional requests by subjects are fine, but David Eppstein's desires for this article are ever-present in the article's talk page (and archive). I also do find it to be a COI for an academic with an article (or without one but likely wanting one someday) should be so strongly debating our notability guidelines for academics. Imagine if a bunch of sportspeople discovered Wikipedia and started to vigorously influence our notability guidelines for them? Or businesspeople? or actors? or politicians? Instead of trying to TBAN me for doing a likely one-time addition of some valid content to an article, perhaps its time for User:David Eppstein to stop influencing David Eppstein. -- Netoholic @ 07:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I was very surprised to see Netoholic be such an early commenter at the Sarah Tuttle AfD - I thought it showed poor judgement. Reading about other examples of poor judgement above suggest that at least some of the opposes for sanctions above which boiled down to "Long-term editor who doesn't need a sanction based on the body of evidence so far" (a view I largely subscribed to) needs to be re-evaluated. I would support a sanction such as a 3 or 6 month TBAN from Academic Biographies to help him nudge him back to useful areas (and with the hope that this current tempest will have died out after 3 or 6 months and he'd be ready to be a productive contributor by the time the next tempest arose). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

: I don't think that a topic ban is necessary. I do think that Netoholic should be more aware of how far he is pushing certain things and where the line is between improving the encyclopedia and hounding someone. Natureium (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::His actions towards David Eppstein are also of issue for me. I agree with you above that his editing isn't troublesome on the article per se but to me it's another example of Netholic becoming overly focused on a particular editor. That's what's troubling to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I would argue that the problematic focus goes both ways. I believe that some editors wrongly determined that Netoholic is a bad-faith editor at the outset of this dispute and that they are going to apply a bad motive to everything he does. Netoholic may have temporarily applied too much scrutiny to Jesswade88 articles, but that does not justify the extensive efforts that have been made to silence him. Nor does it mean he should be disqualified from participating in AfDs on Jesswade88 articles initiated by other editors. Lepricavark (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Wot {{U|Lepricavark}} sez. Netoholic isn't exactly innocent and faultily interpreted some policies with over-aggressive AfDing but now, this has now turned into a hunt to attribute every of his actions to bad-faith and shut him down. Can some sysop just shut this down? ∯WBG^converse 08:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::Except that's the thing. If he's not exactly innocent then there is a whole world of options available to him while still absorbing the message of the previous thread - including the work he's done at WP:NPROF. Having shown that his thinking is not clear on this matter - or at least not supported by notability - jumping so quickly into AfDs started by others shows poor judgement. Making a second editor who edits here under a real name and is an academic feel uncomfortable shows questionable judgement. The combination of these two is why I suggested some short term action - and I say this as someone who wonders about the notability of several of Dr. Wade's articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

: Barkeep49's suggestions makes sense. I would make that a topic ban from both academic and STEM biographies. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

:: Why on earth should he be completely topic banned from those areas? Way too much ban-happiness in this thread. Lepricavark (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::: I want him to stop bugging Jesswade88. If you have another idea for getting that result, please share. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: I don't think it's necessary to prevent him from !voting in AfDs on articles that she created. Here's my idea: let's let this thread come to an end and stop demanding unnecessary sanctions for an editor whose actions never warranted the level of scrutiny and personal criticism contained in this massive, mostly-closed thread. Lepricavark (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::::You are curiously unworried about the succession of events in which (a) Netoholic stated he would keep away from all that, (b) a number of editors opposed sanctions because of the impression that Netoholic had obviously learned his lessons, and (c) Netoholic then went back on what he said and less than 24 hours later went to involve himself in Jesswade88-related article deletions again. I struggle to come up with an interpretation where I'm not forced to abandon the assumption of good faith and take into consideration elements of dishonesty and deception, and if you can find one, I'd be interested in hearing it. In any case, there doesn't seem to be momentum towards sanctions here, and I see no good reason to take this particular matter further at this point. Should Netoholic exhibit similar behavior in the future (which I don't hope, but who knows), this ANI should provide at least some helpful background information. Markus Pössel (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::What part of it do you find curious and what exactly are you trying to say about me personally? Lepricavark (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::Just that you appear unworried about something that I think is so obviously worrying. The question was serious, though: If you can think of a good-faith explanation for what Netoholic did here, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing it. Markus Pössel (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::I'll agree that Netoholic's behavior is less than ideal, but I don't consider it nearly bad enough to justify the immediate calls for an IBAN. And my experiences here and at the Sarah Tuttle AfD have reinforced my belief that if editors such as myself don't push back against the irresponsible assumption of misogyny and the outcry that ensues from editors who don't think critically before accepting such accusations, a sizable number of good editors will end up blocked or otherwise driven off the site. Lepricavark (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::You have a point about inconsistent statements. But here's another way to look at it: you ask a guy for 5. He says he'll give you 10. Later, he gives you 5. Do you hold it against him that he didn't give you 10 like he said, or do you say thanks for the 5 you originally asked for? Leviv ich 18:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::Your version doesn't capture what happened here. The admins who proposed an IBAN in effect said "We found what you did worrying, you should stay away from Jesswade88". The different statements by Netoholic in effect said "OK, learned my lesson, will stay away". At least partly in response to this, no sanctions were taken. Did Netoholic stay away, in the way he would? Nope. Your 5 vs. 10 example is misleading: Here, various admins and users ask a guy for different values between 5 and 20, and in that situation, promising 10 and delivering 5 is not an honest course of action. Markus Pössel (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::Your initial post doesn't mention !voting at AfDs. It mentions nominating articles for deletion, tagging, editing policy documents, and moving the project page. Joe's proposal mentions nominations and tagging. Nobody talked about "you can't !vote at an AfD". He's not nominating (or doing the other stuff), that's "the 5". He's not totally staying away from Wade articles or AfD, either (that would be "the 10"). He was asked for 5, promised 10, and gave 5. Good enough for me. Leviv ich 23:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: Levivich, your logic makes sense to me. And since Jesswade88 hasn't commented on Netholic over the past couple of days, perhaps it is safe to assume there is no ongoing, serious disruption that the community needs to address. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

(Note I’ve just restored the above discussion, which it seemed to me was prematurely closed and archived. Paul August ☎ 22:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC))

::Seriously, dude, why did you do that? If there has been new behavior and new evidence that the Netoholic has been disruptive, it would have been much better to start a new discussion. This thing has reached the TLDR stage, and really should have been left to die. --Jayron32 10:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support the above proposed 1-way IBAN, based on the Netoholic’s subsequent actions (as described above). Paul August ☎ 23:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose any and all sanctions and I've very disappointed that Paul August didn't let this end. Lepricavark (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Blocked for 1 month by {{noping|Bbb23}} Nosebagbear (talk)}}

{{IP|128.77.80.116}} has been editing articles for the past month with a strong POV. 128.77.80.116's edits almost invariably defend or provide apologetics for Islam/Muhammad (by removing negative material about the subject, and substituting positive and generally inappropriate material), or attacking Christianity. For example:

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_Quran&type=revision&diff=895857418&oldid=895616831 Here] 128.77.80.116 removes criticism of the Quran, arguing that it is repetitive; but rather than consolidating or removing some of the repetition, 128.77.80.116 instead removes all the critical material. In subsequent edits 128.77.80.116 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_Quran&type=revision&diff=895864867&oldid=895857418 adds lengthy apologetics] to the article praising/defending the Quran, in what is supposed to be an article of Criticism of Islam.
• In another article 128.77.80.116 again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maurice_Bucaille&type=revision&diff=892439859&oldid=884066040 removes sourced material that is critical and inserts unsourced apologetic material].
• In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judaism%27s_views_on_Muhammad&type=revision&diff=895838568&oldid=892248060 these edits] 128.77.80.116 removes material critical of Muhammad, and adds apologetic material irrelevant to the subject of the article.
• In this article 128.77.80.116 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity_and_Islam&type=revision&diff=895524252&oldid=894905968 removes material critical of Islam and adds Muslim apologetic arguments].
• In this article 128.77.80.116 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_fundamentalism&type=revision&diff=892450753&oldid=892354737 removes material critical of Islam]
• In this article 128.77.80.116 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihadist_extremism_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=892449867&oldid=889866985 blanks negative material]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_Europe&type=revision&diff=892444949&oldid=891290855 More of the same] in this article.

I could go on, but pretty much every edit 128.77.80.116 has made is the same. Many have been reverted by a series of editors, but many others have flown under the radar, and remain in the articles. 128.77.80.116's talk page is a long list of warnings; there would be more, but 128.77.80.116 has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:128.77.80.116&diff=prev&oldid=895849790 deleted most of the recent ones]. 128.77.80.116 was blocked last month for 31 hours by User:Doug Weller; I suggest a more lengthy block would be appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:Support. I'm not an admin and not sure if I'm supposed to comment here, but I've had a few notifications on my watched pages and these kind of edits are frustrating and time-wasting at best. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:The IP has been blocked twice, and this time for checkuser. The person on the other end of that IP is unlikely to stop and a far longer block would be a better preventative. As Jayjg points out, some of these edits have already slipped through the cracks and catching the next appearance of this vandal is not certain. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::I think you should allow me to be the best judge of that. The IP has edited only since April 12. A one month hard block should be fine. If the IP resumes editing after the block expires, there are enough editors who are aware of the IP to block (if they are an admin) or alert an admin if they are not.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{resolved|Blocked by Widr. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)}}

• Special:Contributions/2601:400:8000:ABA0::/64

This range was blocked on 15:08, 7 February 2019 by {{U|Widr}} for 3 months. Today is the first day after the block expired and an IP from this range has resumed vandalism (Special:Contributions/2601:400:8000:ABA0:302E:1013:1D45:DD51). See User:EvergreenFir/socks#Heights_and_Ages for more background info.

Please re-block the range. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|On 2nd thought, closing this as being without merit and disruptive. El_C 03:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)}}

This is in reference to editor {{U|BubbaJoe123456}} Please see details of my concern about this editor in my note here. Besides claiming being an Editor, this editor has been quite disruptive in Tj Allerd article. I am not sure how to proceed. Also, not sure if this is a case of sock-puppetry as well, since he appears to be jealous as TJ got the role in show. Instead of him. Please take an action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.37.199.19 (talk • contribs)

:On the basis of what evidence are you calling them a paid editor? El_C 03:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:I see nothing wrong with his AFD Nomination. I don’t know if I agree with deletion or not, but it seems like a reasonable, good-faith suggestion at least, even if it ends up being kept. I do, however, see a lot of inexperienced editors arguing varying valid and invalid arguments against him there. Is this some ill-conceived attempt at a smear campaign on BibbaJoe to discredit his argument? Because people are going to see right through that... Sergecross73 msg me 03:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:This IP can't have anything to do with the blocked UPE sock who tried to remove the AfD template from the article, or the other user blocked for UPE and sockpuppeting who posted a lengthy defense of the article at the AfD page? Naw, couldn't be. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please dear editor and all respected admins see for yourself. The TJ allerf article is being live for years. Now suddenly someone put AFD without even proposing speedy deletion and proposed deletion. If he thinks that something has to be edited in that article he should have stated that. But instead of that he is too eager for deleting it. I know why he is doing as because he don't get that role which TJ got. He is so jealous of his popularity. So please dear editors and admins take some actions and see if this article should stay live or not. God bless you all. Thank You (157.37.199.19 (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC))

:Jealous of his popularity — are you for real? And why would they need to tag it as speedy/prod before nominating it for AfD? El_C 03:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Named accounts indeffed as vandal-only after an australian throwing stick was found, IP addresses involved have been blocked for a week by {{noping|ST47}}. With additional thanks to 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:596C:EE45:1423:6BB1, Shenme & Schazjmd Nosebagbear (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)}}

I didn't post this on WP:AIV because it isn't obvious vandalism, until you check the refs and compare the odd changes across multiple articles related to an area in Spain. User:KalilTheDindu45:

• Changed the mayor to "Alberto Tablón Planillo" on multiple town's articles (references don't support the name change): Special:Diff/895248121 , Special:Diff/895248075 , Special:Diff/895248019 , Special:Diff/895247958 , Special:Diff/895064743

• Added "Francesc Lara" to multiple articles, claiming (without support) that "Francesc Lara" "founded those rivers": Special:Diff/894867705, Special:Diff/894863821, Special:Diff/894863711

• Added content to Sant Quirze del Vallès, to incorrectly change the mayor name to "Ahmed Al-Khelafi Mukhar" from the "PRUNE" party Special:Diff/894867151, and to add unsupported content claiming that the mayor praises islam and supports stoning women. Special:Diff/894865840

• Also on Sant Quirze del Vallès, an IP had made edits changing the town name to "Sant Kuayrz dil Falys", changed town leader to "Sultan", claimed the town's official language is arabic, added an arabic "native name" in infobox (I can't read arabic and can't tell what the inserted letters mean), and other mischief, all of which I had reverted; Kalil reverted back to restore all of those changes. Special:Diff/895368308

I notified Kalil about adding Planillo: Special:Diff/863230039; cautioned Kalil about adding Lara: Special:Diff/895364507; warned Kalil about vandalism at Sant Quirze del Vallès: Special:Diff/895367434. Kalil has since reverted some of the articles back (including Sant Quirze del Vallès), hasn't replied on their talk page to any of the warnings, and has only communicated in an edit summary "stop deleting my texts". I don't think any of Kalil's 20 edits are valid. I'm raising the issue here rather than getting pulled into edit wars across multiple articles. Schazjmd (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Scazjmd}} To the contrary, it's extremely obvious that this person is a racist vandal. "Kalil" is arguably a racist reference to Arabic people, 45 is a reference to an American president who has white nationalist fellow-travelers, and "Dindu" is a racist slur used by white supremacists and neo-Nazis against Black people. In racists' fever dreams, African Americans always perpetrate bad acts then deny responsibility by saying they "didn't do nothing," rendered in their racist mocking of African-American vernacular as "dindu nuffin." For God's sake, User:Schazjmd and anyone else who doesn't know, don't google those two words. Just block this fucking idiot and be done with it. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:596C:EE45:1423:6BB1 (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

:It's obvious to me, coordinated vandalism of Spanish, Catalonian, etc. articles across at least two users and 34 IPs, with most in the last ~24 hours, but repeating some from 30 April. 3 of the IPs are from Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. It really does belong at WP:AIV...

::Multiple vandal edits spread across

:::User:KalilTheDindu45

:::User:WTCUpdate Segre (river) Sant Quirze del Vallès [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Quirze_del_Vall%C3%A8s&diff=895335385&oldid=895332998] Cantabria Ebro Cervera and Vidreres Oct 2018

:::User:158.109.94.211 Barcelonès Sant Quirze del Vallès Francesc Segre (river) Llobregat (blocked as school block)

:::User:158.109.198.43 (btw: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) Tagus Sants Segre (river) Vidreres ‎

:::User:158.109.198.42 Sant Quirze del Vallès [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sant_Quirze_del_Vall%C3%A8s&type=revision&diff=895332998&oldid=894867391] Vilaller El Pont de Suert Vall de Boí Hostafrancs Segre (river) River Ter

:::User:158.109.198.41 Segre (river) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Segre_(river)&diff=prev&oldid=895324490]

:Well, User:KalilTheDindu45 is blocked. I'll go see if WP:AIV wants to do anything about the others. Shenme (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::I blocked Special:Contribs/158.109.198.0/24 for vandalism apparently in concert with :User:KalilTheDindu45. Not sure if it's a bunch of meatpuppets, or good-hand/bad-hand, or what. Special:Contributions/WTCUpdate is going to get indeffed as well for nothere, it's a 3 year old account with sporadic vandalism throughout that whole history. ST47 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Thanks for confirming my suspicions, and for the clean-up help and blocks, 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:596C:EE45:1423:6BB1, Shenme, and ST47. Schazjmd (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop}}

It appears that an editor attempted to out this individual: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Captainhoff&oldid=895561949 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.45.202.39 (talk • contribs)

:They've already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Hoffman_(businessman)&diff=prev&oldid=895378274 confirmed it]. Nothing to see here. Closing. El_C 11:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|User blocked as a sock by Bbb23. - Bilby (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)}}

This is in reference to editor {{U|Harrison Canyon}} (and possible anonymous IP 24.50.193.43). Please see details of my concern about this editor in my note [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Girth_Summit#Concern here]. Besides claiming being an Admin, this editor has been quite disruptive in Puerto Rico roadways articles. I am not sure how to proceed. Also, not sure if this is a case of sock-puppetry as well, since he appears to be editing also as Anon IP 24.50.193.43, where {{ping|User:Yarfpr}} and myself have left him messages -- never responds from any known account. Mercy11 (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:I removed the admin userbox from his userpage. Please provide diffs for any further complaints. Simply editing logged out isn't sockpuppetry unless they are claiming to be two separate people to obtain an advantage. Again if you have diffs where they have violated a specific policy, please add them to this report. John from Idegon (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

::I agree, but I never claimed that I was filing a complaint for suckpuppetry. Mercy11 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Blocked by another admin for 48 hours. Next time, report vandalism violations at WP:AIV. NJA | talk 12:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|144.98.98.33}}

User has persistently vandalised the 2019 South African general election. Deliberately attempting to destroy or deface the page. Numerous editors trying to stop them. Conlinp (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring. Next time, report 3RR violations at AN3. El_C 03:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)}}

This user violates the 3RR in article Deadcuts -[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deadcuts&action=history history] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deadcuts&diff=895984264&oldid=895932070 diff 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deadcuts&diff=895918573&oldid=895867837 diff 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deadcuts&diff=895650412&oldid=895606391 diff 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deadcuts&diff=895589839&oldid=895587558 diff 4]). Regards.--PATH SLOPU 03:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|JGabbard is banned from all pages and edits related to complementary and alternative medicine, broadly construed, for six months. This is an arbitration enforcement action. GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)}}

{{user5|JGabbard}} has been warned about discretionary sanctions.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJGabbard&type=revision&diff=894788560&oldid=893591392] The editor has staked out a position at Wikipedia talk:Yes. We are biased.#Protestation/Responses and Wikipedia talk:Yes. We are biased.#Closing salvo. I am bringing this here because we have reached the next step from the proposal on that page.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AYes._We_are_biased.&type=revision&diff=895201609&oldid=895156101] Topic bans were deemed inappropriate because the editor was said to have little interest in medicine/alternative medicine topics. Edits at Urine therapy suggest otherwise.

While I was not explicit and just cited WP:MEDRS to revert, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urine_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=895531895 this edit] was not at all subtle. In the quick summary for those not versed in the subject, Premarin contains hormones purififed from (PREgnant MARes urINe), but describing it by saying "[a]nimal urine is used in some hormone-boosting prescription medications" is a broad stretch (WP:OR). Neither Urecholine (bethanechol) nor Urocit-K (potassium citrate) contains urea and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urine_therapy&diff=next&oldid=895535491 restored edit] cited a list of drugs but nothing that discussed the content of the two. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urine_therapy&curid=596485&diff=895538137&oldid=895536046 last edit] on the article replaces a statement about lack of support with a reference which discusses the historic purification of follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone from nun's urine.

With these edits in article space, it is time to raise the question of a topic ban. BiologicalMe (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:Just to make my position clear (from the above, BiologicalMe appears to agree); I do not think that ANI should become involved when someone uses the talk page of an essay as a soapbox when the essay itself is already a a bit of an allowed soapbox. I believe that both should be allowed. That being said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AYes._We_are_biased.&type=revision&diff=895156101&oldid=895123001 this edit] makes it perfectly clear what JGabbard is and what we can expect from him if he edits any articles.

:In my opinion, a topic ban should be imposed, based upon these edits to articles:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amygdalin&diff=prev&oldid=894170480][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amygdalin&diff=prev&oldid=894779802][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urine_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=895538137]

:I would further argue that, for JGabbard, promotion of pseudoscience is a small part of a much larger body of edits concerning music, all of which seem to be constructive. A topic ban would have very little effect on him or on his work on the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Too soon for a TBAN (Edit: see below for why). The last of those 3 edits was unwise, but the first two might have been wrong, but they weren't really promoting WP:FRINGE views. BiologicalMe, you explained why the edits about Premarin were no good {{em|here}}, but you didn't explain it on the article's talk page or on JGabbard's (that I noticed). Jumping right to ANI to call for a TBAN after someone just barely inches over the line is a bit draconian. Any disruption so far has been extremely minor. Let them earn their TBAN if it's really warranted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::If it were just those three edits, I would not have come here. I should have provided more context. The warnings came after multiple attempts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amygdalin&type=revision&diff=894162633&oldid=894156188][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amygdalin&diff=next&oldid=894168892][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amygdalin&diff=next&oldid=894172042][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amygdalin&diff=next&oldid=894721990] to push a change in the lede to Amygdalin. The sum total of engagement at that talk page was to argue a cited essay.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmygdalin&type=revision&diff=894808319&oldid=894794772] I probably read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Yes._We_are_biased.&diff=next&oldid=895156101 this] as a little more of a road map leading here than I should have. To my eyes, wildly creative edits trying to describe some pharmaceuticals in terms similar to urine therapy is promotion of a fringe theory, and it has held up on a second reading giving it a favorable light. If I pulled the trigger early, I'm sorry, but it has been pulled. If there are measures short of a topic ban that will solve the problem (including this discussion itself), excellent. BiologicalMe (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Ok, that's certainly a bit more troubling. I've struck my "too soon", and I'll leave it more as an "I dunno". Not sure why, but part of me still wants to see if they'll back off on their own, but if others feel differently, I certainly wouldn't argue anymore. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::I would not be against closing this, waiting to see if JGabbard voluntarily steps away from fringe theories, and reopening it if he continues. He was crystal clear about his views...

:::::"Mainstream science and western medicine are willingly ignorant of any therapies or remedies which are not profit-driven, regardless of how effective they may be. That is why doctors receive scant training in nutrition at Rx-driven allopathic medical schools. It also explains precisely why oncologists can be sued and have their licenses revoked for curing patients using any method other than slash/burn/poison (i.e., surgery, radiation and/or chemotherapy). That is also the reason broccoli growers are threatened with litigation by pharmaceutical corporations (via the FDA) for touting the health benefits of their product. Wikipedia should operate in the interest of the betterment of humanity and not be in subjugation to and a reflection of that inequitable, self-serving and corrupt system." --posted by Gabbard on 2 May.

::::...but it is entirely possible that he will walk away now that this is at ANI. I am OK with a topic ban and I am OK with waiting. ---Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::I changed my mind. If he was pushing political conspiracy theories or fringe physics, I would recommend a warning. This is medicine we are talking about. People come to Wikipedia to see whether what somebody told them about a fringe medical treatment is legit. Topic ban him. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::They do good work with music articles, and work mostly on them, but the fringe medical stuff has been going on for years. Ingesting semen to cure morning sickness from 2017 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semen&diff=prev&oldid=772044279], going back to 2009- consumption of semen cures breast cancer. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_cancer&diff=prev&oldid=295227575] and there are plenty more. Warnings on their talkpage about only using MEDRS sources in 2011 and 2013. Urine is just the latest bodily fluid. Yesterday's polishing of their user page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JGabbard&diff=895770825&oldid=895610037] does not look hopeful. Curdle (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Oh dear. It is a lot worse than I thought. Note to closer: please read User:JGabbard#Perspectives/Protesting abuses!. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Call for close

I believe that this discussion has come to a natural end. Could an uninvolved administrator please evaluate and close? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:I'm inclined to impose a six month topic ban from complimentary/alternative therapy as an arbitration enforcement action, but I'd prefer to see {{u|JGabbard}} comment here first. If they don't do so in the next 24 hours or so, I'll close with such a ban. GoldenRing (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::On urine therapy, I feel that the topic is inadequately covered because it omits the therapeutic uses of animal urine, such as in some fertility drugs. Also, the blanket claim about no therapeutic value to human urine was unsourced, so I challenged it, replacing it with the Time article about nuns' urine in hormone replacement medications/fertility drugs. That edit was reverted and remains unreferenced. The statement about urea in skin rehydration products is well referenced, however, the part about Ur- named drugs containing urea was original research and is only partly true. I apologize for the wording of that part of the edit, as well as not including a source.

::The reason I so seldom contribute outside my chosen realm is because I recognize the institutionalized bias inherent in areas such as the healing arts, where I do have some philosophical differences. I freely admit a desire to expand consciousness by at times attempting to boost a marginal topic into more general acceptance, and I do enjoy chipping away at bias where feasible. However, those rare edits are always intended to be both positive and constructive. - JGabbard (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::JGabbard, urine therapy is the application of human urine for medicinal or cosmetic purposes, including drinking of one's own urine and massaging one's skin, or gums, with one's own urine. There is no scientific evidence to support its use. The fact that Conjugated estrogens are available in the form of both natural preparations manufactured from the urine of pregnant mares and fully synthetic replications of the natural preparations has nothing to do with the use of human urine in urine therapy. Urine is also used in gunpowder manufacturing, fertilizer, and even to make neural progenitor cells.[http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/04/urine-facts/] These are all interesting facts, but none of them any any way excuse you removing " There is no scientific evidence to support its use." from the urine therapy article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urine_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=895538137] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:I support at the minimum a six month topic ban from complimentary/alternative therapy. It is clear from their user page missive that they are here to right great wrongs and challenge "bias" (as the post above also indicates).Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::Given the long term pattern of slow edits, the topic ban should be indefinite, with a possible appeal after six months conditional on Gabbard making a compelling argument that he will not be disruptive if the topic ban is lifted. I also think that he should be required to remove all of the alt-health polemic from his useed pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

:::Given that user pages are not supposed to be used in this way that should be given.Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|This is easily solved by User:Guy Macon never referring to User:Fæ again. Then he won't care what pronouns they prefer, and won't be forced to use pronouns he doesn't want to. However, if Guy does choose to refer to Fæ again, he'll be blocked for personal attacks/harassment for using anything besides the singular "they", just as I would expect to be blocked for continually referring to Guy as "she" even after being told it annoys him. And just to forestall trouble: Fæ, please don't poke Guy with a stick. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)}}

I noticed that in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=895354343&oldid=895353572 a recent ANI discussion], Guy Macon demeaned Fæ by making fun of their gender identity:

{{tq|Fæ appears to be testing to see how far over the line xe can go regarding xyr topic ban and regarding civility...It would be very useful If I could look up every place where Fæ or xyr previous Ash account used the terms "sexist" or "sexism" and verify the above claim. --Guy Macon}}

These kind of "jokes" don't just hurt their direct targets. They demean an entire minority group and hurt the encyclopedia as a whole. This should be considered as serious as one editor calling another faggot or similar. Thanks for your consideration. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{u|Fæ}} has made it quite clear that they prefer the singular they prounoun as opposed to the idiosyncratic xe and xyr usages that {{u|Guy Macon}} is deploying in a mocking fashion. I advise Guy Macon to refrain from this type of ugly harassment in the future. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:Demanding/expecting someone to keep track of and use every Wikipedian's pronouns is exactly as manipulative as intentionally misapplying those pronouns. I suggest any offended parties instead practice the art of projecting an aura of resilience, and that any offending particles project an aura of respect to others. I don't foresee any action coming out of this based on one comment. -- Netoholic @ 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::While keeping track of every users pronouns is unlikely, using gender neutral pronouns unless you know otherwise can and should be the norm. We're literally on an anonymous platform where anyone's gender is unknown unless they proclaim it. Guy could have easily not used pronouns, or used they/them for a gender neutral default (or since Guy certainly knows about Fæ's pronouns). But instead Guy intentionally mocked Fæ, and then leveled a personal attack! Guy should know better. I don't think any action should come of this, but I do think Guy needs to be more civil. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::{{u|Netoholic}}, your comment might have some validity under WP:AGF if {{u|Guy Macon}} had inadvertently used the historically common "he" or "she", but instead, Guy Macon consciously chose to use the highly idiosyncratic "xe" and "xyr" usages without any preference for those terms being expressed by {{u|Fæ}}. Your failure to see the distinction is nearly but not quite as as troubling as Guy Macon's obnoxious and harassing choice. A basic principle of human dignity is to refer to human beings by the names and pronouns that they prefer. Good faith accidents are both understandable and forgivable. Deliberate provocations are much less so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::I am pinging {{u|Fæ}} since I think that I botched earlier pings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: One of the easiest ways of establishing human dignity is resilience. The best part is that its a gift that you can give to yourself, and enjoy all the more for it. Say to yourself "Today, I did not let that Guy get under my skin, and I feel just a little bit better than I did yesterday about myself" and recognize that you've earned a bit of self-respect. Doing so will reflect outward, causing others to respect you as well. {{ping|Fæ|WanderingWanda}} don't let him ruin your day. {{ping|Guy Macon}} WP:Don't be a dick and hey, maybe apply WP:Old-fashioned Wikipedian values #3. -- Netoholic @ 08:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass. Zero doubt considering that Guy Macon was writing on my talk page in March about their fear of me, playing the victim, and explaining how important using the right words are (ref multiple entries by Guy Macon at User_talk:Fæ/2019). Despite claiming to be frightened of me, this has not stopped them writing about me, writing on my talk page and making this attack against my gender identity on Wikipedia. Guy Macon has made their views about pronoun use abundantly clear, refer to Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour and with a response to me of "I don't hate you, just as I don't hate any other person who attempts to force us to abandon one of our basic principles (Wikipedia is not censored). If anything, I feel sorry for you. It must be awful (apologies to any middle-English speakers reading this) to go through life being offended again and again, yet somehow being unable or unwilling to simply avoid the things that offend you. As for ridicule, I will try not to ridicule you, despite the fact that your ham-handed (apologies to any Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu contributors that I may have just triggered) attempt at censorship is completely ridiculous and deserving of ridicule." and talking about me with "Last I looked God did not appoint Fæ the arbiter of all humor. Nor does anything in this discussion have anything to do with heteronormativity; that was the first time anyone mentioned sexual-partner preferences here. I find that hilarious, since the point of Fæ's mini-rant was to browbeat someone about staying on-topic." at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour.

:The joke here would be Guy Macon blatantly harassing a queer editor for their preferred pronoun, when there is zero doubt that this was a deliberate premeditated attack, and the only so-called sanction is to politely ask Guy Macon to try to refrain from deliberately abusing and demeaning queers. Sure... thanks.

:By the way, it is worth highlighting that Arbcom recognized the harassment I had been targeted with around 2010. It would be humiliating and unfair to resurrect those events and make me relive it, it was damaging and made me seriously unhappy. Those digging for dirt should get real lives and find other things to research than what people wrote 10 years ago, thanks. --Fæ (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Guy Macon's Response

I took a break and thought about how to respond to the above. Below you will see my conclusion about what is best for the encyclopedia.

WanderingWanda is suspiciously familiar with ANI for such a new editor. I'm just saying.

In the above comment, Fæ makes a false accusation ("This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass"). This is typical Fæ behavior; engage in vicious personal attacks while demanding that we treat Thon[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Summary] with kid gloves. I am not the only one who has noticed this behavior. See the following 12:0 Arbcom finding of facts: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others Also see User talk:Fæ/2012#Unacceptable edits.

I really did make a good-faith attempt to use personal pronouns that are as inoffensive as possible without being bad grammar (plural and singular have meanings) and I am still doing my best to do this in this comment, yet Fæ still decided to fire up the well-used flamethrower. And, it appears, there is a crowd gathering with pitchforks and torches. If you want to sanction a 12-year/45,000-edit veteran editor with a clean block record -- all without any prior warning -- for doing his level best not to offend, go ahead, but please start by quoting the exact wording of the Wikipedia policy or guideline that you believe I violated. This will save time at Arbcom.

Fæ also mocks my legitimate fear that, after Fæ going off-wiki and trying to get two individuals who opposed Peh[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Summary] removed from their positions, I would get the same treatment. At the time I assumed good faith and accepted Fæ's assurance that this would not happen, and now I am seeing that very AGF weaponized against me.

I refuse to use the singular they pronoun in cases where someone demands that I do so. I use it as the least-bad choice when I don't know the gender of the person I am addressing, but it is a bad choice. Singular and plural have specified meanings in the English language, and I strongly oppose any attempts to redefine them. Go ahead and try to force me to do use them and see what happens. I also wanted to avoid "he" and "him". I know that Fæ is in the habit of making a show of being outraged, and I predicted a false accusation if I used "him". I am also unwilling to carefully rewrite every sentence to avoid any pronouns. Go ahead and try to force me to do that and see what happens. Yes, what I just wrote was aggressive and confrontational. Perhaps 10% as aggressive and confrontational as "This was a targeted premeditated personal attack intended to harass".

So, outside of my own personal outrage at being treated unfairly and my conclusion that any choice I make will result in further personal attacks, what is best for the encyclopedia? In my considered opinion, Fæ should be topic banned from all comments about anyone else's choice of what personal pronouns to use as part of the existing topic ban. Nothing good has come from these complaints. If someone is really demeaning an entire minority group there will be plenty of other editors who will report it. Fæ obviously can not or will not understand the difference between some bigot making a personal attack and me doing my best to not offend zhim[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Summary] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::Re: "WanderingWanda is suspiciously familiar with ANI for such a new editor." I was thinking that too. It's very strange to me that this editor showed up out of nowhere just as a whole string of gender-related disputes were erupting or re-erupting, and that the user focuses on this drama almost exclusively. Especially since at least one blatant WP:MEATPUPPET [update: turned out to be a sock; MaryKontana was shortly thereafter blocked as a sock of AttackTheMoonNow], arguing in the same vein and also too savvy of internal WP process to actually be a new editor, was caught out in these threads just last month, and also acting as part of a "back up Fæ" brigade. Double-especially given that we know Fæ was shopping gender-related disputes offsite, at very least to other WMF sites (as covered at ANI regarding Fæ and me a month or so back [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#F%C3%A6's_return_to_canvassing_and_incivility/aspersions_in_gender-related_disputes]). I'm not sure about more broadly, and can't think of a way to be certain yet that doesn't have WP:OUTING risk, though that would be mitigated by e-mailing evidence directly to ArbCom when the time comes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC); updated:  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment - using the singular "they" is correct per all contemporary sources, the tradition of the English language, and Wikipedian commonsense. The second-last paragraph of the above is simply an unsourced, IDONTLIKEIT tirade against grammar and usage. Furthermore, using a make-up pronoun of the writer's choosing to refer to another editor is POINTY, unCIVIL, and in clear defiance of contemporary Wikipedian norms. I have difficulty seeing how Guy could interpret his own making up of pronouns as other than a mocking personal attack, and if "agressive and confrontational " responses are all he has to offer then he should volunteer to step back OR be subjeCt to sanction. Guy's refusal to see this and his denial that his original comment was, in fact, an attack is evidence that his behaviour should be subject to more scrutiny rather than being allowed to fester. In have no information on Fae's behaviour in this matter to date, particularly since it may involve off-wiki issues. Newimpartial (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:Using the singular "they" is correct per all contemporary sources, the tradition of the English language, and Wikipedian commonsense, you say?

:* "Chicago accepts this use of singular they in speech and informal writing. For formal writing, most modern style and usage manuals have not accepted this usage until recently, if at all. CMOS 17 does not prohibit the use of singular they as a substitute for the generic he in formal writing, but recommends avoiding it, offering various other ways to achieve bias-free language. --[https://cmosshoptalk.com/2017/04/03/chicago-style-for-the-singular-they/ Chicago Manual of Style]

:* "Not everyone is down with singular they. The well-respected Chicago Manual of Style still rejects singular they for formal writing" --[https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/ Oxford English Dictionary]

:* "It has become the target of criticism since the late-19th century. Its use in formal English has become more common with the trend toward gender-neutral language, though most style guides continue to proscribe it." --Wikipedia, Singular they

:: "And yet since singular they will still annoy many readers, many writers will want to write around the problem... Use singular they in relaxed prose, when you know you're in the company of those who get this right, or if you don't mind annoying a determined and vocal minority." -- [https://www.economist.com/johnson/2013/01/16/singular-they-everyone-has-their-own-opinion The Economist]

:* "The Singular 'They' Must Be Stopped. The misused word is everywhere, proliferating like fruit flies 'round a bowl of rotting bananas. We must stop it before it goes too far." --[https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/01/singular-their-affront-good-writing/319329/ The Atlantic]

:Certainly some sources accept it.[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-feb-19-oe-yagoda19-story.html][https://www.enago.com/academy/the-singular-they-controversial-or-acceptable/] Maybe even most sources. But all contemporary sources? ^{[Citation Needed]} --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::I was not under the impression that you were engaged in "formal" writing; if you were, it is unclear to ne how a made-up pronoun nobody else had introduced in the discussion would be more acceptable, anyway. So yeah, you haven't produced any recent RS against the singular they. Not yet. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Last I looked, no one made you the Official WMF Discussion Page Language Formality and Currency Enforcement Officer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Nerp. But that doesn't disallow me from pointing out a non-sequitur when I see one. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::You don't seem clear on what {{lang|la|non sequitur}} means (neither the literary nor rhetoric senses apply). You not agreeing with Macon indicates neither that his argument has a logic-flow problem nor that he's said something irrelevant to the context.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::Guy justified his animus against using the singular "they" on WP Talk pages citing the Chicago Manual of Style as characterizing the usage as "informal". However, unless Guy regards his contribution to Talk pages as formal writing, he is therefore employing non sequitur argumentation. Newimpartial (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I agree that Macon is behaving sort of a jerk (w/o any good reason) and nothing is gained by disrespecting Fae's choice of pronouns. But then Fae belongs to the lot of professionally offended and I will be much surprised, if Fae had not been part of some head hunt for Guy, on some random pretext of misogyny/transphobia/sexism/whatever. In 99% of the cases, it's typically Fae who first manages to piss people off, before both take turns at making it a shit-fest. ∯WBG^converse 12:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• :FWIW, I agree with the content of Macon's post that led to this thread. ∯WBG^converse 12:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with Guy that it seems suspicious that WanderingWanda has only been here since January yet has been involved in some very advanced activities such as AN complaints, several move requests and very well formatted RfCs, setting up a talk page archive etc. I can understand why editors have wondered about prior accounts.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WanderingWanda/Archive_1#Previous_account? I mention this because editors filing are subject to having their own behavior scrutinized. Given that Fea didn't start this ANI I don't see why it would need to be acted upon. In agreement with Winged Blades of Godric, I guess Guy was being a over the top in a way that isn't helpful but I also agree that it appears that Fea is working the victim angle (with a disclaimer that Fea didn't actually file this one). Additionally, just a few discussions up we have a case where Fea is being less than civil (but not to the level requiring sanctions). Personally I use "they" even though it sounds unnatural to me. I also don't really care if people call me "he" (which random odds says would be correct) or "she" because of something or some way I've said something. When it comes down to it I'm a screen name around here. Perhaps the best thing to do is relax a bit. Springee (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Fæ could literally be the worst single editor on the entire encyclopedia, or they could be the very best, and it wouldn't matter either way: making fun of their gender identity would not, in my view, be appropriate. That's why I said that {{tq|These kind of "jokes" don't just hurt their direct targets. They demean an entire minority group and hurt the encyclopedia as a whole.}} (If you have strong personal feelings about using singular they/them you can always just avoid pronouns altogether when talking about someone who prefers those pronouns. No one's forcing anyone to use words they don't want to use!) (Regarding the accusations against me: I take it as a compliment that some people apparently think my editing is so brilliant I couldn't possibly be a newbie, but if you dig into my history you'll also find plenty of dumb mistakes I've made along the way.) WanderingWanda (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have listened to all of the above, and here is my final comment:

• I will respect a person's gender pronoun if [A] they let me know about it, and [B] they treat me with respect. This excludes Fæ, but even in the case of Fæ I will of course try to use gender pronouns that the majority of the population will not find offensive. I will not defer to the personal preferences of anyone who uses them as a club to beat other editors with. I refuse to play that game.

• There is absolutely nothing wrong with using Xe, Xem, Xyr, and Xyrs. I plan on using them in certain situations where I suspect that the traditional pronouns may be offensive. If anyone wishes to claim that they are offensive, it is up to that person to provide a compelling explaination as to why.

• When I use Xe, Xem, Xyr, and Xyrs, I am not trying to insult anyone. When I insult you, you will know it. You have my promise that there will be no doubt. I used and will continue to use Xe, Xem, Xyr, and Xyrs in a good faith attempt to not cause offense. If you want to call me a liar, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

• I suggest either sanctioning me, in which case we will go to Arbcom so you can explain what policy I violated and why you failed to warn before blocking, giving me an official warning in your role as an administrator on my talk page, in which case my practice is to stop doing whatever I was warned about and start discussing it whether or not I agree, or closing this ANI report.

• I have no interest in hearing any more of this, and am temporarily unwatching this page. If this gets closed one way or the other, could someone please drop me a note on my talk page? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Guy Macon, if the use of the pronouns was not meant to make fun of Fæ that's another matter, although I think your attitude of well-I'll-use-someone's-preffered-pronouns-unless is rather uncomfortable. Someone's preferred pronouns should not be thought of something that is bestowed. 2. Using terminology that hardly anyone else uses is bound to cause confusion and offense, and I don't think it's a very good idea. But if you're insistent on it, my earnest recommendation is that you start using Xe, Xem, Xyr, to refer to everyone of every gender to make it clear it's not meant as a joke or attack. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Can someone give Guy Macon a firm warning or a proper sanction, as he is clearly trying to play the anti-pronoun martyr?

"This excludes Fæ" with a commitment to continue using wrong or fictional pronouns to harass me with, is a deliberate misuse of Wikipedia for harassment, in plain English, it is an open promise to run a battleground hate campaign. I do not expect to have to go to Arbcom to get someone who behaves this badly to stop or set an interaction ban, so hopefully this is a decent reference point so that future "queer related" harassment by Guy Macon, against me or anyone else, will result in swift sanctions based on that evidence, not an excuse for people to queue up to make bizarre presumptions about the actual victim of Guy Macon's hounding that they apparently just made up, or be taken in by Guy Macon playing the "but I'm the real one being harassed!" victim card. The act is tired and seeing someone get away with this transparent bulls**t positively damages the Wikipedia community.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree that we should stop turning someone's pronouns into such a large issue. Also agree that {{u|Guy Macon}} refusing to use singular they because "it's not formal English" yet using neologistic pronouns without a problem makes literally no sense at all. Also agree with {{u|Fæ}} that people trying to dig up dirt on people based on what they did years ago should do something else. This has happened in real life. SemiHypercube 17:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Fae should have been blocked for a very long time for falsely accusing Slatersteven of sexism and then attempting to hide behind (im)plausible deniability as if their words did not mean what they clearly meant (see the above thread entitled "Fæ"). Yet despite the fact that Fae's abusive behavior received no meaningful consequence, here we have Fae calling for sanctions against someone. Fae, when you get off scot-free despite gross mistreatment of another editor and then show no inclination toward even a hint of mercy when another editor ends up in your bad graces, it really reinforces the perception that you are lying when you claim to care about the existence of a hostile environment. Lepricavark (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:: Provide the diff to where I called Slatersteven sexist or accused anyone of sexism. There is a reason that these diffs cannot be produced as evidence, it's called fake news. Repeating false or exaggerated claims by others does not help this thread and is a bad faith act of character assassination.

:: A more useful link is the discussion about those (tangential to this thread) claims at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Canvassing_allegations_for_Sarah_Tuttle. No evidence has yet been provided for any claim, despite those claims being serious and disruptive to our collegial work on Wikipedia. If you want to continue discussing this issue, or provide the missing evidence, please do so there at WiR, rather than creating a further tangent here which is about Guy Macon's on going stated commitment to misuse gender pronouns. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::: Did you really think I wouldn't have a ready answer? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895316347&oldid=895316088&title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sarah_Tuttle] You are directly accusing Slatersteven of creepily and 'obsessively' sniffing Tuttle's easily accessible Twitter account (which anyone can find right away through a google search even though you apparently think it is hidden in one of the pyramids or something) because she is a woman. That's a direct implication of sexism. Sure, you didn't use exact letter combination of s-e-x-i-s-m, but you were implying exactly what you wanted to imply and what you wanted everyone else to think about Slatersteven. And now that it has backfired, you are trying to say that you didn't really say what you said. I'd expect that kind of logic from a five-year-old. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: Searching for dirt through a BLP subject's social media accounts is creepy to me, it's fine that you do not think that it's creepy. Thanks for confirming that I never called anyone sexist. If you want to discuss the evidence of canvassing by the BLP subject on their social media accounts (which is what Slatersteven has alleged and others have researched and failed to find evidence to support), this has nothing to do with Guy Macon's self created issues with gender pronouns, so please provide whatever new evidence you have at WiR. This thread is not about your opinions as to what "sexism" might be defined as, nor is it about Slatersteven. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::: I think the evidence speaks for itself very loudly and I will not be taking directions from you on where to comment. Or on anything else, for that matter. Lepricavark (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::She They could be saying that he might be operating under the assumption that women articles are given preferential treatment in some way — that wouldn't make him sexist, even if it, ultimately, probably would make him wrong. That said, that entire comment seems aggressive and it doesn't sit well with me. But I haven't had a chance to read the whole exchange, so maybe I'm missing something pivotal. El_C 17:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::I suppose that there's a minuscule chance that that's what Fae meant, but it certainly doesn't align with the aggressive tone of the comment, which you also noticed. It seems clear to me that Fae was simply jumping into the fray with a major assumption of bad faith. I mean, Fae still has not acknowledged the difference between 'searching for dirt' and opening one of the top results on a Google search. And yes, I realize that Slatersteven has said he did not find the Twitter link though Google but rather that someone else had posted the link, but that means Fae had even less reason for attacking Slateversteven. Lepricavark (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::: This is still a tangent, it has nothing to do with Guy Macon. If you want to be helpful, you could supply the missing evidence of canvassing at WiR where the case was discussed in detail. Slatersteven has refused to supply the missing evidence, and yet has not withdrawn the allegation against the BLP subject. Defaming BLP subjects seems a more real problem for Wikipedia than hijacking this thread as a proxy for the one that was already closed on this page by an administrator, or hijacking it to try to crowbar in a new way of understanding what the words "allegation of sexism" might mean. Actually, if you want to pursue that, WiR would also be an excellent venue to gain a better understanding of what "sexism" means in practice for Wikipedians trying to correct the systemic bias that exists on this project and how WiR participants can frankly and openly discuss the very visible patterns of systemic bias, without being accused of making "allegations of sexism/misogyny" or whatever other words get bandied about in tangent creating allegations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::: I did not make or repeat the charge of canvassing, so why do you think I should supply the evidence? I have been concerned with defending Slateversteven against defamation. Speaking of which, you keep accusing Slatersteven of defaming Tuttle even though he has repeatedly said that he was concerned by one of the replies to Tuttle's tweet. Or, to put it another way, he made no accusations against Tuttle and thus did not defame her in any way. Seriously, stop with the false assertions. Lepricavark (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• The response has every appearance of hot-button game-playing, drama mongering, that lost boy style so popular in off-site brigading of sites. If the user Guy Macon doesn't recognise how obnoxious the explanation is, how unlikely it is they are not being wilfully obtuse and maliciously compliant, they are not going to appreciate the virtues of civility any time soon. Why are they here? cygnis insignis 18:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I take issue with the title of this thread. User:Guy Macon has made an IMpersonal attack on User:Fae by persistently using a novel pronoun when they have said that is not what they want. Guy isn't treating Fae with the dignity which they have requested. Stop it, User:Guy Macon. Use novel pronoun forms for someone who has requested them, or for yourself if you wish, not for Fae or for me. You have used the Internet long enough to know to be familiar with the Shapiro report's reminder that the names that you say on your screen are those of real human beings (regardless of their identified gender). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not about me, and I have avoided commenting until now (and am none to happy about being dragged into it). I think (in this case) both sides are equally out of order, Guy for refusing to obey someones wishes about how they wish to be engaged with, and Fae for (ironically) the same. It does not matter to me if it is a request to be called they, or refusing to treat other users with the same courtesy and respect they demand. Here I almost have some (but only a very small amount) of sympathy for Guys stand, if someone wished to be disrespectful or obnoxious then they have no Right to demand that of others. But (and this is a very big but) this does not excuse or condone rudeness. If they wishes to be called they they should have their wishes respected, and no one (no matter who they are or why) should ignore this. But (also a big but) as far as I know Guy's actions do not really breach policy. I think both users should be reminded to treat others with respect and courtesy.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:''"Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project. Harassment of an editor on the basis of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age or disability is not allowed.

:Wikipedia:Harassment

:--Fæ (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::I see nothing about "not referring to them how they have asked". I suppose if you wanted to stretch it you could argue its Harassment of an editor on the sex, gender or sexual orientation. But I would find that hard to swallow as he is not attacking your, whatever it is, he is just refusing to call you by a certain word. Now if he is harassing you you can provide diffs where he show up very often to attack your sex, gender or sexual orientation?Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::: Thanks for the question. When diversity policies include "gender", in the real world this includes all genders, including nonbinary and genderqueer. It would be an odd technicality to interpret "gender" as not covering "gender identity", which is why gender pronouns exist. Someone could always propose an improvement to the wording of the harassment policy if they think it is confusing to not explicitly include "gender identity" as well as "gender". I think this would be less a wording change than a clarification on the policy talk page, depending on what external best practices the Wikipedia community might want to compare the current wording against. The WMF has been working on this area, as per the Technical Spaces CoC, so that might be a useful comparison, even if we have no plans to adopt it. --Fæ (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::"Personal pronoun: Though many Wikimedians know me from real life events and meetings, this is separate from my on-project identity. If you need a pronoun to refer to my account, I prefer the courtesy of a singular they rather than she, he or anything else.", so this is not about your gender identity, but your Wikipedia one. Reading that does not tell me this is about your gender identity (unless of course the gender you identify with on WP is different from your real world one, if this is the case it is not clear).Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::: The statement is clear, this is my personal pronoun I have asked to be used on this project, which is the same thing as the gender identity I ask to be respected here. Guy Macon was aware of this fact, based on their past edits, and yet chose to get weird about it as discussed above. Their later commitment to continue using this as a harassment method is, well, read the comments by others in reaction. Questions about my personal life are neither relevant nor necessary. --Fæ (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::As I said I think Guy is wrong to refuse to obey your request (though I would also point out that your choice of pronouns hardly flows naturally and I can see why they would have an issue with it), but it is not clear this is an issue of gender identity, and thus no one should be hung over it (just tolled they are being a dick). Now if it is the same as the gender id you wish to use here (not that I am wholly sure what that is) it should be made explicitly clear on your users page that this is a gender ID, and not just a way of creating more anonymity (which is how it read).Slatersteven (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: I believe you are over wikilawyering words. Respecting our contributor's gender and using the right pronoun is not that difficult. There is no expectation for our contributors to do any more than say what their preferred pronoun is, the rest are new types of distinction that do not apply in the real world, so it would be bizarre for Wikipedia to start creating special barriers before our contributors are treated respectfully. --Fæ (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::The make it clear its a gender issue on your user page. You cannot hope users second guess that this is about gender and not anonymity. Ifd this was not an ANI, where sanctions were being sought I might agree with you. But this is, and as such it must be a claer violation of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::: Again, this does not make sense. The root cause here is not my actions or a failure to write something on my user page that Guy Macon might understand or find acceptable. So no, there is nothing wrong with the statement about my preferred pronoun. If you honestly believe that Wikipedia needs special policies about this, then please make a proposal. --Fæ (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Again this is not about me, so stop making it about me.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::--

::::::::::::A note that a consensus was reached a while back to add gender identity to WP:NPA, I see no reason not to add it to WP:HARASS as well. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:Can we at least all agree that deliberately misgendering Fae or anyone else is a personal attack and, if repeated after warnings, a blockable offense? Fae should not have to do anything to deserve proper and respectful treatment of their gender identity. It is the basic dignity that all our editors deserve automatically, by virtue of being people. If you can't bring yourself to use singular they (except for those times when you probably already use it and just don't notice) then avoid using a pronoun — call Guy Guy, call Fae Fae, etc. If you feel compelled to misgender people with whom you have disagreements, and set agreeing with you as a condition for treating them respectfully, something is wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::How is he misgendering Fae, what is the gender of the terms he has used? Hell what is the gender of the term they wants to useSlatersteven (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I have had my say, I do not think any thing more then a "be nice" message should be done about this, anbd this is my last word.Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Clearly, using a masculine or a feminine gendered pronoun in dialogue with a person who has clearly expressed a preference for neither masculine nor feminine pronouns is misgendering, every bit as much as it would be if you preferred feminine pronouns and I called you "he", or if you preferred feminine pronouns and I called you "she". Using made-up pronouns to deal with people whose chosen peonouns we do not accept (but not with others or ourselves) is equally insulting. We do not simply get to decide that all non-binary folks should be called "zie" any more than we can decide that all folks - m f or anything else - should be called "it", which would be misgendering and dehumanizing in much the same way as Guy's attack pronouns, albeit less attack-ey,

:::Slatersteven. I don't think anyone who has not in fact been in discussions where an interlocutor has used incorrect pronouns in order to undercut one's argument, or as a form of insult, is really in a position to decide what calls for a "be nice" message rather than a sanction, any more than someone who has not been subject to misogynist verbal attacks should decide how consequential it is to he called a "bitch". Empathy often fails in the attempt. Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Since Slatersteven's name has been questioned here and in the previous thread I'll say here what I had intended to say earlier. Slatersteven and I have been on opposite sides of a contentious issue. What I found, much to my annoyance, was he/she/they were level headed, willing to listen even when they didn't agree and generally well behaved to the point where I couldn't claim some sort of behavior or editorial fault and I was forced to discuss the issue based on merit! Basically, I have no doubt that someone might get mad at Slatersteven for making them think but not because Slatersteven was rude or otherwise problematic. Oh, on top of all that, they also try to find common ground and seek compromise. Can you believe it? The nerve° of that person! Springee (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:I have had the same experience with Slatersteven in the past, to be honest. But [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=895672756&oldid=895672118 this intervention] - combining a failure of empathy with an implied, but sophmoric, argument in the style of analytical philosphy that one can only misgender people with masculine or feminine identities - is, if only debatably rude, most certainly "otherwise problematic" in the context in which it was offered. Newimpartial (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• I think we're getting off track a little here, but I'm severely concerned with Guy Macon's response which, if I've read it properly, states that they will continue to use whichever pronouns they wish to use without regard to the wishes of others. I don't think anything's necessary, but if this is closed, I would prefer some sort of warning to ensure this doesn't happen again. (I also try to use the singular "they" in every situation on this encyclopedia unless gender pronouns are clear, without any grammatical issues whatsoever - English does not have a "neutral case", and it's incorrect to assume everyone here is a "he," so please don't think I'm being snarky towards the user in question.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Since I was asked[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=prev&diff=895725778&diffmode=source], and this is all just an extended part of a previous dispute that centered on something I had written (and which two MfDs declined to delete, despite Fæ's activism for that result), and Fæ's participation in that was a blatant violation of the terms of their topic-ban from gender and sexuality issues being lifted, I do feel entitled to comment. But aside from what I've just pointed out, I'm going to stick to responding to the OP here, and skip all the back-and-forth above.

  Using a gender-neutral pronoun, for someone who (lately) expresses a preference for gender neutral references, is not a personal attack nor mocking, in any way. Using constructed ones (rather popular constructed ones, among the subset of people who use them at all) for this purpose is not and cannot be any kind of transgression, especially since the entire basis of Fæ's rampage of personal attacks (real ones), assumption of bad faith, canvassing, and off-site harassment against me personally (see previous ANI about Fæ a month or so back [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#F%C3%A6's_return_to_canvassing_and_incivility/aspersions_in_gender-related_disputes]) was Fæ's incorrect belief that I was mocking people specifically for using such gender-neutral pronouns. [As I think we all understand by now, the point of the piece was to criticize use of non-standard English {{em|in Wikipedia's own voice}}, especially for PoV/promotional reasons.]

  This has come full circle. WanderingWanda and Fæ can't have it both ways. Either my and your and the next person's well-attested gender-neutral writing approach (neologistic, or singular 'they', or even just avoidance of pronouns at all, as I'm doing here in reference to Fæ) are valid for people to use as gender-neutral writing approaches, or none of them are. If they're gender-neutral, it is not possible for use of one of them to be "misgendering" when applied to someone with an explicit stated preference for gender-neutral references being made regarding them. That Fæ apparently uses they, personally, creates no obligation on the part of everyone else to use it. I mean, really; just think about it for half a second. This is not MindControlPedia, and if such a "must use the exact pronoun I like better, or else" notion had any shred of validity, then it would not be permissible in WP to, for instance, write in reference to such a person in another language without dropping out of that language and into English 'they' when it came time for a pronoun. I know none of us are that brain-damaged, so it's time to just drop this mongering of pseudo-drama and move on. Especially since the actual substance of Guy Macon's quoted material is spot-on: {{tq|Fæ appears to be testing to see how far over the line [Fæ] can go regarding [Fæ's] topic ban and regarding civility...It would be very useful If I could look up every place where Fæ or [Fæ's] previous Ash account used the terms "sexist" or "sexism" and verify the above claim.}} It's precisely the kind of editor behavior examination request that ANI exists for.

  PS, {{ping|Jorm}}: Trying to censor a post after someone in the post has been pinged is futile (pings cannot be undone), petty, and against the discussion-page guidelines (which also apply to venues like this that serve the same function but are not in "Talk:" namespace). Editwarring to continue censoring it is likely to get you blocked.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  :SMcCandlish, I believe you are eliding scenarios here. Using the time-attested singlular "they" by default, and using made-up pronouns (or, say, "it") for people whose pronoun choices we do not respect, amount to two completely different situations with respect to WP:CIVIL. Let's not forget key differences just to score cheap rhetorical points, even when we believe that "the actual substance [of the UNCIVIL post] is spot-on". Newimpartial (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  :: What you surmise about Macon's views directly contradicts his own statements about them. So, WP:AGF failure on your part. You are not a mind reader, and are not in a position to tell us what someone else means/believes. I don't know who "we" is supposed to be in "people whose pronoun choices we do not respect", but speak for yourself. For my part, I've stated many times I have no issue with people in their personal and professional lives having preferred pronouns, including neologistic ones; I've seen Macon say the same more than once. So, basically, you're just making shit up out of nowhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  ::: Umm, no. Fortunately, Guy has explained his actions [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895605370&oldid=895603071&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents in this post], and regardless of any underlying beliefs, what he has chosen to do - by his own account - is to refuse to use pronouns because people express their preference to be addressed by those pronouns. In other words, he chooses his language in order not to respect their choices. However, interestingly, he does not appear to do this for the multiplicity of editors who express a choice for "he" or for "she" as pronouns, only for those who express other preferences. I say again, this stance of Guy's, regardless of the semiotics, ethics or metaphysics behind it (about which I know nothing behind what he has recently said), is to me a clear violation of CIVIL and NPA.

  ::: The scenario to which you seem to be alluding - referring to everyone consistently with "they", regardless of personal preference - is entirely different and would not be UNCIVIL in my view; it would either not be misgendering anyone or would be misgendering everyone equally, depending on one's interpretation, and would therefore not be a personal attack in any case. But that is a complete red herring, since that is not what Guy has said he is doing. Also, accusing me of {{tq|making shit up out of nowhere}} is a personal attack; I would appreciate a retraction. Newimpartial (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  ::: Also, SMcCandlish, re: {{tq|[As I think we all understand by now, the point of the piece was to criticize use of non-standard English in Wikipedia's own voice, especially for PoV/promotional reasons.}}, I hope this (and the fact that the blanked page was not deleted) were not actually the main points you took away from the massive reaction to your essay. To me, the most salient point was that, per CIVIL, we are responsible for what we actually say, not simply for what we intend. In fact, as a best practice, we ought to imagine what the impact of our remarks would be on a highly sensitive person whom we love, who is temperamentally unable to let go of an issue, rather than placing the burden on our interlocutors to "just get over" the unintended consequences of our own utterances. The way away from the BATTLEGROUND is that way. Newimpartial (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  : A lot of words, with several obvious inaccuracies, that I'm left wondering if they are intentional in order to get me to respond to tangents.

  : However the issue here is Guy Macon's chosen, unprovoked, actions. No matter how that is twisted and turned, Guy Macon's actions are not my responsibility. It would be super if Guy Macon would get out of my face and spend their volunteer time doing something positive for this project, rather than weirdly playing pronoun martyr. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  ::If Fæ's comment above is meant as some kind of response to what I posted just above it (which seems to be the case), we can all be very, very certain that it's not my intent to have Fæ respond further to anything in this thread, since I've advocated that Fæ be re-banned from the topic area entirely (see also #Fæ thread above). And I expect that result very soon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  :::# You cannot ban someone from expecting that their own choice of pronoun should be respected on Wikipedia.

  :::# I did not create this thread.

  :::# I am not responsible for Guy Macon's actions or hostile statements.

  ::: --Fæ (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  ::::No one suggested any of this as a reason for Fæ's T-ban being reinstated. The civility breaches (cf. this ANI and this one, possibly also the one just before that one, though I think it was more about canvassing in the same topic area), are sufficient, as clear transgressions of the terms of the lifting of the t-ban. I don't think I'll need to repeat this again. The matter isn't likely to be dealt with in this particular thread. But I'm also not going to be the one to open up the thread that will (barring some new outburst from that editor); someone less involved should do that, and probably at AE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  ::::: TLDR: Massive long winded tangent, nothing relevant to Guy Macon's actions. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  :::::: Everyone and everything is fair game at WP:ANI, including the sometimes murky reasons behind reports... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The real problem here, as I see it, is that WanderingWanda (i.e. whoever is behind that account) and Fæ are banding together in a concerted attempt to get an opponent, i.e. Guy Macon, kicked out, something that, from what I can see in the wall of text above, has happened before, and is highly likely to happen again to someone else later on if no one puts a stop to it now... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

: Conspiracy theory fantasy. I have no idea who WanderingWanda is, nor had I any idea they were going to raise this thread at ANI until I got a notification about it. There is no queer secret cabal, so lay off with the freaky allegations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

:: Or I'll be next? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

::: What a silly thing to say. I have no idea why you want to have a crack at me or WanderingWanda, nor am I inclined to waste time examining your account to find out. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

:: It's part of a pattern of gender-and-sexuality hostility for which Fæ was indeffed, then provisionally just topic-banned for years, then recently unbanned under the condition that the behavior not resume. But it clearly has, so the t-ban needs to be reinstated, whether by ANI, AE, or a new ArbCom case. Given that Fæ received a {{tlx|Ds/alert}} over a month ago, AE is an available, viable, and usually expedient option, especially given the number of gender-dispute-related CIVIL/NPA/ASPERSIONS breaches by this editor. I checked, and WanderingWanda had not received the DS notice yet, and now has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WanderingWanda&type=revision&diff=895768582&oldid=895702343&diffmode=source].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

::: The "real problem here" is Guy Macon's actions. My preferred pronoun is not a "a pattern of gender-and-sexuality hostility" and someone else harassing me because I have a preferred pronoun should not become an amusing excuse to hijack this thread to lobby to get me banned. Your open hostility to me existing on this project after your disruptive essay was deleted is clear to everyone, please find something else to do with your time rather than gaming the system because you are bored. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: {{ping|Fæ}} Part of WP:Competence is required is {{tq|the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus}}. While Guy's actions are one thing, I think consensus is pretty clear that editors do not consider pronouns to be worth getting in a huff about. People mess up pronouns all the time because this is text-based community with too large a population to keep track of individual preferences for more than a short time. Expecting others to always use your pronoun is unreasonable. This is not "misgendering" - its just the reality of how this medium works. Its why I said above that you need to show resilience when it happens, and stop letting it impact your ability to {{tq|communicate with other editors}}. I know you didn't make the original report, but you had a chance to read the writing on the wall in this section and defuse the situation, but instead redoubled. It should be no surprise that your persistence is making people look at your past problems in this area. -- Netoholic @ 14:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

::::: My sense, Netoholic, is that pretty much the opposite of what you say is true. What the response to SMcCandlish's pronoun essay tells me, for example, is that the consensus is clear that deliberately obtuse pronoun choices applies to other editors are, by consensus, "worth getting in a huff about", and Guy's explanation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=895605370&oldid=895603071&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents here] shows that he was making a very deliberate and POINTey choice in selectively not respecting pronouns. Let's not go down the garden path of grammatical versus social gender - the real question is how we can show our respect for other editors. By selectively imposing made-up pronouns because an editor has expressed a pronoun choice, Guy has violated NPA and CIVIL, and probably BATTLEGROUND as well. Accidental slips between he, she and they are something completely different and are entirely unrelated to this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Guy may be harrasing Fæ, but I will not refer to a singular editor with the singular they. (There are times when the singular they is appropriate when discussing a single one of multiple editors.) I'll try not to use pronouns at all, if I'm aware of the problem. I've been known to use formal variables X and Z when I need to refer to two different persons (or editors) in a paragraph. IIRC, Loglan had 5 free variables which are genderless and pronoun-like. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

• I have reclosed this (with Arthur Rubin's comment). There's already an AN thread regarding this, so continue there if needed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see Fea's talk Page they are claming a death threat from someone I'm not sure if it's real but we need to look at IP addresses Jena (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Mistakes happen, they get corrected. It happens. El_C 19:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)}}

{{user|212.219.220.124}} is an IP from the University of Lincoln. Lincolnshire in the UK is known as "bomber county", from its role in WWII. They have added a large number of ELs, all to relevant searches within the [https://ibccdigitalarchive.lincoln.ac.uk International Bomber Command Centre Digital Archive], e.g. [https://ibccdigitalarchive.lincoln.ac.uk/omeka/items/browse?tags=Lancaster "Lancaster"].

As a consequence, they've been mass reverted and threatened with a block: User talk:212.219.220.124. No other discussion.

Seriously? Is this how we're supposed to behave? Some academic, or their student, is connected to what shows every sign of being a valuable archive of material. We should welcome this. And instead, this is how we behave?

Yes, there are better ways to use this content. We can always do better. We can inform new editors how to do things better for starters, and we can take a rather more welcoming approach to them. This was emphatically not doing that.

I'm supposed to be at (another) university next week for WMF, trying to encourage their academics to collaborate on the project. HTF am I supposed to do that, when this is how such approaches are treated? This sort of treatment gets passed around. Academics do know each other, and they do talk. So when we burn one collaborator like this, that reflects badly on WP across a whole range of institutions.

{{ping|Ohnoitsjamie}}, {{ping|Widr}} Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

: And they're already blocked. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:: Regardless of link quality, we generally don't permit mass link canvassing. The links weren't even to specific articles, but to search pages. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::* And your best response to that was to ignore them and threaten them with a block? Do you think this is a useful block?

::: Why did you fail to make any attempt to discuss this obvious GF (and potentially valuable) effort with them first? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: I do not see canvassing search links as a valuable contribution. I would've been happy to discuss it with them had they responded to the warning. I did not implement the block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::::: We know you saw no value to adding links (to an academically backed archive of substantial material of significant value), that much is obvious. Do you really think that threatening new users is the way to encourage them to engage? Do you pay any heed to AGF? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::What’s the concern with the short term block? The was a warning given and the filter log was being lit up by the editor in question. If it was an error then the user is free to discuss the block and their intentions on their talk page using the unblock template. Should that discussion indicate the block is not necessary to prevent disruption then it can be undone. NJA | talk 15:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::I believe the concern is that a user was busy adding links to an archive of photographs on articles apparently relevant to those articles. At 15:19, Ohnoitsjamie dropped a level 4 spam template on the IP's talk page as a first notification. At 15:20, the user saved another edit, and it is reasonable to assume that's when the talk page notification showed up. The IP user made no further edits, but was blocked by Widr at 15:34. Yeah, it seems pretty harsh to me, too. But it's not really a hanging crime, some people were overzealous, they should acknowledge their mistake and try to avoid it in the future. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::*Kill them all, let God sort them out. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh great, now you've gotten me sucked down the rabbit hole of reading articles about the Albigensian Crusade and Catharism...RecycledPixels (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::I have some sympathy, with both sides. This might well be a valuable resource, but just spamming links is not constructive. Maybe they should have just be warned.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::: How about rather than warning them with a rubberstamp template with a big angry icon on it, we talk to them?

::: Also, why were they blocked after onewarning? Take some real vandal, warn them once and then list them at AIV. It'll be rejected as "insufficiently warned". Here's an editor that's clearly (even the IP is a pointer) the exemplar of AGF, and we insta-block them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::::I think a warning was OK, though maybe one more along the lines of "maybe you should read..." rather then just an impersonal warning template.Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::{{tl|uw-spam1}} and {{tl|uw-spam2}} do that, so they're good first contacts for people who are adding inappropriate external links. By the time you get to {{tl|uw-spam4}}, the template is written as though the user has already received prior notifications of why their actions are inappropriate, but have continued anyway, so the stick is brought out. It's not really useful as a first contact template unless the user is putting blatantly unsuitable and off-topic spam links into articles. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:It does seem a massively clear-cut case of over-reaction and biting the noob. If you check the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.219.220.124 user contibutions] you will see that they were adding new links every two or three minutes. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:212.219.220.124&diff=896142275&oldid=896142245 warning was issued] at 16:19 (my time), a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/212.219.220.124 last edit] posted at 16:20 - probably already in hand when the warning was issued. Next there is a gap of 12 minutes until the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=212.219.220.124&wpdate=&tagfilter= block was imposed] at 16:32. If the user had ignored the warning there would have been several more edits during that 12 minutes before the block was imposed. Instead they gave every sign of heeding it and sitting back to chew it over. They got blocked anyway. Totally disgusted at the amount of self-justification at the expense of fact-checking going on here. I cannot maintain politeness any longer, so I am not going to hang around here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::A bad block leading to a missed opportunity to work with the editor. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::Also, thank you to Andy for raising the issue here. I imagine there might be other cases where anonymous editors don't have a third party to step in on their behalf. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• I've unblocked, based on the concerns above. Widr (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::The user was spamming links, and rightly treated as such. There is some responsibility on the part of adult users, which I presume is the case for archive researchers, to use their minds and make some attempt to learn how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not something new in 2019, and most universities and colleges, and even secondary schools, now have courses that teach how to use Wikipedia. If someone got their feeelings hurt, sorry. They are adults, they'll survive. I'll also state that this is yet another reason I'm in favor of mandatory registration. Having someone take the time to register an account, and (hopefully) read some basic instructions about how to use Wikipedia, which presumably a researcher would know how to comprehend, would go a long way to preventing these sorts of situations before they start. I realize the WMF is against mandatory registration, but this is an avoidable situation that they choose, for whatever reasons, to continue to allow to happen. - BilCat (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Belittling the user is not particularly helpful. This could have been avoided if there had been more than a token attempt at dialogue. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::I'm simply presenting another point of view here. This could have been avoided if the user had behaved like a responsible adult. That needs to be said here. We're not dealing with kindergartners who need to be babied. - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::'Babying' as you put it and blocking like this are not the only options! There is a middle ground where people work together, so that new editors can learn Wikipedia's norms and how it works. People are allowed to make mistakes, especially when they start editing. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Frankly, things like this make want to give up. ——SerialNumber54129 18:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• So give up. Wikipedia is a broken mess because of how it's run by the WMF, not because of how thinking adults get their feeling hurt because they don't take time to think before they act because they don't have to. - BilCat (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Absolutely agree with your views on the WMF; disagree with you on the total fucking abrogation of responsibility allowed our supposedly most trusted editors. Still waiting for the misuse of the rollback tool to be reversed of course. That's my 50-50 anyway. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 19:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• A level four warning template as a first contact is WP:BITE except in the clearest cases of vandalism or spamming (which this was not, as evidenced by multiple users here saying the links were relevant). The indef block obviously more-so. {{tq|I would've been happy to discuss it with them had they responded to the warning}} has it exactly backwards. Leviv ich 18:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, I'll agree a level 4 warning was excessive. Point taken. - BilCat (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• ::As fun as this has been can I move to close? The user, who by the way had access to their talk page and never asked to be unblocked has been unblocked by the blocking admin. Also just FYI, and although only one person said as such above: it was never an indef block. NJA | talk 19:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• ::: Thanks for pointing that out; stricken. I don't know when the right time to close this is, but FWIW notwithstanding my critical comment, I do not think this rises to the level of any sanctions or anything like that. I think it was an overreaction, but an honest mistake. Leviv ich 19:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Per the clear consensus below, {{u|SleeplessNight12}} is blocked indefinitely. Per WP:CBAN, this is effectively a community ban and can only be appealed at WP:AN or to the arbitration committee. There is no policy limit on when it can be appealed and I don't see consensus to impose a limit below, but experience shows that early appeals are ill-advised. GoldenRing (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)}}

I have serious concerns about editor {{user|SleeplessNight12}}. They firstly reverted a number of edits I made to the article on Helena (empress) with no justification or talk. They then followed me to the articles on Frederick the Great and Donatello to revert edits I had made by arguing that anything that spoke about homosexuality was "vandalism" (WP:HOUNDING). Today I have looked at the talk page on Helena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helena_(empress)#Bunch_of_changes) and I have been called an "anti-Catholic, gay apologist" along with s reference to "homosexual and immoral people". A look at the editors talkpage suggests they are involved ina whole number of antagonistic disputes. I also wonder whether they are using a separate account (IP:96.70.198.37) as the changes made by this user to Helena look remarkably similar to those pushed by SleeplessNight12 and this IP has not previously been active on this article page. Could someone please look into this please. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:I noticed that Mr Contaldo80 started editing Catholic articles to display his anti-Catholic bias. I corrected 3 of those. Once he told me to stop, I stopped and started a discussion. Now, this person is angry that not everyone agrees with his anti-Catholicism. I did not edit or revert after being told not to, and started a discussion. You guys can decide how to best proceed. God bless all --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::Frederick the Great wasn't even Catholic so in what way did you "correct" my "anti-Catholic bias" in that article? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Sir, that is the way I started out, and went to about 3 articles. Fact still remains, after you gave me a warning, I immediately stopped and went to the Talk Page. It is not my problem that other people are finding your anti-Catholicism disruptive on Wikipedia too. I always take warnings seriously. Hope that helps. SleeplessNight12 (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::{{u|SleeplessNight12}} - you can't use terminology like "anti-Catholic" to describe editors - you can comment on actions, but don't try to discern someone's underlying motivation. For starters, it's easy to get wrong - someone who may disagree with you might seem like a supporter of the opposing side, when in fact they aren't. Regardless, if you call someone "x", you need to be able to back it up with evidence that's convincing to a disinterested outsider.

::::What's more of a problem though is that you seem to talk "anti-Catholic" views as disqualifying. That isn't the way it works around here - there's nothing wrong with editing topics you disagree with. If only supporters got to edit articles, you'd have totally one-sided presentations. By getting both sides involved, and by expecting both sides to walk away OK with the final product Wikipedia can produce excellent articles.

::::It rarely helps your case to label someone by ideology anyway. Calling someone anti-Catholic is likely to elicit a shrug from many of the people here. To the non-religious person, or Muslim, Hindu, atheist, Eastern Orthodox Christian and or Buddhist, fights between Catholics and Protestants so narrowly sectarian. Guettarda (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::And the longer schism between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox is sometimes not seen by Protestants. I did once advise a Buddhist editor to read about filioque and told them that after reading it, they still wouldn't understand (but I am not sure that I understand either). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::I am sorry. I did not intend to be disruptive. I only wanted to make my observation known. I apologize for what I did SleeplessNight12 (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::Hang on I am more concerned that SleeplessNight12 has called me "immoral" for being a "gay apologist". This homophobic abuse it simply not acceptable; and I'd ask administrators to deal with it promptly please. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::This is false, I never called this person immoral. I said that many people (including immoral people) would disagree with the Catholic Church. I never said this person was immoral. I should probably, not have said anything at all. It is true, I called this person a "gay apologist" which this person agrees with, it is true. And I also said he was anti-Catholic (which is yet another thing that this person would not deny). Someone who is anti-Catholic is not necessarily immoral, I merely indicated that among many people, immoral people would be against the Roman Catholic Church too. But that is not necessarily so. Anyways, I admit, I should not have said anything, and should have just stayed silent. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Come on administrators is anyone actually going to do anything about this. I have been called immoral because I am gay and my edits have been removed because they have been described as “gay apologetics” and so “vandalism”. Is this acceptable?! A religiously inspired editor has been found to be hounding me and harassing me on the issue of sexuality and nothing is done! I’m additonally told that I am anti catholic and thus “immoral”. I want some sort of confidence that administrators are taking complaints such as mine seriously. Thank you Contaldo80 (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{ping|Contaldo80}} Could you provide diffs of the places where SleeplessNight said those things? Having diffs/links to the comments will make enforcement much easier and happen much faster. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::Hmmmm I see that Sleepless agreed that they used "gay apologist" and "anti-catholic". For that, I'd say that Sleepless be sternly warned to not use such language in the future, and to retract those attacks, per WP:NPA. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::To Contaldo: Whats likely to happen here is that Sleepless is warned of their conduct, and if they do it again they get blocked. But unless they are actively using personal attacks against you, or have continued to do so after this ANI was opened, they are unlikely to be blocked. Blocks are preventitive, not punitive. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Thanks CaptainEek I flagged the section of the talk page in my initial comments but for doubt it says “Now I understand that homosexual and immoral people, would disagree with the One True Church, and that is ok, but is it really necessary to inject this anti-Catholicism into these articles? Thank you all”. At no stage in that article did I raise the issue of homosexuality - it was about the historical accuracy of statements made by Helena. Sleeplessnight looked into my background, saw that I identify as gay on my talkpage and began to abuse me on that basis. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::::I will say this one last time, I did not intend to say anything homophobic. I simply noticed that this individual always tries to edit Christian articles in a negative way. So I simply connected his self-stated sexuality and his hatred of Catholicism and concluded that his homosexual interests may be causing him to edit out Catholic articles. I did not intend to abuse anyone's sexuality, and I do not judge people because of their sexuality. I understand that gay people have no control over how they feel, in most cases. Once again, I think all of this is a huge misunderstanding. It is my fault and I should have been more careful. Please, accept my apologies, Mr Contaldo80. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

{{outdent}} {{ping|SleeplessNight12}} I’m not involved in any way, but I am interested to understand: 1) your explanation for what you mean by “his homosexual interests" as opposed to any other interest? and 2) in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donatello&diff=prev&oldid=895089467 this] edit summary (and to be clear I am not saying the addition was worthy to be kept), what do you mean when you say "Specifically adding homosexual material can be considered vandalism" - where do you get that statement from?NJA''' | talk 18:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:So this person is very passionate about one area of this encyclopedia: homosexual history. The Catholic Church embraces people who exhibit homosexual attraction, since many of us recognize that people have no control over their attraction, but we also hold the marriage to be a sacrament. Thus, it is understandable why this person would dislike the Catholic faith, and that is his right, but I noticed that this conflict of interests creeps into his editing, and this is why I was concerned. SleeplessNight12 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::You haven’t really answered the question, but I suppose (based on your statement) it’s arguable you have a COI as well. I also added above (albeit later) an edit summary that I’m also unsure of and I'd appreciate your rationale around the wording used. NJA | talk 18:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I already apologized for what I said and the wordings I used. It was not my intention to disrupt. It is my fault it happened. I value consensus and dialogue. When someone reverts my edits, I usually, prefer a dialogue. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::::So above you stated {{tq|Thus, it is understandable why this person would dislike the Catholic faith}} where you state that because the person is homosexual they dislike the Catholic faith. So after all the apologies and statements of "not mean to offend", you still imply that sexual orientation has something to do with editing or religious beliefs? Do you not see that this is the problem in a nutshell? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::Can I add again that the edits I made to the article about Helena Augusta were not related to homosexuality at all. So these comments - at the time and subsequent - about my sexuality, judgements about my morality, and how this generates bias in relation to edits I make that deal with Catholicism is a worrying and unpleasant commentary. SleeplessNight12 has brought my sexual orientation up in order to abuse and intimidate. I can't see how this is acceptable under any circumstances. I want to also add that Helena is not a "Catholic figure" either - she was the mother of the Roman emperor Constantine (who incidentally was likely to have been an Arian). This conflation of historical figures with a defence of Catholicism is not good history and does suggest COI. The editor also reverted by edits to Frederick the Great on the spurious grounds of "vandalism". And again I point out that Fredrick wasn't even Catholic. The editor has undertaken a personal vendetta. They came to my talk-page to write "God bless" - which I regard as intimidatory. My latest edits to Helena were reverted by this editor with the statement "Keep your personal atheist BS to yourself." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helena_%28empress%29&type=revision&diff=895885464&oldid=895851060)Statements such as "I noticed that this individual always tries to edit Christian articles in a negative way", "I connected his self-stated sexuality and his hatred of Catholicism", "his homosexual interests may be causing him to edit out Catholic articles", and "I understand that gay people have no control over how they feel" are just extraordinary and not supported by any evidence. I'm afraid I do not accept their apology and would like administrators to kindly respond accordingly. I would ask for a block please. Many thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::The apology is pointless since the behavior continues, SleeplessNight12 obviously is not getting it or choosing not to get it. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::I am happy to let the administrators decide whether this anti-Catholic hater should get his way. I will listen to the consensus. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Except the report was about you so I de believe administrators will have to decide whether or not your behavior is acceptable behavior.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::So that is what I mean. Whatever the consensus I will accept it. Wikipedia has been extremely hostile to Catholicism and extremely biased towards all sorts of depravity. So we will see. I am happy with their conclusions. SleeplessNight12 (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::I can't speak for all depraved editors, but I will confess that Wikipedia accommodates my depravity quite well. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::SleeplessNight12, I think you are skating on thin ice with that comment. Calling someone anti-Catholic is akin in the minds of some to an accusation of bigotry. The only place where you can make that accusation on Wikipedia is here at ANI and you had better be prepared to back it with evidence. Your use of the term "depravity" is setting off all kinds of alarm bells in my head. Your religious views are your own business and we don't discriminate on that basis. But if you can't separate your private beliefs from your editing, your tenure here is likely going to be brief. I am concerned that you are here to Right Great Wrongs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thanks Ad Orientem - a point well made. SleeplessNight12 you are entitled to your own private religious beliefs. You will not find it surprising that I do not share many (all?) of them. However, where I draw the line is in being told on Wikipedia that I am "depraved" for being openly gay and being told to stop my "atheist bullshit" - and those sticks being used to beat me in relation to articles that are not even dealing with the issue of sexual orientation, and intended to intimidate me against editing. As a historian I actually am only interested in good historical analysis - nothing more. And I wonder how we can have confidence in neutral and dispassionate editing by someone who insists that Wikipedia is "extremely biased towards all sorts of depravity". Contaldo80 (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::It’s late for me, and I only happened to stumble upon this thread when responding to another report, though admittedly what I’ve read and seen myself (only briefly) is of concern. I do plan to consider the user’s edits and summaries in more detail. There may be an issue here and it may require some intervention. I will reserve any view until I've considered the matter in detail and have evidence. NJA | talk 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Mr Contaldo, I have already said, that I did not intend to joke about your sexuality or to intimidate you with my "God bless you." I apologized for how I phrased my sentences, and stopped editing and opted to have dialogue. I do not know what else I can do. I do believe that your atheism has a lot to do with you wanting to distort Catholic History and trying to defame our saints... But, I will fully accept what the consensus decides. I have no idea what else I can do. If majority of people decide to defame our saints, then I will not be happy, but I will accept this decision. If the majority of people want to ban me, again, I will not be happy, but I will accept the decision. I am a passionate Catholic, and I usually stay away from Catholic articles, so as to not add my bias. I believe that you are not doing the same with your atheistic bias. But in the end, I already apologized and accept, it is my fault for what I said, I did not mean to insult you or your sexuality, of course, but it is my fault as to how I phrased it. Anyways, I do not know what else I can do. I am glad to wait and see the outcome. Thanks SleeplessNight12 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I'm also not aware of stating at any point that I am an atheist. I might or might not be but you seem very confident in labeling me such as implying that this distorts my editing capability. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: Mr Contaldo, I think this is all a huge misunderstanding. First, I believe that your atheism in this case has gotten the best of you when it comes to Catholic Church related articles. That does not mean that no atheist is capable of editing. Other than that, I think we really started on the wrong foot, and I simply stated things the wrong way. Anyways, I should have just assumed good faith. And once again, I did not intend to abuse you over your sexuality. It was an unfortunate wording and I simply could not express what I wanted to say correctly. I hope you will accept this apology. I will just assume that your atheism does not make you biased, and I hope you can forget this mess of a misunderstanding. Thanks SleeplessNight12 (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Why do you persist in referring to Contaldo as an atheist? Did you read what Contaldo said in the post you are replying to? --bonadea contributions talk 12:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support on a wide range of grounds... WP:RGW, WP:AGENDA, WP:NPOV and gross abuse of WP:AGF which continues even after my cautionary post above. "I do believe that your atheism has a lot to do with you wanting to distort Catholic History and trying to defame our saints..." Really? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support I had hoped that Sleepless was genuine with their apology, but they are showing very clear signs of WP:IDHT and don't seem to understand what they did wrong. Sleepless was certainly less than civil, and I think clearly broke WP:NPA and show no sign of stopping. If Sleepless wants to convince an admin to unblock them after this, I'd be fine to give 'em some WP:ROPE, but block again at the slightest sign of hootenanny. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::Per continued discussion, I withdraw my Rope belief. First calling Contaldo anti catholic and gay, then aplogizing, then calling him an atheist out of nowhere?? Sleepless really is digging his own grave here. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I clearly apologized, have had a civil discourse, contribute to Wikipedia, and do not think this misunderstanding should result in a permanent block. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• :I'm not 100% sure, but I'm fairly certain it's not great form to vote on your own block proposal. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 04:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• :: No, it's perfectly ok, and the closing admin will weight it appropriately. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• :::Thanks, and apologies for assuming. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 13:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support behavior continued after the "apology", it cannot be played off as a "misunderstanding". MPJ-DK (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support This behavior is unacceptable and offensive. The apology amounts to "Sorry I took issue with your gay atheist anti-catholic bias", which is a clear non-apology and further proof this editor should be shown the door.--Atlan (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support SleeplessNight12 just does not seem to understand how their behavior is offensive and completely unacceptable on Wikipedia (and should be unacceptable anywhere). - Donald Albury 11:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=896060566&oldid=896058962 this] response to Contaldo's post [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=896058962 here] the amount of IDHT is staggering, and as for bringing up the totally unrelated issue of C's sexual orientation, as if that has anything to do with how they edit, that is also obviously unacceptable. If SleeplessNight comes to an insight of why that kind of attitude is incompatible with collegial editing, they can apply for an unblock. --bonadea contributions talk 12:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support: I was planning to propose either a block or an alternative (e.g. short term topic restrictions, perhaps with some mentoring). As I said above I was reserving my judgment until I had time to review his edits in more detail. I was expecting him to have been with us for a while and I was surprised to see he has only been here for 38 days and is in this situation. Although he's offered apologies, they are, in my view, disingenuous. He has failed to give any meaningful answer my very straight forward question about what he meant by “homosexual interests" and he failed to explain how he has interpreted editing guidance when making a revert saying “...adding homosexual material can be considered vandalism". Based upon his short time here and failure to comprehend the issue, I do not have the confidence that the user can contribute neutrally to the project. NJA | talk 12:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. SleeplessNight is new and has apologized on a number of occasions. I would rather she be given training and support rather than an outright ban. With time she may come to be a constructive editor. That will never happen with an indefinite ban.

::Hmmm. So the IP address that Contaldo80 specifically named as editing in a remarkably similar fashion to SleeplessNight12 shows up for the very first time ever at a noticeboard just to cast the only other 'Oppose' vote to this sanction. Totally not suspicious at all. Grandpallama (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Looks like my suspicions were well founded, and we now have the issue of sockpuppetry to deal with. Could administrator's also please look into blocking this IP when dealing with the main account. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support per this user's persistent WP:IDHT behaviour. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the ongoing problematic commentary. Grandpallama (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support They continued to inappropriately make personal comments about Contaldo80 after apologizing, and I don't think they actually get why it's wrong. I also have competence concerns; SleeplessNight12 has been making massive edits to Quran-related topics, including starting a new article yesterday, yet despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SleeplessNight12#Copying_within_Wikipedia_requires_attribution repeated reminders], is still not providing correct attribution. (Content in the new article is pasted from other articles.) Schazjmd (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support bigotry like that has no place here. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Everything that's already been said above- and putting aside the suspect of the Don't Bite The Newcomers vote, it is behavior like this that drives away newcomers (particularly those who may be part of underrepresented groups on Wikipedia) MapleSyrupRain (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC) (PS. Never done this before- please let me know if there's a reason I shouldn't vote here!)

::{{ping|MapleSyrupRain}} Anyone is welcome to post here, as this page is often a place for the discussion and implementation of community sanctions. You can't of course take unilateral actions, but you are most welcome to engage in thoughtful discussion to solve community drama and the other problems that make it to this page. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Needs Admin Attention I think this can now be closed by any uninvolved admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|1 month rangeblock applied, especially after the latest edit (which I've removed). There is a very small amount of collateral, but this needed to be shut down. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)}}

Hello, there is a guy who made minor edits on the articles about Linux and free software but most of his/her edits were wrong and reverted by other users, please check for example:

Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B005:FA39:5484:E6AD:37FC:27F6

all edits in above link were reverted! due to obvious wrong. Also this guy has uncivil comments:

• personal attack: Special:Diff/896193531
• personal attack: Special:Diff/896201028 ("You are a *perfect example* of the *Dunning–Kruger effect*.")

This guy is using a VPN or Proxy which has a range of different IPs starting with 2600:1015:B****:

2600:1015:B02B:D2DE:8531:8EA3:2B2C:20CD

2600:1015:B005:FA39:5484:E6AD:37FC:27F6

2600:1015:B056:DA5:F87E:3539:ED7A:2076

2600:1015:B043:23F4:61B2:DB94:B4F0:7D34

2600:1015:B00E:37E8:F99C:8FD1:789:7F3D

Please block this IP. ** Also I beg you delete his post and completely his thread in my talk page (Special:Diff/896201028). ** I don't have time and interest to argue with him.

Thank you very much. Editor-1 (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite has removed and revdel'ed a racist reply here by 2600:1015:B02A:A64F:C531:4CC1:A6BF:17A5, and I have given them a 24 hour block for it. Fram (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

{{ab}}

• {{ping|Black Kite}} sorry for opening this thread, but he is still active after your blocking:

• Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B060:A597:7469:7938:E9BE:A47
• Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B061:75D9:6CC6:3CC:A10E:D181

THNX--Editor-1 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe do a rangeblock of 2600:1015:B0** (like the title says)? He probably isn't editing by proxy but just using his phone. Every time he connects back to his phone's ISP, his IP changes. Rockstonetalk to me! 18:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Black Kite blocked Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B000::/42. You're suggesting a rangeblock of Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B000::/40. There's a little bit more collateral, but not much. I'll extend the anon-only block to the /40. However, this is a Verizon Wireless range, probably one of many, and I have no idea how they allocate their IPv6 ranges. So it may be pretty easy for them to bypass the block. ST47 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Thank you, that is much appreciated. Looks like it stopped them for now. Rockstonetalk to me! 04:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::*{{ping|ST47}} Thanks, User:Rockstone35 has deleted his thread (Special:Diff/896389176) while my mean was hiding/deletion the revisions. Please hide his 2 revisions or restore them to answer him. He don't know that I was the one who added whole paragraph! please see the first two editions from 2016-01:

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Editor-1/0/Xfce

Editor-1 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|User indeffed for all the invective, innuendo, harassment, aspersions, personal attacks, and hounding. El_C 06:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, Aerostar3 is a {{confirmed}} match to {{noping|Cheesesteak1}}. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)}}

{{Userlinks|Aerostar3}}

I have been engaged in a content dispute with {{u|Aerostar3}} for the past two weeks at Talk:Paine Field, regarding project guidelines conformity, but this new editor has since taken to hounding me while trying to raise trouble. Going down the list in chronological order:

• Talk:Paine Field: Calling editors "stooges" and accusing them of being undisclosed paid editors. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paine_Field&diff=prev&oldid=894447378] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paine_Field&diff=prev&oldid=894448187]
• Leaving a note [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SounderBruce&diff=prev&oldid=894448614 on my talk page] that indicates prior knowledge of my activity, which leaves me to suspect sock-puppetry may be involved.
• First instance of hounding at Talk:Seattle crane collapse.
• Left another note on my talk page and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SounderBruce&diff=prev&oldid=894815680 appropriately warned] about hounding.
• De-PRODing Boundary Road (Vancouver) and making combative comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/41st Avenue (Vancouver) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boundary Road (Vancouver)
• Contacting a random admin and presenting his case, while ignoring the advice of other admins: User talk:HickoryOughtShirt?4/Archives/2019/May#personal attack
• And, finally, the straw that broke the camel's back: creating a frivolous AFD of a long-standing GA that has been proven notable by countless AFDs setting precedent for such highways. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington State Route 432)

As a courtesy, I'd like to ping those who have also been part of some of the events described above: {{u|General Ization}}, {{u|John from Idegon}}, and {{u|Rschen7754}}. SounderBruce 05:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::::TYPICAL CANVASSING, BRUCE

• Now that they have AFDed a US road I have to recuse but I would indef otherwise. --Rschen7754 05:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

SounderBruce is extremely aggressive and does not seek discussion or consensus. He edit wars and doesn't use the talk page. See Paine Field as an example. He insists on his own way. I don't want to bother with a huge fight here. Just have a 1 month no contact ban. He must not edit anything I edit and vice versa. The Vancouver roads that he edited warred should be included in articles he must not touch. I won't touch anything he touches.

Another alternative is something I do not prefer, blocking BOTH of us for 1 week so SounderBruce, who is very impulsive and combative, can calm down and, not to make him mad, I'll accept the same punishment. Aerostar3 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::In fact, SounderBruce is such a bad Wikipedian (by creating a hostile environment) that I am quitting with the possible exception of seeing the two Vancouver road articles to a close and maybe that RFC that I started. Aerostar3 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I'd say there is enough right here in this thread fb or an indef, and I see no reason to wait. Rschen7754 is absolutely correct. This is a slam dunk. John from Idegon (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Good riddance! You are clearly being purposefully antagonistic and WP:POINTy. An admin should speedy keep the AFD you made. SB's actions are fully consistent with policy and in seeking consensus while you make baseless accusations and a patently absurd block proposal. Reywas92^Talk 06:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Terrible idea. SounderBruce is definitely aggressive and combative. Indef me and that will cause him to be more disruptive. Anyway, see my user page as I have retired. Aggressive and drama queen Bruce wins. Instead, there should be time outs and warnings to all not to be so combative. Aerostar3 (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|status=Blocked|result=By NinjaRobotPirate. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)}}

Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_Australian_Party&type=revision&diff=896408222&oldid=896400284 this edit] from {{User|Cappa13}}. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

: Blocked indefinitely without talk page access. I don't see any reason to give this person a platform to follow through with the doxing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::I Love how they claim the UK Privy Council reinstated an Australian political party. Canterbury Tail talk 12:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

• {{la|Lita (wrestler)}}
• {{la|Trish Stratus}}
• {{user|Hmdwgf}}

This is listed as a good article, but was long ago commandeered by users who've added unsourced trivial content throughout, so it's become a fan-cruft piece. I've brought it here for that reason, and because I don't know how far back to revert. Much of the damage has been done by one registered user who's blown through multiple warnings not to add unsourced content, but several other accounts have intervened, as well. More eyes on this, please, with the short-term suggestion that the good article designation be removed for now. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:After you posted here, {{np|Hmdwgf}} seems to have reverted back to approximately March 18, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lita_%28wrestler%29&type=revision&diff=895547191&oldid=888355519]. Not sure if there's anything actionable here for admins specifically. Use WP:GAR to request a reassessment. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::Probably nothing actionable, aside from a block if Hmdwgf continues adding unsourced content. If the revert takes care of the problem, there's no need to reassess. I'd just never come across a well-assessed article that had gone that far south without someone taking notice. Thank you, {{u|Scott Burley}}. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

:::What I was afraid of: I've added another article with the same issues, long term addition of unsourced descriptions of who did what to whom in the ring. Reverted some, but there's a lot more still embedded, and it compromises good article status. Wary to look for other such articles edited by this user. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

This article appears to be a complete and utter dog's breakfast of unsourced content. I came across it today when a bunch of IPs, and two accounts {{user|Canadore College Marketing}} and {{user|Dan (Canadore College Marketing)}} started removing some of the questionable content and edit warring over it. They were stopped in their tracks by {{user|CLCStudent}} and {{user|ThePaSch}}, who started tag-team edit warring alongside them ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadore_College&diff=895947506&oldid=895947392],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadore_College&diff=895947719&oldid=895947677],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadore_College&diff=895947612&oldid=895947537],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadore_College&diff=895949129&oldid=895949045]) and generally going nuts with templates and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=895950145 false accusations of vandalism]. I suggested taking the "College Marketing" accounts to UAA, but somebody affiliated with a college making a good-faith attempt to fix an article of very poor quality shouldn't really have the COI riot act read at them quite so strongly. I full-protected the article for 24 hours, which I believe is standard procedure for a content dispute involving established editors, and dropped a note on the talk page. I've had a quick look around for sources and can't find anything obvious, which makes me think I should just redirect the article somewhere else, or nominate it for deletion. Obviously I can't AfD an article when it's full protected. How should we progress? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

: I have no dog in this race, and I suspect {{user|CLCStudent}} doesn't either; from my perspective, an unregistered IP removed content from an article without any justification, which I came across during a patrol of RC. I was unaware the IP was affiliated with the college until after the all-caps edit summary from the IP and the subsequent creation of the account {{user|Canadore College Marketing}} had been created, at which point I ceased my activities on the article and went to WP:AIV with a notice that should, as {{user|Ritchie333}} rightly pointed out, have went to WP:UAA; I apologize for the inconvenience caused. --ThePaSch (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::{{ping|ThePaSch}} No problem, apology accepted. The trouble is I've found that editors who are fired up on Huggle with a mindset of "get rid of vandalism ASAP" (which is, by and large, the right attitude to have) occasionally fail to see the wood for the trees and inadvertently cause issues like this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:I don't see any particular reason to treat the two COI accounts any differently to other COI accounts. I see one has been blocked, presumably for an obvious username violation. The other will need to walk very carefully, as presumably they are PAID for these edits. GoldenRing (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:No reason whatsoever for full protection, {{u|Ritchie333}}; the article needs to be gutted (and possibly built up, but that's another breakfast). Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::There was a reason, everyone was reverting and nobody was discussing. If you mean the article shouldn't be protected now following development, I'd rather leave it for a bit and check we've got a consensus first. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Reverting per policy, it would seem]]. Which is nice. ——SerialNumber54129 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::In an attempt to de-escalate, I left a bunch of advice on the user's talk page, and in a response to a message on my own. On the article talk page, I might have found a source that might let it survive WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a stub, at least. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have provided {{user|Dan (Canadore College Marketing)}} with information regarding their (obviously) paid editing and their ownership, and their incivility. I think AFD is the way to go, but perhaps the PAID user can come of with some sourcing to meet WP:CORP. Agree with Goldenring. DlohCierekim 16:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• That protection scores somewhere around 3 in a scale of 10. Both the sides had gone crazy (one, probably from seeing the COI aspects of the opposing editors) and it asked for some cold-headed editorial intervention; sometimes sysops need to click the edit button rather than (needlessly) prolong the impasse by using their mop. The reverts by CLC/TPS were not bad, but I note that most of the sources are not working and the paragraphs can be rephrased in a better manner. ∯WBG^converse 16:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:*And, don't launch an AfD and waste even more time. ∯WBG^converse 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Per my standard advice, any admin is free to undo the protection if they think this is superfluous. I thought more eyes needed to be put on this issue, hence why I came here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::::{{reply|Ritchie333}} It was the thing to do. It'll give PAID-guy time to absorb and reflect. And as for afd, it's never a waste of time to try to clear out artspam that is poorly sourced. DlohCierekim 16:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::I concur and see no issue with the very short period of protection. There was disruption at the time by multiple parties and you did what you felt was the most appropriate thing. The alternative was blocking the COI editor on their new account (made, mind you further to a username soft block and the new name, whilst still a COI issue, is technically within the username policy assuming they declare themselves as paid) and further possibly warning the others of using the appropriate forum, etc. The disruption has ceased and the employee warned appropriately of the COI issue and policies on disclosure on their talk page. NJA (t/c) 16:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::Addition - though I would not say my notice on COI issues to the IP clearly in use by the editor in question was “[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:199.212.88.164&diff=prev&oldid=895961702 Spam]”. No worries though. NJA (t/c) 16:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::::I would advise reducing to ECP as that is all that's needed to stop the editwarring/paid editing; full protection when it's only being edited by IPs and new accounts seems unnecessary (though I wouldn't semi it because one of the accounts has enough edits to get autoconfirmed in 4 days). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::You miss the point that experienced editors were (also) edit-warring. The problem was not the paid editing. In these cases, where no vandalism is involved, full protection is appropriate and in line with policy. As I write this the protection is due to expire in a few hours. The COI editor has engaged in discussion on the talk page and provided a number of potential references. I suggest focus now switches to getting the article up to date. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Reported user has been indefinitely blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)}}

• {{user|WelcomeToTheWikihouse}}

Disregards multiple warnings. Cartoon plots are not intended to be a refuge for incompetent editors. Nor meaningless pages like Wikipedia:Unusual place names, which I'd love to see deleted, since it doesn't even function as humor. See, among others, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names&diff=prev&oldid=894259409]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names&diff=prev&oldid=894254727]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names&diff=prev&oldid=894852349]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names&diff=prev&oldid=895169876]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names&diff=prev&oldid=895611097]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names&diff=prev&oldid=895612607]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names&diff=prev&oldid=895613820]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names&diff=prev&oldid=895793503]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names&diff=prev&oldid=895813115]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names&diff=prev&oldid=895943830]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Unusual_place_names&diff=prev&oldid=896280627]. Some examples in article space: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Weaver&diff=prev&oldid=896167959]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Plumber_(1933_film)&diff=prev&oldid=895958077]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holler_House&diff=prev&oldid=895814214]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cartoon_Network_(UK_%26_Ireland)&diff=prev&oldid=895774956]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tall_in_the_Trap&diff=prev&oldid=895198570]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Navy&diff=prev&oldid=895045945]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Gallopin%27_Gaucho&diff=893636123&oldid=882436529]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:Indef blocked for NOTHERE bordering on VOA. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|reason=Page protected by {{u|Lectonar}}; next time, file at WP:ANEW. ——SerialNumber54129 09:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)}}

This user violated 3RR in page Expeditionary Force ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expeditionary_Force&action=history page history]). Some of the latest diffs of user's reverts...

• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expeditionary_Force&diff=896391887&oldid=896265537]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expeditionary_Force&diff=896247052&oldid=896220060]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expeditionary_Force&diff=896071899&oldid=895929315]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expeditionary_Force&diff=895924434&oldid=895775429]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expeditionary_Force&diff=895738669&oldid=895301244]
• [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expeditionary_Force&diff=895258609&oldid=895155823], etc. PATH SLOPU 09:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Nothing to worry about, just a false alarm. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC) {{small|Hijacking the close to say that yes, I was doing some bug testing in a rush and forgot to disable the AFC template when I was finished. Thanks all for the concern! Primefac (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)}}}}

The account of User:Primefac may have been compromised. See the recent contributions:

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

They include contributions that would normally be considered test edits or vandalism, and a hijacking of a userpage to submit a declined draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• I’ve emailed ArbCom. NJA | talk 16:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Err isn't this related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Confirm a bug? Helper script not working only for one article? GiantSnowman 17:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Umm, yeah...it looks like he was trying to work out a bug in a script. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::::At this time, based on the edits, this looks like just bug testing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::Agreed. I pointed them to this post and they should be able to resolve it. Also checked and Robert had noted his post here on Primefac’s talk page. NJA | talk 17:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::Nice one {{u|NJA}}. ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Since I'm certain that the test page was never meant to be submitted to AFC, I moved it back to Primefac's userspace after disabling the AFC templates. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|IP range blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)}}

I would like to request a range block on user:67.226.221.0/24 because she has been vandalizing all day with various IP addresses in the range. CLCStudent (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:Blocked Special:Contributions/67.226.220.0/22 per whois. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I would like advice whether/how to re-post or re-open the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_263#HuffPost_for_paid_editing_at_Axios_(website),_NBC_News,_Caryn_Marooney,_and_other_articles. It's hard to tell what happened here. At first, there was a discussion as to whether it was appropriate to have a RSN discussion since the article had already been thoroughly discussed at AN,Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#HuffPost_article_on_WP_COI_editing Then, before a determination on that point was reached, an informal RfC !vote of sorts emerged, but without the notifications and structure of an RfC. No formal consensus was determined at the time of archiving. There is also "new" information, in the form of a review by an independent admin, User: SoWhy, on the AN closure noticeboard, of the AN discussion consensus about the HuffPo article: "The discussion brought up a number of previously discussed points but regarding the HuPo article there seems to be consensus that a) the article was written by someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works and b) the editor mentioned in said article has not violated any policies or ToU."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_28&diff=895108341&oldid=895030379]. (But the discussion was not officially "closed" because a sub-thread evolved into extensive commenting about the subject of "paid editing." Admins said closure would imply policy could be changed on an AN sub-thread.)

• Should there be a new discussion on RSN solely on the topic as to whether it is appropriate to have a RSN determination given the matter was already discussed at AN? Arguments for an against are on the RSN archived thread.
• Or, should the existing discussion simply be brought out of archive for more discussion and/or a consensus determination by an independent admin?
• Or, should there should a formal RfC be initiated instead of the informal one that emerged in the previous discussion?

BC1278 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Your insistent lobbying for your paid editing business is entering WP:NOTHERE territory. — Newslinger talk 21:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:The referenced RSN discussion was started by User: Newslinger and archived before a determination of consensus was made. I don't understand their objection to reaching a determination (or deciding one should not be reached on RSN) on a discussion they began. BC1278 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::{{u|BC1278}} I understand why on both a personal and professional level you'd like to have the RSN closed but not every discussion gets a formal close. One has been requested and the lack of anyone willing to do it suggests that perhaps it's not a discussion which will get a formal close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

:::{{u|BC1278}} - as an uninvolved editor I gave a look over and opted against formally closing it since it seems a slight majority of editors think that RSN shouldn't have re-looked at the case. As only those who think that it was legitimate to look at actually cast !votes, it's an inherently disrupted discussion. Of those who did cast !votes, it would be NC in general, with a slight tilt against usage for that particular article - but the aforementioned disruption means it wouldn't make a great cited discussion to use on a talk page for example. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::You had already posted this on the reliable sources noticeboard at Special:Permalink/895346422 and the requests for closure noticeboard at Special:Permalink/895048737, and attempted to add additional arguments to the previously archived discussion in question at Special:Diff/894752296/895053227. This noticeboard, ANI, {{tq|"is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems"}} and your request doesn't belong here. — Newslinger talk 21:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::It was because I mistakenly added an update to the RSN archived discussion (edit soon reversed) that I sought to figure out the best way to proceed. I discovered the request for closure noticeboard was the wrong place since the discussion had already been archived when I made the request. (I've made a note there pointing to here.) It also became obvious RSN was the wrong place to get advice on what should happen next, since it's a process question, not a content decision. (I pointed that post here right away.) I think with the clarification from Nosebagbear above, explaining why they didn't close, it's clear what happened at RSN. Following the extended discussions resulting from the HuffPo article across three separate admin noticeboards and five articles has been a nightmare that could have been avoided if people limited themselves to the original AN and COIN discussions. IMO, the resulting fallout of multiple overlapping discussions affecting major articles like Facebook and NBC News is what warranted this ANI post. BC1278 (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the history of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&oldid=886742933#Iranian_opposition_articles ANI discussion on this topic], I request intervention to end the following discussion:

After finding a academically peer-reviewed journal paper as a source, in Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#RFC about the death tolls in the lead, User:Stefka Bulgaria refuses to end the discussion. He tries to dispute the reliability of the journal paper by questioning its primary sources. Would you please give a warning to him about WP:NOTGETTINGIT? — Taha (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:I already fully-protected the article — I don't see the need for any additional administrative intervention at this time. El_C 01:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:: The journal paper actually reads {{tq|Finally, the US. Senate became outwardly cool towards the Mojahedin in passing an official statement attacking the MKO as a “terrorist organization,” criticizing its role in the 1979 hostage crisis and relationship with Iraq, and stating that the Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians” since its exile.}} - attributing this to a US Senate stmt (cited to Iran Times), and not making this claim itself. A WP:BOOMERANG may be in order - even if Taha were representing the source properly this would be a premature report. A quote in a journal paper (quoting a US Senate stmt from the early 90s) does not make the quote itself reliable (it does allow us to say that "according to a US Senate resolution from 1994(?) ....").Icewhiz (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

This user has been asked many, many times not to put unreferenced articles into the mainspace. Numerous other editors have also contacted DA, who does seem to read the messages, but has only responded once in the 166 messages. Nearly all 166 have been about lack of referencing/copyvios, articles being moved to draftspace because of these issues. They have been getting concerns raised on this exact issue for 2 years, but has continued to behave in exactly the same way, including as recent as yeterday creating this unreferenced articles, swiftly moved to draftspace: Draft:The Cows (painting). Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::If {{ping|DilletantiAnonymous}} would just respond there could be things we could do - I see that a couple have been referenced and patrolled, but this is clearly endemic and required draftifying from multiple editors. If Dilletanti actually is willing to communicate, then there might be things we can do. Otherwise WP:CIR may require an indef. Alternatively - could we revoke autoconfirmed?? I believe it technically can be removed (it's an accidental issue with de-sysops), I've no idea if the community can/has done so, but it would in effect be a forced use of AfC post-ACPERM. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I agree that if DA would communicate, this could potentially be easily solved - but it's been 2 years and I've not got anywhere yet. Hopefully they will engage here. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=User blocked, nothing left to do here (non-admin closure) funplussmart (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philhorn&diff=896673170&oldid=896658666 This] appears to be a legal threat of an injunction against Wikipedia posted by {{U|Philhorn}} on {{pronoun|Philhorn|pos}} TP. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:Checkuser-blocked LTA. Acroterion (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::On its face, this appeared to be a violation of Wikipedia is not a laboratory, for using Draft:Pay & Allowances: Subsistence Allowance & Right of Defence. However, it was evidently only trolling and sockpuppetry. Good riddance. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::::And it is a laughable "legal" threat. I do not believe that either the parliament or the courts would favorably view such a ban on thought, free speech and resources. I am not a lawyer in India, so I may be ignorant of possible outcomes or analysis. But such an unenforceable ban (and its consequences) would and should be considered as poorly thought out and avoided. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

::Much appreciated, I was starting to work out how to drop the stick on an idiot writing on my own talk page Nosebagbear (talk)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|There's no administrator misconduct, just a content dispute that needs to be resolved with proper discussion and consensus. The article's talk page is here - please proceed to this page and sort things out there. As far as this discussion here goes, there's no administrative action that's required or that's going to happen against CorbieVreccan. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)}}

Hi I believe that administrator User_talk:CorbieVreccan is abusing WP:RS removing properly cited statements regarding people's Native American ancestry and the categories that do apply to them based on the user's personal viewpoint. Especially the article on Lolo Jones her heritage was stated by the Official Olympic Committee not a fan page, personal blog, or on any unreliable source. Other pages have also been effected, and I stopped reverting the CorbieVreccan's changes to avoid an edit war. He complained that one source stated that she says she is of Native American heritage so I used another reliable source stated by the Olympic Committee not the individual herself that she is part Native American. CorbieVreccan removed her Native American heritage again, but kept the remaining heritages that were cited by the same source. I believe the user is basing this on the own skepticism regardless that it is coming from a reliable source, and also bringing in tribal politics into this. Wikipedia isn't dictated by tribal laws. Furthermore, everyone with Native blood isn't documented but CorbieVreccan keeps trying to make it seem like if we can't find documentation then we can't take the words of a reliable source. I don't see CorbieVreccan targeting other ethnicities for example I don't see CorbieVreccan removing people claiming Puerto Rican heritage, and saying if they weren't born on the island and not culturally connected they're not Puerto Rican, but we'll leave the other races they're claiming.

CorbieVreccan is also talking about cleansing the category American people of Native American descent because CorbieVreccan is suspicious of people that claim Native American heritage even when it is stated in a WP:RS that the individual is a Native American ancestry. I truly believe there is a bit of personal goal in purging articles from the categories due to personal beliefs. I do find it frustrating that CorbieVreccan seems to be trying to bring in tribal politics into deciding who's Native American heritage gets stated. CorbieVreccan also believes that information for two different people from two reliable sources isn't the same when one person states the tribe they descend from, but the other individual just states that they have Native American ancestry. CorbieVreccan believes a person that states a tribe is legit because it can possibly be traced. That is extremely unfair especially accounting for the fact that everyone that has Native American ancestry has not been documented. I do want this resolved it's frustrating because Native American is the only race that is questioned in American culture and I honestly feel that this is part of CorbieVreccan's influence. I don't know if CorbieVreccan is American, but I am and I am extremely familiar with tribal politics which has no place here.Mcelite (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:Please condense, with an emphasis on providing evidence in the form of diffs. Thanks. El_C 05:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::I'm including Lolo Jones page as talked about here. See here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolo_Jones&diff=896615981&oldid=896615129] and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolo_Jones&diff=prev&oldid=896615129] and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lolo_Jones&diff=next&oldid=896615981] Mcelite (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Okay, it's a content dispute and an edit war, but I'm not seeing admin abuse anywhere. El_C 05:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::Is it not CorbieVreccan basing things on personal opinion ignoring the reliable sources? I included differences to be more organized. {{diff|Lolo Jones|896615981|896615129|example 1}} and here {{diff|Lolo Jones|prev|896615129|example 2}} and here {{diff|Lolo Jones|next|896615981|example 3}} Mcelite (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::(ECx2) I think you're going to have a very difficult time convincing anyone this is anything other than a content dispute which should be resolved via some form of WP:dispute resolution (which is not ANI) when they visit the talk page and find the last comment barring some photo request tags and stuff, was in 2014 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lolo_Jones&diff=595427482&oldid=595427305]. I mean we could block all of you for edit warring without discussion, but you could all also just stop edit warring and instead actually discuss the dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not seeing admin conduct. Content disputes between editors are to be resolved on the article talk page or, failing that, the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Reliability of sources can be addressed on the Reliable sources noticeboard. El_C 05:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::I am not against any discussion but I honestly believe that CorbieVreccan's personal viewpoint will be a problem no other editor had any issue with example Lolo Jone's heritage being stated from an actual reliable source. I believe CorbieVreccan is determined to bring in tribal politics which doesn't override Wikipedia standards.Mcelite (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm sorry, but I think you're in the wrong noticeboard. And casting these aspersions about tribal politics do not help your case. El_C 05:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::If you're not against a discussion then start one. If consensus is really so clearly in your favour, it should be a short one. And failing to WP:AGF about another editor because of allegations about their POV overriding wikipedia policy and guidelines sounds awfully close to a WP:personal attack to me. As El C has said, you're at the wrong notice board unless your purpose here is to convince us that you should be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)}}

• {{user|ZaxoteZZZ}}

Appears to be a puppet of {{user|ZaxoteZ}}. May require mass reversion. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

: {{confirmed}} and blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Reported user has been blocked as a sock puppet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)}}

I think that I need administrator assistance to see deleted records to deal with the editing of User:TIOTPOM. This editor submitted User:TIOTPOM/sandbox to AFC for review, and it is about one Brandon Taylorian, and I tried to move it to Draft:Brandon Taylorian. That title, as well as Brandon Taylorian in mainspace, are salted against creation. In all likelihood, TIOTPOM is a sockpuppet for the blocked creator. They have been making edits that have been reverted about Taylorian, who has supposedly founded the philosophy of astronism. Admin assistance is requested to determine whether this editor is in fact a sock of a blocked self-promoter.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:Blocked as a sock puppet of {{User|Jessemillette}}, who created the salted articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Reported IP user has been blocked for 72 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)}}

Static IP {{IPUser|172.254.216.130}} continues to add unsourced claims of origin for Middle Eastern food items, and similar edits, after the fourth warning on their talk page. Today for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meze&diff=prev&oldid=896310676], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Makdous&diff=prev&oldid=896311085]. Also, the IP address may be a proxy: [https://www.ipqualityscore.com/free-ip-lookup-proxy-vpn-test/lookup/172.254.216.130]. --IamNotU (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:Plenty of requests for sources and warnings provided and ignored. Blocked for 72 hours in order to provide them with free time to review the policies and guidelines others have noted and linked on their talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Both accounts have been indefinitely blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Louismuyalde0012}}
• {{userlinks|Louismuyalde12}}

After a 3 hour block, the user has continued to add the same material with a different account. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Westminster_attack&diff=next&oldid=896419655 edits like this one] are unsourced, because although Khalid Masood was undoubtedly an Islamist wack job, there is no reliable evidence that he was working for ISIS or that the attack was planned by them. I explained this at User talk:Louismuyalde0012. The policy in these articles is to say that ISIS did it only when it is confirmed by the official investigators. Claims made by the propaganda machine of ISIS don't count, they do this all the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:Louismuyalde12 was created slightly after Louismuyalde0012's short block expired, so block evasion isn't a factor, but since they're using both accounts to edit the same articles, I've blocked Louismuyalde12. I'll leave it to another admin to decide what to do with the other account. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:: I blocked Louismuyalde0012 indef as well. Whereas they did not edit after the block and after they had policies explained to them, Louismuyalde12 is clearly their sock, who edited after the block, and whose edits are problemstic. None of the two users has a single good edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|User indeffed for general lack of competence and several incomprehensible rants. Their response here is a case in point. El_C 05:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|ICrimea}}

Two weeks ago, I already presented the user at this noticeboard here. The conclusion at the time was that this is probably a good-faith new user who wants to help us but is not yet quite familir with the policies. In the meawhile, it became clear to me that the user, whatever their intentions are, simply lacks competence to contribute to the English Wikipedia, and, I am afraid, they need to be blocked indefinitely. They clearly do not speak English and contribute to the articles using machine translation, which produces texts of unsatisfactory quality. They mostly contribute to Republic of Crimea, and their additions clearly deteriorate the article (examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=895356183&oldid=895199996 diff1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=895445221&oldid=895438538 diff2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=895183970&oldid=895152073 diff3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=894550302&oldid=894534267 diff4]). In some cases I could guess what they mean and correct the text, in other cases I had to revert additions as non-sensical. However, I do not see anything net positive here. They created Crimean Digital Valley which has been declined six times as a draft but they created it in the main namespace anyway, and it is at AfD now. I mean, my English is also not exactly flawless, but this is a user after whom every edit needs to be checked, and I do not think this is a sustainable mode of operation. In addition, they started to make empty edits with nonsensical summaries apparently directed at me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=prev&oldid=896469642 diff5], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=prev&oldid=896474286 diff6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Crimea&diff=prev&oldid=896476527 diff7]. In short, I do not see how this user is net positive for the project.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• {{re | Ymblanter}} You know what's going on information control by using DNS server. You crazy. Control information on the Peninsula of Crimea --ICrimea (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|The users involved with the disruption have been blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)}}

A user with multiple accounts such as Atlas atlasi and Beberlegend is deleting referenced information and deleting and placing there own unsourced information while keeping the old references. The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabyle_people and the edit history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kabyle_people&action=history Please intervene. Arsi786 (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:Looks like one is a sock of the other, I submitted a case to SPI. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::And I have no patience. Blocked {{u5|Atas atlasi}} (sock) indefinite and {{u5|Berberlegend}} (master) 31 hours. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=Nothing left to do here, amicably resolved (non-admin closure) Pincrete (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)}}

I reported user:IamAFish45612 for vandalism this morning because all of the edits they have been seem suggestive of vandalism. NJA disagreed with it, but I still feel kind of strong that this user should be blocked. We have been having a conversation on my talk page, and I admitted some of my responses such as admin shopping by going to an admin's personal talk pages was inappropriate. I wanted to get a third opinion on this issue. Also feel free to check out the declined report to AIV. I think that combined with my talkpage discussion should lay out all the facts that need to be considered. CLCStudent (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• {{Note2|Please see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CLCStudent#Your_declined_report_at_AIV_and_actions_thereafter this section] on the reporting user’s talk page. NJA | talk 15:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)}}

::Also note I am admitting fault for the initial re-addition (but not the second one) and going to the admin's talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I also feel that not all the elements listed at AIV need to be followed word for word. CLCStudent (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• While we’re here I would like the reporting user to demonstrate they understand the steps to check before making a report at AIV. E.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=896449618&oldid=896449606 this] report today made at 11:14am where he reported 207.63.63.205 saying “vandalism after final warning”. Going to the IP’s talk page the last warning was on 7 May at 2:51pm. Today's AIV report therefore was made after only one edit by the IP done today and no fresh warning was given. That’s insufficient. Also on 7 May the user asked on my talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NJA#205.155.45.164 section here]), which was in response to my comment on his report at ANI [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=895984774&oldid=895984673 here] (spoiler: declined for insufficient warnings). I am unsure if the user is fully comprehending the purpose of AIV and ultimately ensuring sufficient warnings are given prior to reporting. I am always happy to give guidance, but only if it will be received and considered. NJA | talk 16:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::::I thought warnings are only stale if they are a week old. CLCStudent (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::Also, I will try to only report people to AIV for clear and undeniable vandalism in hopes of avoiding another outcome like this. I'll report the non-obvious ones here at ANI from now on. CLCStudent (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::I think the reason I am failing to comprehend the entire situation is because based on my 3.5 years of experience here, most other admins will accept reports at AIV even if they do not fully meet the criteria. The way I reported that user in question is the same way I have been doing it for the entire time I have been an RC patroller, which again, is 3.5 year. CLCStudent (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::I accept that is likely true and it is truly unfortunate. Admins can and should be held accountable for bad blocks. I appreciate it is likely frustrating when your experience is another admin would have blocked and I have not. Admin work isn’t about clearing a board when that may result in bad blocks with the indirect effect of setting a practice that RC patrollers interpret as policy. It would have been easier for me to ignore your reports and hope someone else deals with it. I hope by having this discussion it helps to better enjoy your experience here. NJA | talk 16:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::Apparently, there is far more criteria to AIV than I thought, so until I am fully educated, I will just report users wither directly to an admin or ANI. I apologize to anybody I offended today. I sincerely thought I was doing the right thing. CLCStudent (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The reported users' first two edits (out of three) were vandalism. However, the latest was not. It may be unconstructive, but without access to the source, it's hard to tell. The user was duly warned for the first two transgressions, but the report to AIV was premature because it did not meet the criteria written on the page. So NJA was correct in declining the report. The reported user's contributions are worth watching for, but a block would be premature at this point. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::A promise I will make is that from now on, if one admin denies a block request, I will not go to another admin's talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{outdent}} I’d hope if you picked up anything from today it’s about using and making AIV reports (which you've indicated you have already above). Seeking another admin’s opinion wasn’t the issue. As I said on your talk page doing so and not informing them of the complete picture was misrepresenting the situation (albeit I accept it wasn’t likely meant to be as such). I think we can move on perhaps? All the best. NJA | talk 17:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• {{qmark}} Unless there’s further comments by others may I suggest a non-involved closure? NJA | talk 11:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|IP blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)}}

{{resolved}}

Hi, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.2.152.141 this IP] is actively making disruptive edits at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nowruz&curid=200561&action=history Nowruz] while having been reverted by several editors. Admins attention is required. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:Blocked for 31 hours. Materialscientist (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=Request for RevDel was turned down. But there are admins you can contact at other times who are willing to RevDel at :Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. It is better to post your requests on an admin's talk page than post it here, which has more visibility. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)}}

May I request this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amari_Cooper&diff=896527337&oldid=895977422 edit summary] be deleted? I've backed out the change, which was only minor damage, but the edit summary needs to go. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:The edit summary, while quite disruptive in nature, doesn't meet the criteria for revision deletion. Unless I'm missing something? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::Probably not. I thought it met the criteria for hiding the edit comment, although not for revdel itself. Guess not. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Tarl N. - Ah okay, I see what you were thinking... To briefly explain: the means in which edit summaries are hidden and removed is by using revision deletion to do so. There's no other "deletion method" that will strike or remove it (short of deleting the entire page which would take the edit summary with it). In order for its use to be justified, the item to be redacted must meet one of the criteria listed here. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know (just message me on my user talk page here) and I'll be happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Tarl N. - Oh, I forgot to mention this as well: In the future, you want to report revisions that you believe need revision deletion to an administrator privately, not anywhere on Wikipedia where it can be seen publicly. This is in order to keep the Streisand effect as low as possible. You're more than welcome to email me such reports, but I'm sure most administrators won't mind if you send any to them. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::::One more tip: There's a list of administrators experienced in handling such requests at :Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::Yup, that's a good tip as well! Thanks Diannaa ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=Oshwah blocked User:2600:6C55:80:44B:A445:AB65:BB52:B915 for 36 hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:6C55:80:44B:A445:AB65:BB52:B915 User:2600:6C55:80:44B:A445:AB65:BB52:B915] keeps reverting edits that adhere to Wiki policies and deliberately disregards them as well as vandalism warnings on their page, as displayed here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2600:6C55:80:44B:A445:AB65:BB52:B915], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_Beverly_Hills&oldid=896475097], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Real_Housewives_of_Beverly_Hills&oldid=896534491]. KyleJoan^talk 06:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:Blocked for 36 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|reason=Probably thinks that Genesis were better after Peter Gabriel left the band too. ——SerialNumber54129 13:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)(non-admin closure)}}

I've blocked {{user|188.141.87.103}} for vandalism. Saying that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blind_Faith&diff=prev&oldid=896564135 Blind Faith are reforming] is at best complete speculation; going on to say that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Power_Station_(band)&diff=896307677&oldid=891960053 Genesis' Tony Banks is joining a supergroup with Duran Duran's Andy Taylor] is nonsense, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Herd_(British_band)&diff=prev&oldid=896348861 suggesting that Britney Spears is fronting a re-formed version of Peter Frampton's first big band The Herd] is batshit insane. I've had a look through their contributions, and I think most of it is vandalism of this nature, including a bunch of unsourced drafts of darts players. Now, darts isn't my speciality, but I wouldn't be surprised if these were all made up too. Can anyone else confirm my suspicions? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Blocked for two weeks after verifying user has been notified of ARBCOM sanctions. Further escalations will be disccused if it comes up again. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|89MsHm}}

User "89MsHM" has a long history of disruptive editing, marked by a pro-Azerbaijani Turkish POV. He has been warned numerous times for this, including by admins such as {{u|Ymblanter}}. To no avail, unfortunately.

• Added an unsourced Turkish etymological explanation to Dolma. No edit summary/explanation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dolma&diff=prev&oldid=848180317]
• Added an unsourced Turkish etymological explanation to Sarma (food). No edit summary/explanation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarma_(food)&diff=prev&oldid=848180095]
• Removed an entry related to the Armenian-inhabited Republic of Artsakh, but conveniently keeping entries of other unrecognized de facto states, such as Turkish-inhabited Northern Cyprus.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:List_of_European_capitals_by_region&diff=prev&oldid=849456184]
• Changed "Soviet Union" to "Azerbaijan SSR". No edit summary/explanation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martakert&diff=prev&oldid=890600329]
• Initiated an edit-war at Safavid dynasty in an attempt to Azerbaijanify/Turkify the dynasty, disregarding long standing content and violating WP:BRD.([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safavid_dynasty&diff=895288257&oldid=894313147 Diff #1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safavid_dynasty&diff=895314090&oldid=895309790 Diff #2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safavid_dynasty&diff=895315479&oldid=895314787 Diff #3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safavid_dynasty&diff=895432974&oldid=895338486 Diff #4])
• Another AA2 warning given (3 May 2019) as the previous one had expired. No response or whatsoever.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:89MsHm&diff=895344709&oldid=895344301]
• Added Azerbaijani Turkish transliteration to a Georgian dish. No edit summary/explanation.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chikhirtma&diff=896427186&oldid=896277122]

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Already in 2017, he was given a AA2 warning by Ymblanter[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:89MsHm&diff=802752555&oldid=713399268] to which he responded with WP:BATTLEGROUND-like commentary.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:89MsHm#Discretionary_sanctions_notice] Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I'm not sure this is the correct noticeboard for this, but would the following be considered slanderous or violations? (the following assertions are not verified in the supporting sources):

• Adding “Saudi government have paid blood money to Khashoggi family” section in Jamal Khashoggi [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamal_Khashoggi&diff=895686750&oldid=895592700] and Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi&diff=895687290&oldid=893195606]

• Adding “The Human Rights Watch had been reported in a document, titled ‘No Exit: Human Rights Abuses inside the MKO Camps’ and published in 2005, that The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran did a wide range of sexual harassment against men and women, even children.” To People’s Mujahedin of Iran and Camp Ashraf.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&diff=892615877&oldid=892567660][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Camp_Ashraf&diff=891355961&oldid=886716088]

• Adding “she said women who promoted to in the Leadership Council after a series of meetings directed 'X saloon'. The X Saloon covered with white color and there was a table which included some traditional marriage tools. In this room all women who was in the Leadership Council got temporary marriage between them and Masud Rajavi. Finally Rajavi said to them to act freely around him.” to Camp Ashraf.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Camp_Ashraf&diff=891355961&oldid=886716088]

• Adding “It is the second time that Israel has lost an aircraft in the invasion to neighbors countries.” to General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon&diff=887880748&oldid=887682240], Syrian Armed Forces,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Armed_Forces&diff=887880444&oldid=886035294] and to Anti-aircraft warfare.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-aircraft_warfare&diff=887881697&oldid=886617064]

The editor making these edits is User:Forest90. Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you, Alex-h, need to be more careful about making such reports because you could ask me all these points on my talk page. It seems you were hasty for reporting me. why? For now:

[ https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/02/middleeast/jamal-khashoggi-children-intl/index.html CNN] attributes the "blood money" payments to a "a source familiar with the matter". and [ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43014081 BBC] says " It is the first time Israel has lost an aircraft in combat since 2006 when an Israeli helicopter was shot down over Lebanon by a Hezbollah rocket, the Jerusalem Post reports," so you can consider it the second shutdown. If you need more explanation, come to my talk page or to Articles talk page.Forest90 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:{{u|Forest90}} I believe {{u|Alex-h}} meant that the "in the invasion to neighbors countries" part appeared to be slanderous. Correct me if I am wrong Alex-h. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::{{ping|ZLEA}}, yes, that's correct, thank you. There are also the statements added in Camp Ashraf and People's Mujahedin of Iran, which are not in the refs provided. Also what Objective3000 said below. Alex-h (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:As far as I can see, the claim that “blood money” was paid that you have added four times[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamal_Khashoggi&diff=895766027&oldid=895689833] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamal_Khashoggi&diff=895686750&oldid=895592700] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi&diff=895768073&oldid=895747115] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi&diff=895687290&oldid=893195606] is not in that article or any other article that I can find. Blood money normally would only be negotiated after conviction. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Can editors please stop using the words "slander" and "slanderous" in this discussion? It's legally misplaced and not constructive. It's better to focus on the applicable policies and guidelines, namely, WP:V, WP:NPV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. R2 (bleep) 20:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• I will not comment on this content dispute because it is not a suitable place for this. I'm ready to respond on proper talk pages. {{ping| Alex-h|ZLEA}} please don't make more personal attacks. Thanks.Forest90 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

::{{u|Forest90}} I did not make a personal attack, nor did Alex-h. He is only expressing his concerns about your contributions, and I only attempted to clarify a statement you misunderstood. If you read WP:WIAPA, you will probably notice that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is listed as a type of personal attack, however, Alex-h has listed multiple examples of your contributions that they believe to be violations of WP:NPOV. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

MagicatthemovieS has been removing categories from pages. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bull_Connor&oldid=896337310], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Kasper&oldid=896337241],

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Jay_Mathews&oldid=896337164], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wyatt_Kaldenberg&oldid=896336855.] See their contribs for more. Guywan (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:All the removals are correct as far as I can see, as they remove duplicate categories which are already on the pages (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bull_Connor&type=revision&diff=896337310&oldid=894607547 removing] :Category:Far-right politics in the United States from Bull Connor was correct, as he's already listed in :Category:American white supremacists which is a subcategory of :Category:Far-right politics in the United States). Do you see the enormous {{tq|Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories.}} banner at the top of :Category:Far-right politics in the United States? It's there for a reason. ‑ Iridescent 20:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_Burgwyn_Jones&diff=prev&oldid=896336751 unnecessarily inflammatory edit summaries] are a bit worrying and suggest ulterior motives. There may not be any such motives, but the edit summaries present that appearance. If the goal here is category maintenance, a standard "removing duplicate categories" summary for all edits would be more helpful. --Chris (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

::{{ping|Iridescent}} {{ping|Crazycomputers}}. If MagicatthemovieS is doing good work, I apologize. I was unsure as to their intentions (and quite worried [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=896327783]), and their misquote of a policy didn't help the case, so I thought I ought to come here. Guywan (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Could you clarify what the misquoted policy is? So far here, we have them removing a parent category that sounds like it is a diffusing cat, so mentioning (or not mentioning) how to handle non-diffusing cats is not relevant. DMacks (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

::::{{ping|DMacks}} (it was during a correspondence on their talk page.) Guywan (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::I saw that, and I saw (and still see) no evidence that you were talking about non-diffusing categories. And here on ANI, the only evidence is for yes-diffusing categories. DMacks (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Guywan}} I was also worried due to the edit summaries. However, the summaries appear to be the only potential issue here. They've since switched to a more neutral-sounding edit summary so I think everything is fine. --Chris (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Closing because I just don't feel keeping this open any longer is useful to anyone or anything. Let's hope some lessons were drawn from the lengthy, month-long discussion, and go from there. El_C 23:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)}}

Hi, I'd like to get an outside look at the talk page discussions and article edits on this page. Certain edits by Curly Turkey have I think been uncivil. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891490136&oldid=891489516 "this kind of bullshit"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891491600&oldid=891490544 "Jesus Christ, this is exasperating. (...) Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through our sourcing guidlines?"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891625009&oldid=891619190 "Aside from your contempt for our sourcing guidelines, you seem to have a vested interest in including "LavScam" in the lead paragraph"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891596445&oldid=891589232 "don't make a fool of yourself, Legacypac"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891924215&oldid=891922180 "The belligerence some of these editors continue to show—and the facile dismissal of all evidence provided—demonstrates this is a behavioural issue that won't be solved through discussion. The bad faith is so thick you can cut it with a knife—just take a look at Legacypac's FUD that I'm pushing some unnamed "agenda" below."] (Referencing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891919971&oldid=891918564 this] by Legacypac), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891938386&oldid=891937807 "I've brought you to task over the intransigent, bad-faith, POV-pushing, policy-violating manner in which it is presented. ANI will decide whether you'll get away with it."])

Other edits have had less than civil remarks in the edit summaries, like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891635736&oldid=891633010 "a single-mindedness that should be treated with great suspicion"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891911857&oldid=891882742 "WP:WEIGHT is WP:POLICY; if you continue to violate policy, we can sort this out at WP:ANI, if you'd like"], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891487666&oldid=891487221 "learn how to use a source"]

I am also concerned about certain of their arguments regarding sources, but I don't know if this is the right place to talk about that. All other editors currently in the discussion also have disagreements with many of their policy arguments, and accusations of misbehaviour of different types have been raised by others. I have tried to be calm and reasonable, as well as to ask for more specificity in P&G citations, but I don't feel it's helped much.

I have said something to Curly which I'm not sure about civility status on: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891637984&oldid=891635736 "You don't need to ping me twice in the same reply to me on a page I'm watching. It comes off as aggressive and condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention."] I would like some outside advice or input, or something, on the whole state of the discussion and what the bar for civility is, because I thought it was higher than this. The relevant talk page sections begin at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair#Curly_Turkey_edits Curly Turkey Edits]. Curly has also opened a section on my talk page, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Safrolic#Sourcing Sourcing], about a couple reverts I made which make me think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::I would like to second what Safrolic has written here. Things have not improved since. Other editors have tried to engage with Curly on improvements to the article but we are not able to discuss content. Curly simply accuses anyone who disagrees with him of bad faith. When asked what specifically he thinks needs to be improved he tends to go silent or shift to allegations. This is becoming extremely disruptive. Unfortunately, I do not see this de-escalating without intervention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Now User:Bradv has started edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&type=revision&diff=892100715&oldid=892100551] (second removal) and misrepresenting the talkpags discussion. When I reverted them once, adding yet another ref, they claimed it was all right wing media. Curly turkey needs a topic ban and Bradv needs a talking to. Google LavScam and look at how pretty much every media outlet in Canada and places like CNN (hardly right wing) are using this term. This is a politically charged topic and our job is to follow the socerces not whitewash the page and downplay everything. If many many media outlets call something X we also note that in the lede. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:::This isn't appropriate or helpful. I asked for outside input, and mentioned others, for a reason. Bradv's got good judgment. Safrolic (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:{{u|Legacypac}}, I took a look at the article in response to the conversation started here, and saw a pretty glaring NPOV issue right off the bat. I've now started an RfC. – bradv🍁 06:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::If there is a glaring NPOV it is because Curly turkey has been butchering the page. You never participated in the talkpage discussion. Explain your edit warring and removal of three sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::: So ... you're personally attacking {{em|every}} editor who calls out your POV-pushing ... Littleolive oil, myself, Bradv ... who next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The following is an incomplete draft of an ANI report I've been working on. Long as it is, many issues and diffs are yet to come. Sorry I did not have the time to make it more concise and readable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

While attempting to copyedit SNC-Lavalin affair, I kept running into sourcing issues: description of something [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891796823&oldid=891796742 as "illegal"] where none of the three cited sources did; description of a hashtag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891485810&oldid=891480404 as a "colloquialsim",] later reverted three times[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891486464&oldid=891486208][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891918497&oldid=891911941][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891882742&oldid=891868040] with the same source about the term as a hashtag; Padding of a quotation with multiple sources, when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891766133&oldid=891760249 only one gave the full quote;] and so on ...

I've tried to fix the article in various ways: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892086575&oldid=892086395 adding sources,] rewording, and removing inappropriate sources. I've run into considerable pushback from other editors there, including one who asserts sources are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892089500&oldid=892088064 "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous"] while removing a {{better source needed}} tag.

File:Wilson-Raybould_scandal_screenshot.png

File:LavScam_screenshot.png

The most concerning behaviour has been the insistence on including the term "LavScam" in the lead sentence. The term is one of a large number of terms that have been used to describe the issue, including [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Wilson-Raybould%20scandal%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t "Wilson-Raybould scandal"], [https://www.google.com/search?ei=tiCwXOTWKcXa8QWCiKiIBw&q=%22PMO+scandal%22&oq=%22PMO+scandal%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...20106.22150..22650...0.0..0.189.1218.0j8......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i13j0i67j0i7i30.vAs2tgUVQMs "PMO scandal",] [https://www.google.com/search?ei=ziCwXPKWB8aE8gWD4o2IAw&q=%22Trudeau+scandal%22+lavalin&oq=%22Trudeau+scandal%22+lavalin&gs_l=psy-ab.3...23164.28657..28930...0.0..0.146.1539.16j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i7i30j0i67j0i13j0.2a1WSku7wOA "Trudeau scandal",] and a list of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891488718&oldid=891487833 variations of the article title] that I removed as redundant and predictable. The only term the editors have fought to restore is "LavScam", despite the fact that several terms (that are not variations of the current title) return a greater number of Google hits (see screenshots).

Early on, I characterized the article's issues as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=891490136&oldid=891489516 "sloppy",] but the single-minded pushback over "LavScam" has made me suspicious. I searched for how the media used this term and found it rare or nonexistent in outlets such as CBC News, the National Post, and the Toronto Star, but the favoured term in the right-wing tabloid [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22LavScam%22&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizhs7s6cnhAhWEvLwKHXVfD_wQ_AUIDygC&biw=1600&bih=798 the Toronto Sun]—in fact, {{em|two thirds}} of hits in a Google News search are from this single source ([https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=798&tbm=nws&ei=DAuxXL3LA4uP8wWz6ZRg&q=%22lavscam%22+&oq=%22lavscam%22+&gs_l=psy-ab.3...8660.10327.0.11337.15.10.0.0.0.0.145.832.9j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..8.0.0....0.oVH0cDJ8MVA "Lavscam": 4940 hits,] [https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=798&tbm=nws&ei=GAuxXOFxjPrxBZCunvgG&q=%22lavscam%22+-torontosun.com&oq=%22lavscam%22+-torontosun.com&gs_l=psy-ab.3...112580.117150.0.117719.16.16.0.0.0.0.137.1261.14j2.16.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.wQLtLg-rpEA {{'"}}Lavscam" -torontosun.com': 1,650 hits]). To put things in perspective: [https://www.google.com/search?q=trudeau+lavalin&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIsr_06szhAhVFWLwKHeMNDrQQ_AUIDigB&biw=1600&bih=798 {{green|Trudeau Lavalin}}: 665,000 hits;] [https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=798&tbm=nws&ei=e7axXNjoJMap8QW6p5ioCg&q=trudeau+lavalin+-lavscam&oq=trudeau+lavalin+-lavscam&gs_l=psy-ab.3...6387.9297.0.9637.9.9.0.0.0.0.83.705.9.9.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.uxCDLnqjTh0 {{green|Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam}}: 655,000 hits.] "LavScam" barely registers at all, and a supermajority of hits come from a single source.

I then went back through the article talk page and found a previous dispute these editors had had with User:Littleolive oil over who to highlight in the lead. The affair is a divisive one in Canada, and there is no consensus over who is to blame. Legacypac repsonded with this POV:

{{Quote|text=[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=886684574&oldid=886684320 "I prefer the PM's picture. This scandal is about him, not the former AG who was allegedly pressured"]}}

The AG being Wilson-Raybould; newssources differ on who is to blame, and many of them have named the scandal after Wilson-Raybould, the Prime Minister, or SNC-Lavalin.

Legacypac's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&oldid=886269921 first edit] to the talk page was commentary "The most interesting part is how SNC paid for the son of a dictator to tour Canada hiring expensive call girls for him." Legacypac and Littleolive then engaged in some editwarring until this comment was finally removed: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=886683728&oldid=886568257] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=886684057&oldid=886683728][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=886684320&oldid=886684057][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=886684574&oldid=886684320][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=886686911&oldid=886684574]. Legacypac clearly has a POV and has a history of fighting for it on this article. Other editors who have participated include Harris Seldon, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic.

::: ... Work in progress: Persistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behaviour, and dismissal of empirical evidence and policies, including WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH ...

The consistent pushback against my attempts to clean up the article's sourcing, dismissal of numerous policies, single-minded focus on the term "LavScam", explicit expressions of POVs ... these have me suspicious of an astroturfing campaign there. At the very least, these editors have demonstrated an unwillingness to respect Wikipedia's sitewide sourcing policies and, consciously or not, have repeatedly introduced and reinforced (sometimes through editwarring) POV into a politically-sensitive article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::::Re: "not required to support all the material in the paragraph, that's ridiculous", that was my error- I thought we were talking about a paragraph with multiple citations for specific sentences, and that you were saying the source for only the last sentence, was also required to support all the material in the paragraph I thought was cited already. It was that leap/reaction which I was referring to above when I said I think I've lost my patience. Safrolic (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::::: There was and is material in that paragraph that does not appear in any of the citations in the paragraph. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::My sin here, and that of some others, has simply been disagreeing with Curly Turkey on the question of whether the term LavScam should be included. There seems to be some question about other edits and sourcing but I don't believe I have "participated" in that conduct. My disagreement with Turkey was limited, I believe, to placing the term LavScam back in the article when others agreed it should be there (Turkey excluded) and disagreeing with Turkey in the Talk page. It is regrettable that we find ourselves here. There have been assumptions of bad faith largely all around (by myself included). It is clear though that on the distinct issue of the inclusion of LavScam in the article, which seems to have become the main lightning rod here, Curly Turkey has formed the view that others cannot disagree with him on this issue without acting in bad faith. That is regrettable. That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: there's now an editwar ongoing between Legacypac and Bradv over "LavScam" in the lead,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892099281&oldid=892099237][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892100499&oldid=892099281][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892100715&oldid=892100551] in the middle of which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&curid=60110255&diff=892100551&oldid=892100499 Legacypac removed] a {{tl|Cite check}} template, despite the number of problematic citations that continue to turn up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::Check his diffs carefully because he is not being very accurate here. Just as anexample I removed a check cite tag while adding another cite. Legacypac (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::: This is a straight-up lie—not only did Legacypac [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892100551&oldid=892100499 not add a cite,] no cite has been added by any user since that edit. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

:::: I think he's referring to his edit immediately before that one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892100499&oldid=892099281], where he adds a third reference, to the Toronto Sun, in addition to the two he restored after bradv removed the lavscam thing. I don't think it was a good source, or a good chain of edits, or that it addressed the actual concern re: the lavscam thing, or that that specific bit was the only reason you put that tag up. But I do think it's inaccurate and unfair to call what he said here a straight-up lie. Safrolic (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::::: Does not compute: Legacypac's edit comment was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&curid=60110255&diff=892100551&oldid=892100499 "Don't need that tag"], and the {{tl|Check cite}} tags the entire article, which I've been systematically checking over the sources of for more WP:INTEGRITY violations. No, Legacypac was straight-up lying and spreading FUD. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

::Every other editor on the page is disagreeing with Curly and yet he persists on verbal assaults on other editors. This has gone too far. Time to remove Curly from the article as he is being very disruptive. Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

:::I concur. Curly Turkey is being disruptive and uncivil, and quite evidently does not WP:HEAR very well. Regardless of any problems that might exist with the article, he is in no way assisting with any resolution. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

:::: (Aside from being the only one who has identified and fixed any of the many policy-violating sourcing issues ...)

::: We're left with the same WP:IDHT about policy adherence that we've had since the beginning of this drahmah—policy enforcement is the "disruption" they object to, and which led to the earlier campaign against Littleolive oil (who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=886684574 identified WP:WEIGHT] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=886800845 issues,] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=886698067 POV issues,] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=886815670 WP:INTEGRITY issues,] and other issues until [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=886825879 being] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Littleolive_oil&diff=886831105&oldid=886710647 bullied] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=886701612 off] the page).

::: Several of the editors involved are brand new with only a few hundred edits to their names ([https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/PavelShk PavelShk,] [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Safrolic Safrolic,] [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Harris_Seldon Harris Seldon,] [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Darryl_Kerrigan Darryl Kerrigan]), so it's not so surprising that they'd misunderstand or undervalue our sourcing policies—a couple of them have admitted so themselves. Legacypac's vitriol and FUD appears have emboldened them to his ends, and they've followed his example in editwarring to retain policy-violating sourcing. One example: there is currently an WP:INTEGRITY-violating [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=893093624&oldid=893074625 source in the article] (the quotation that precedes it does not exist in the source cited)—and this group refuses to allow it to be fixed, editwarring to keep it in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Here are my attempts to reason with them about it:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=893100216][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=893104340][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=893107979] Yet it remains. This example is lower priority than some of the others (such as the "illegal" one I link to above"), but it illustrates the unnecessary effort needed to fix {{em|anything}} in this article.

::: So many other issues remain—the article still needs a full source check for WP:INTEGRITY given the numerous violations, and it has suffered from cherrypicked sources supporting particular POVs, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues.

::: Our sourcing policies are not optional—particularly in a politics article involving BLPs—and cannot be left to the discretion of POV-pushers. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

::: Here's a prime example of the exasperating IDHT from Darryl Kerrigan, from today:

:::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=893227403 DK: "You proposed multiple alternative names along with LavScam."]

:::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=893230831 CT: "I proposed no such thing], and have responded to this WP:IDHT repeatedly. I pointed out it was a violation of WP:WEIGHT to single out "LavScam" when other, more common alternatives were available, and then pointed out that giving prominence to a term that appears in a fraction of 1% of sources—the majority of which are to a {{em|single source}}—is a violation of WP:WEIGHT."

:::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=893256981 DK: "Your arguments here have have been shifting, often vaugue, circular and ultimately dishonest."]

:::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=893262921 CT: "you keep saying this, and yet I see no diffs to back it up. It's simple: follow our sourcing policies. Find me a diff of something I said that is not essentially {{em|that}}"]

:::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=893263688 DK: "Try reading discussion of LavScam above where you propose alterate names ..."] (none of the requested diffs)

:::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=893264626 CT: "I never "proposed" alternate names (and you've provided no diff that I did). I {{em|listed}} names that appear as or more frequently as "LavScam" {{em|and explicitly stated so}}. I also {{em|explicitly stated}} that including "LavScam" would {{em|require}} listing the alternate names per WP:WEIGHT, but that {{em|I was opposed to doing so}} for readability reasons. I strengthened my {{em|standing oppose}} when it was discovered that the term is used in a small fraction of 1%, 2/3 of which were from the Toronto Sun, per the same WP:WEIGHT argument."]

:::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=893266157 DK: "The best anyone has been able to get out of you is that maybe you are talking about "Wilson-Raybould Scandal" as an additional term"] (!!!!!!) (again none of the requested diffs)

:::: Here's where I first mentioned "Wilson-Raybould scandal":

:::::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=891635736 CT: "there's also "Wilson-Raybould scandal" and its variations, "SNC scandal" and its variations, "PMO scandal", and so on. Listing them {{em|all}} would not be against the guidelines, but would be ridiculous and hinder readability. They may be appropriate elsewhere in the body, but cluttering up the {{em|lead paragraph}} with them benefits no reader."]

:::: Note that not only do I not "propose" it, I explictly propose {{em|against}} its inclusion, as I have consistently throughout these discussions. This can be re-explicated only so many times before it's obvious one's dealing with deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

::::: Darryl Kerrigan has continued today with the exact some behaviour on the exact same subject:

:::::: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=894139232&oldid=893275366 DK: "Curly Turkey has raised the possibility of including other widely used terms to address WP:WEIGHT concerns. He has been invited to start a discussion of any other such terms, if he wishes to do so. He has so far declined to do so, and appears to ground his current opposition on other factors as above."]

::::: Continuing to make this claim {{em|even after I've highlighted it here}} suggests strongly it is a deliberate provocation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::Are you serious? You said and I quote LavScam should appear in the lede "only if along with other frequent terms for the affair — per WP:WEIGHT... The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally - or more - used terms". You are clearly referring to the possible use of other terms (admittedly you then dismiss your own suggestion). BUT saying you never proposed it now is nothing but an outright lie. You are being dishonest and disruptive and need to be put down.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::: Call them lies all you want—the diffs and quotes are {{em|right here}} for everyone to see. You've also quoted me out of context (and without a diff)—here's the diff and the parts of the quote you left out: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=892106567 "Only if along with other frequent terms for the affair—per WP:WEIGHT, these concerns override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally- or more-used terms. As such a list would be burdensomely long, my preference is to leave them all out."] As I stated above, I later ammended this to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=892343113 "No—after doing further research and discovering "LAvScam" appears in {{em|a fraction of a percent}} of available sources—and that {{em|two thirds}} of those hits are from a single source (torontosun.com)—there is absolutely no way that including "LavScam" in the lead sentence is WP:DUEWEIGHT."] At no point did I ever "propose" including such a list, and you've provided no evidence to suggest I have. You {{em|have}} provided your own evidence of how you misrepresent my statements, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::::What part of this do you not get? You "proposed" as in "suggested" as in "said" other terms should be used in the article to balance weight. Then you said, you thought there would be too many terms, so you didn't want to try. Then we argued about what terms you even ever suggested. You are always talking out of both sides of your mouth. You have a problem man.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::::: I have "proposed", "suggested", and "said" {{em|explicitly}} that no such list should be included in the lead, from my first comment on the subject to the last; I've demonstrated so with diffs here, and you've provided none to contradict them. Thank you for demonstrating more WP:IDHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::More WP:IDHT and now clear attempts to wikilawyer your way out of this. Do you deny that you originally said that you opposed the inclusion of the term LavScam unless other terms were used? Do you deny that you were attempting to create the inclusion of "other" terms as a precondition? Do you deny that you then said your preference was for no additional terms (despite trying to create that as a precondition)? And then do you deny refusing to spell out exactly which terms you thought ought to be included to satisfy your precondition? Do you deny refusing to offer any reliable sources on that question (google screen shots don't count)? I get it; you later changed your story to object because based on no evidence you think the term is used in few articles. You take this position ignoring the numerous reliable souces (from a diverse mix of news agencies) listed on the talk page which refer to the scandal as LavScam. Do you really not see why I (and others) have formed the view you are not acting in good faith and are attempting to disrupt the article?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

:::::::::::: "based on no evidence"—I've provided the evidence {{em|multiple times}} on {{em|this very page}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=892269494 first in my initial statement,] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=prev&oldid=894162285 here again today.] You've seen these figures more than once at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair, too. I've responded to all of the rest of your comment repeatedly, and have provided diffs to back up my statements. Are you trying to build a case against yourself with this WP:IDHT? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Perhaps, I should have responded to this before but frankly I was feeling a little unheard. {{u|SWL36}} explained to you why google searches are not evidence [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=892211572&oldid=892209435&title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&type=revision here]. I explained that we were looking for reliable sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&type=revision&diff=893273558&oldid=893266157 here].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: When the ratio is greater than 100:1, comparisons of google hits are taken {{em|very}} seriously—we even have this at WP:COMMONNAME: "generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources". And of course I provided News results, not web results.

:::::::::::::: You very carefully avoid responding to the question of how a term that appears in {{em|less than 1% of newssources}} is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT, and what {{em|would}} a violation of WP:WEIGHT be if that's not already the threshold? I fully expect you will not hear the question—or will respond with "but CNN!". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::My response is that 1) Using Google Searches in this way is problematic for the reasons {{u|SWL36}} explained. 2) I do not accept your conclusion that less than 1% of sources use the term. This calculation was based on excluding the Toronto Sun and using terms like "SNC-Lavalin controversy" or "Lavalin scandal" which will catch other scandals SNC-Lavalin is involved in besides this one. There have been many others besides this one affair; none of those are known as LavScam. Others have pointed out to you before the problems caused by comparing the unique term "LavScam" and less unique terms. 3) The results have changed since you did this tally. It looks more like 8% on my math now (not that that is the defining issue). 4) While we rely on reliable sources, news articles are not the only form of reliable sources. Nor do news articles necessarily capture what term is being used in Parliament, on MP websites, on Youtube, Twitter, or by the general public. While we need to avoid WP:OR, we should not ignore the fact that use of a term in other spheres is relevant to whether it is a WP:COMMONNAME. You were provided [https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/shall-we-call-it-lavscam-then/ this] WP:RS concerning the prevalence of the term on Twitter. 5) MOS:LEADALT 6) CNN! 7) Washington Post 8) The many other sources listed on the talk page here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: "I do not accept your conclusion that less than 1% of sources use the term."—the onus is on you to provide counterevidence.

::::::::::::::::: "This calculation was based on excluding the Toronto Sun"—no, the results include the Toronto Sun. Are you saying you haven't actually clicked through the links?

::::::::::::::::: "It looks more like 8% on my math now"—No search I do returns anything like it. The links above certainly don't. Where's the evidence? And how would 8% satisfy WEIGHT regardless?

::::::::::::::::: "Nor do news articles necessarily capture what term is being used in Parliament, on MP websites, on Youtube, Twitter, or by the general public."—neither do your "gut feelings".

::::::::::::::::: "6) CNN!"—the same WP:IDHT as predicted. WP:WEIGHT makes no exception for CNN, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

::::::::::::::::: "The many other sources listed"—the same IDHT. List as many sources as you like, it doesn't change the fact that it's a fringe term used by a very small minority of sources, thus highlighting it is in violation of WEIGHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::: I am not going to dignify much of that with any response because you are not hearing any part of what I have said except for what you have chosen to quote, while ignoring the rest. Others can read the rest for themselves. I will say, I certainly clicked on the links and I note that you provided this [https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=798&tbm=nws&ei=GAuxXOFxjPrxBZCunvgG&q=%22lavscam%22+-torontosun.com&oq=%22lavscam%22+-torontosun.com&gs_l=psy-ab.3...112580.117150.0.117719.16.16.0.0.0.0.137.1261.14j2.16.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.wQLtLg-rpEA link] while noting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&type=revision&diff=892209435&oldid=892207761 "only 1,650 for "Lavscam" -torontosun.com"] concerning this 1% calculation of yours.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: Those were not the links provided to support the "fraction of 1%" stat; they were to support the "2/3 of sources that use 'LavScam{{'"}} stat. Please demonstrate good faith now by acknowledging your error. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::: Alright, if I am mistaken on that I apologize BUT I don't think I am. You were certainly trying to make a point there about its prevalence in the Toronto Sun and associated papers, BUT you also seem to be advancing an argument that there are few google hits for "LavScam". You have cited so many Google searches it is hard to keep track. I assume you mean to say [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&type=revision&diff=892409645&oldid=892408834 this comment] is where your "one percent" number comes from. There you use similar search terms which catch unrelated materials, specifically [https://www.google.com/search?q=trudeau+lavalin&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIsr_06szhAhVFWLwKHeMNDrQQ_AUIDigB&biw=1600&bih=798 trudeau lavalin] vs. [https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=798&tbm=nws&ei=e7axXNjoJMap8QW6p5ioCg&q=trudeau+lavalin+-lavscam&oq=trudeau+lavalin+-lavscam&gs_l=psy-ab.3...6387.9297.0.9637.9.9.0.0.0.0.83.705.9.9.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.uxCDLnqjTh0 trudeau lavalin -lavscam]. These search terms again create a false narrative because they will get numerous hits unrelated to the 2019 scandal. SNC-Lavalin is a company which has been around for more than 100 years. It was around when Trudeau Sr. was PM and then leader of the opposition and then PM again (leading to many possible erroneous hits). A quick review of SNC-Lavalin shows that they have been in many legal disputes and bribery scandals (some of which occurred while Trudeau Jr. was an opposition leader. A lot has been written about those which would lead to false positives. But I digress, you have been told about problems with your choice of search terms before.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::: "You were certainly trying to make a point there about its prevalence in the Toronto Sun and associated papers"---that's right.

::::::::::::::::::::::: "you also seem to be advancing an argument that there are few google hits for 'LavScam{{'"}}—not "few"—I gave numbers in the thousands. The evidence shows that there are thousands of sources that use the term "LavScam" (primarily the Toronto Sun), but that there are {{em|hundreds of thousands}} that don't. There are undoubtedly "false positives", but we'd need evidence they are statistically significant. [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22pierre+trudeau%22+lavalin+-justin&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYmcfLwf7hAhU-x4sBHXmmC7UQ_AUIDygC&biw=1600&bih=798 {{"'}}pierre trudeau' lavalin -justin"] gets us 376 hits—a rounding error. Even with your "CNN" example, "LavScam" appears in a single article out of the six CNN has published on the affair; with the WaPo it appears in [https://www.google.com/search?q=lavscam%20site%3Awashingtonpost.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&ved=2ahUKEwjd893cw_7hAhWCi7wKHSJVAbkQ2wF6BAgEEAc&ei=RcTLXJ29BoKX8gWiqoXICw 6] out of [https://www.google.com/search?ei=SsTLXPX6K4LM8wX_wobADA&q=trudeau+raybould+lavalin+site%3Awashingtonpost.com&oq=trudeau+raybould+lavalin+site%3Awashingtonpost.com&gs_l=psy-ab.3...14209.19333..19570...0.0..0.95.2374.31......0....1..gws-wiz._aabkOYvDjs 148.] What about {{em|these}} "false positives"? We have strong evidence that "Lavscam" appears in a small minority of sources, and no evidence that it appears in a significant percentage. In fact, look at this: [https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=798&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F31%2F2019&tbm=nws&ei=28XLXIOjMcyA8QXSkbGYBw&q=lavscam&oq=lavscam&gs_l=psy-ab.3...17742.17742.0.18029.1.1.0.0.0.0.91.91.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.xHBMgudb4zY "Lavscam"] set to pre-February 2019. Look at how many pages of "false positives" we get for "LavScam" before the controversy was even born! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::: This part of the thread is simply becoming a discussion of content and doesn't belong here. I am mindful of {{u|The Blade of the Northern Lights}} complaint about length of this ANI below. If you want to continue to belabour the point, I invite you to raise it on the talk page so we can disagree there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

:::::CT: you really, really should consider that everyone else here – do you want a poll? – sees "{{tq|deliberate WP:IDHT belligerence}}" as applying to you. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• FYI -- I have restored this matter as Safrolic did previously, as this matter is not yet resolved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

::Curly turkey still not listening and still agenda pushing. The RFC on LavScam strongly supports inclusion which shows how Curly is out to lunch on this page. Legacypac (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

::: I've demonstrated Legacypac's right-wing agenda (with diffs) above—Legacypac can't even {{em|name}} whatever agenda it is I'm supposed to be pushing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

::: More evidence of Legacypac POV-pushing and denying evidence—denying the {{em|very existence}} of evidence: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&curid=60141427&diff=894161375&oldid=894147080 "The fraction of 1% story is unsupported by evidence."] I've already provided the evidence both here and multiple times on that talk page, but here it is again: [https://www.google.com/search?q=trudeau+lavalin&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIsr_06szhAhVFWLwKHeMNDrQQ_AUIDigB&biw=1600&bih=798 {{green|Trudeau Lavalin}}: 665,000 hits;] [https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=798&tbm=nws&ei=e7axXNjoJMap8QW6p5ioCg&q=trudeau+lavalin+-lavscam&oq=trudeau+lavalin+-lavscam&gs_l=psy-ab.3...6387.9297.0.9637.9.9.0.0.0.0.83.705.9.9.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.uxCDLnqjTh0 {{green|Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam}}: 655,000 hits.] Two-thirds of hits for "LavScam" are from torontosun.com [https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=798&tbm=nws&ei=DAuxXL3LA4uP8wWz6ZRg&q=%22lavscam%22+&oq=%22lavscam%22+&gs_l=psy-ab.3...8660.10327.0.11337.15.10.0.0.0.0.145.832.9j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..8.0.0....0.oVH0cDJ8MVA 4940 "Lavscam"] vs [https://www.google.com/search?biw=1600&bih=798&tbm=nws&ei=GAuxXOFxjPrxBZCunvgG&q=%22lavscam%22+-torontosun.com&oq=%22lavscam%22+-torontosun.com&gs_l=psy-ab.3...112580.117150.0.117719.16.16.0.0.0.0.137.1261.14j2.16.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.wQLtLg-rpEA only 1,650 for {{'"}}Lavscam" -torontosun.com'.] Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

::: How many times is Legacypac going to accuse me of having an "agenda" in one day?: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&curid=60141427&diff=894171100&oldid=894161375 "Afyer all the messimg around by Curly to fit their agenda a full rewrite may be warranted."]

::: Again—what "agenda"? Why can't Legacypac name it, or provide diffs to support it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

This thread seems to have been "live" for quite some time, with little or no admin input (apologies if I've missed it). Please can someone review in the next 24-48 hrs and close/action as needed. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note that Curly's piece about LegacyPac may be irrelevant now that he's been indef'd for unrelated personal attacks. My piece is still active though, and I'd really appreciate someone else stepping in. Safrolic (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

:: Legacypac may have been the worst and most blatant offender, but a heaping helping of the rest of the evidence I've provided relates to other users' disruptive behaviour and sourcing policy violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

::: I tend to agree with Safrolic. Things have not improved. Curly is disruptive and action is needed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

::::Well, what I see is two editors at the top of this thread making rather hand-wavy, generalized accusations of "disruption" with very little diff support (which mostly shows irritation, and I think we're all clear that CT is toward the curmudgeonly side – I am too, so that's not much of a criticism). On the other hand, CT has laid out an extensively diffed case that a bunch of rather recent arrivals are skirting WP:CCPOL to engage in a WP:CIVILPOV pattern, a view supported by other editors with similar concerns. Those demanding a formal close instead of letting this archive away without one should "be careful what they wish for" as the saying goes. With one of the key participants indeffed, it seems likely that the dynamic will change. For his part, CT could try to be a bit less testy and more responsive at the article's talk page (i.e., take advantage of the altered playing field).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

::::: SM^c: "responsive" in what way? I haven't been ignoring anyone there—I've been responding with diffs, quotes & links from our sourcing policies. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=893114223&oldid=893107979 Here's] my last response (nearly two weeks ago) to Safrolic, who opened this report—hardly "unresponsive", or even curmudgeonly, and Safrolic has refused to engage with it. The article has thus remained in an WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::: Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I just see that the complaints allege failure to address other's points/concerns/sources/rationales/etc., and supposed ICANTHEARYOU patterns. What I've seen doesn't really look that way, but if people don't feel heard then they don't feel heard, so one can try harder to make them feel heard. At any rate, I agree with you on the substance of the matter; there's a PoV issue going on at that article, and you're right to stick to a CCPOL-based position (without any "inventive" reinterpretation of what the core content policies mean and how they apply, which seems to be what the other side is doing). I think this ANI got opened because some of your responses were a little brusque. I doubt there's really anything more to it, and it's weird to me that this thread is still open, much less open with any doubt as to what the closure should be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::: SM^c: "and supposed ICANTHEARYOU patterns"—uh-huh, and accusations of having an "agenda", both accusations of which are backed up with precisely no diffs, {{em|nothing}}. Here's a for-instance: I've demonstrated that the disputed alt-term appears in a small fraction than 1% of newssource hits, and 2/3 of that from a single newssource; the response is that CNN has used it (a single time); my rebuttle is that {{em|even including}} such sources still results in a small fraction of 1% of newssource hits, 2/3 of which come from a single newssource—WP:WEIGHT doesn't make exceptions for CNN. The response is that Curly Turkey is pluggin his ears: obviously I'm not—I've responded directly to the claims and demonstrated how the claims violate policy. Response: "Yeah, but CNN!" ad nauseam ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: Aye. I definitely noticed that "alternative term" analysis, and it's pretty obvious that including that barely-attested opposition slang in the lead would be patently WP:UNDUE (maybe even including it in the article at all would be).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::: Not a concern, as none of the named editors seems to have expressed the slightest interest in putting it in the body—notice how many times I brought that up in the course of these "discussions". They're not interested in {{em|noting}} the term—their single-minded obsession is with {{em|highlighting it in the lead sentence}}. This would ensure maximum exposure and maximum spread in usage via Citogenesis. Putting it in the body would simply bury it—not worth the effort. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::: SM^c: from today—[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&curid=60141427&diff=895084660&oldid=894810118 here's] more of that WP:IDHT WP:CIVILPOV game I've been talking about—as if linking to every single source that uses the term somehow changes that fact that it's used by a small fraction of 1% of available sources. This is the same Darryl Kerrigan I quoted extensively for IDHT behaviour above. "Reasoning" is not a reasonable strategy against this type of persistent behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Bumped thread. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• Please note I have linked to this thread from Administrators' noticeboard. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
• :The problem is not so so much lack of responsiveness – indeed, it seems to me CT tends to be over-responsive — as that he responds without listening. And he responds abusively. E.g., his first comment at the top of this discussion (at 07:47, 12 April): "{{tq|So ... you're personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing ... }}", his suspiscion of "{{tq|an astroturfing campaign}}", and his accusations that others are edit-warring. And that's without drawing on examples from any other pages. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• ::To the extent this may pertain to my own post higher up, what I mean by "responsive" is the narrow sense (i.e., logically and substantively responsive to what it's responding to, which I think is how this term is generally used in discourse and debate circles). I don't mean "simply making any response at all, just to make one". I.e., I wasn't suggesting CT should post more frequently or longer. I've suggested (albeit vaguely) that the opposing side don't seem to feel heard by him, so he can try to address their material in more detail or something; I dunno, really. I'm not a mind reader, and cannot intuit what exactly anyone wants out of him in any particular thread or subthread. More to the point, though, when multiple editors feel there's a PoV problem at the page ("whitewashing" or not), and as CT indicated there were several others until basically pushed out of the discussion, an ANI like this looks very much like an unclean-hands attempt at WP:WINNING. I'm rather surprised it hasn't boomeranged already. Probably the only reason it hasn't is that CT's tone tends to over-excite the "civility is more important than reliability" crowd, who hang out in ANI like this is some kind of nightclub.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Fowler&fowler}} why did you revert ({{diff2|895075549|diff}}), without explanation, my response ({{diff2|895075257|diff}})? to SMcC? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|J. Johnson}} I have no idea! (And that applies both to the revert and to the content of this discussion.) It has resulted, I surmise, from some Wikipedia incarnation of butt dialing. Many apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Then I will attempt to restore my response, as follows. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::Mac: a certain level of civility is essential for reliability. This incident arises from a page where there are issues regarding (in part) the veracity of certain content, the reliability of certain sources, and even of verifiability (i.e,, whether content is supported by the source). These are not uncommon issues, and they usually are resolved (or perhaps not) without reaching ANI. What brings the matter here is an inability to resolve these issues at the article's Talk page. Whether there is a POV problem there is immaterial here; the issue here is why. And from what can be seen here the biggest factor running through all of this is the battleground approach taken by one editor: Curly Turkey. Is this not sufficiently evident from pretty much every comment he has made here? Or is it necessary to list and argue every point and response?

:::::To be clear, what I would like out of him is: no more personal attacks, no more accusations of edit-warring, no more railing against everyone else, etc. In short, some civility. And then perhaps the discussion could get down to some actual issues. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::: We already have diffs that the "battleground" was well underway before I showed up (Littleolive oil was chased right off the page, and Legacypac's even been indeffed for his personal attacks). So much for your "approach taken by one editor"—and {{em|yet again}} no attempt on your part to back up your assertion—just attack, attack, attack—and accusations that a {{em|formal complaint}} against Legacypac's POV-pushing (backed with diffs) is a "personal attack". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::My statement (above, at 23:58 30 April) that your first comment in this discussion was an accusation of a personal attack I backed up by providing the timestamp (07:47, 12 April) of your actual comment. If you can't find it by eye use your browser's search function. If you really, pedantically insist on a diff, fine, here it is: {{diff2|892108375|diff}}. Is that good enough? I note that your comment was not a "{{tq|formal complaint}}". Also, just because "someone else does it" is no excuse for you doing it. But if you insist on getting just as much as LegacyPac got, sure, let's do it: is indef good enough for you, too? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: J. Johnson (JJ): So open yourself an ANI. You're obviously WP:NOTHERE for anything but the drahmah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• ::: I was suspecting something similar—there's a pile of people who'd love to pile on me for my language, but it's hard when I've sworn only once on the page. They can't "get" me, and it's a pain to have to engage with the actual evidence, especially when there's so much to sort through ... on a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDVxfrQL6I0 boring Canadian politics page.] My concern now is the POV-push will win through attrition, which seems to have been the modus operandi before I showed up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• :: {{ec}} @J. Johnson: I've provided diff evidence to back up my assertions. You've provided hand-waving WP:IDHT refusals to engage with evidence and policies. Examples of your own IDHT: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=892935396 "problems that exist in only one editor's mind"] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=892935396 "problems that don't exist"]—a sampling of the long list of problems appears on {{em|this page}} from both before and after you showed up, as well as links to editors who have also identified problems. We can see Safrolic and Harris Seldon acknowledging sourcing issues I fixed at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Continued sourcing issues—they've both even thanked me![https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=891868424][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=891752394][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=892420020]. It's hard to see these repetitions of yours as anything other than disruptive WP:IDHT, particularly as you have done {{em|precisely nothing}} to improve the article in any way.
• :: You also throw this Catch-22 at me: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=893075082 "If you find a problem, and do not fix it, then you should tag it. ... By the way, if you are even for one moment tempted to add such tags: don't"]
• :: You've nowhere demonstrated an interest in improving the article and appear to be bent on preventing me from doing so. Your one edit to the article has been to join in a tag-team editwar to remove the {{tl|Cite check}} template to hide the continued sourcing problems from the readers with the specious reasoning that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892939956&oldid=892796684 "its presence violates WP:NPOV".] Again, no evidence to back that "unique" interpretation of our policies up—just the IDHT I linked to above. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:Hi, sorry for my delayed response- I've been moving my apartment all of yesterday and will be all of today as well. So, there's two separate issues I have here; firstly, the uncivil behaviour (which I also hope will decrease now that lpac isn't exacerbating it), and the sourcing policy issues. With regard to Lavscam, I don't really care that much, but I was going with existing consensus and my reading of how we're supposed to interpret alternative names. I can see looking at the RfC that despite a lot of replies, only a few editors with more than 1k edits have chosen to weigh in, and among those editors it's about 50/50. I note that CT is wrong that none of the editors have suggested putting alternative names in the body- from my vote, I quote: Both [WP:LEADCREATE] and MOS:LEAD say that we should fix the article first, then tackle the lead. I would like to see a small paragraph somewhere in the article about how different sources have debated whether it's a scandal or a scam or whatever, and called it different things, including "Lavscam", "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "Wilson-Raybould controversy", "Philpott episode" and whatever other names it's actually been called. I think Lavscam is the altname of the pack which should then go in the lead, because it's the only one which isn't the same basic form as the article name,.. This paragraph is still in my plans for this article- if you check the stats for the page, I've written about a fifth of the total copy, and I plan to keep going now that my exams are done.

:Now, for sourcing; CT has made some fairly non-controversial edits. Things like fixing formatting, fixing wording[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892988583&oldid=892960518], that's helpful. He's also made edits which I think are less helpful. Notably, he refused to accept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892993275&oldid=892988816 this] source, which you can read more about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=893103792 here] (the whole section, but I've linked to my most relevant diff). There was also this dispute on my talk page and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair#Better_source_needed article talk page]. I originally made the ANI report after that talk page discussion. What I really want (what I really really want) is outside eyeballs on these policy applications, because I haven't seen anyone else 'agree with his interpretations of sourcing policies. J.Johnson was actually some outside eyeballs; someone who came in from his post on a notice page for sourcing in Canadian articles[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892935396&oldid=892868746], and who was immediately accused by CT of 'joining in the edit warring' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892962384&oldid=892961547] when he removed an article-wide citation check template CT kept adding to the article. Basically the mirror image of lpac's treatment of Bradv above. As mentioned above, I won't be able to read/reply to this again until later tonight or tomorrow morning (pacific time), so thanks in advance for your patience. [Safrolic @ 13:58]

:: "Notably, he refused to accept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892993275&oldid=892988816 this] source, "—I didn't "refuse to accept this source"—the source {{em|remained in the article}}. You've WP:3RRed to keep that source placed after a quotation that {{em|does not appear in the source}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892993356&oldid=892993275][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=893074560&oldid=893065220][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=893093960&oldid=893093624] and the article has thus remained in an WP:INTEGRITY-violating state. You had this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=891911329 explained regarding other sources] and again on the talk page:

::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=893105020 "If it's meant to source {{em|earlier}} portions of the text, then it belongs following the portions (and {{em|only}} the portions) that it supports—under no circumstances can it imply that it supports any of the material it doesn't."]

::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=893114223 "There are two options: remove it as redundant, or move it so that it cites only the text it supports (even if redundantly)."]

:: Along with detailed explanations of our sourcing policies. But rather than implement {{em|either solution}}, you've gone the WP:IDHT route (you still haven't replied nearly two weeks later) and have 3RRed to keep the article in its WP:INTEGRITY-violating state (where it still is). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

:::You didn't say anything in your last reply to that discussion which wasn't addressed earlier, or which was supported by anybody else looking at the discussion/the edits themselves. I don't feel the need to get The Last Word in, generally, so I decided to let it stand until/unless someone else came along and agreed with you on it. So far, no one has. Safrolic (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: This is about the most exasperating IDHT I've seen from you yet, Safrolic. You clearly have no intention of engaging in good faith, nor in upholding our core content policies. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:There's a whole lot of "you're being the problem", "no, {{em|you're}} being the problem" in this thread, which is pretty typical for drawn-out ANIs. I've seen JJ's comment that the most important thing is civility (a paraphrase; I don't mean to straw man). But it's not. WP:ENC is. Civility is an important conduit by which we get there, but we also have the WP:SPADE and WP:DUCK principles, and the "WP is not a suicide pact" one; we are not bound to be sweet-toned and fawningly courteous and perpetually good-faith-assuming after evidence of protracted non-encyclopedic editing. Where there is evidence of an UNDUE problem and a tag-teaming to stonewall against fixing it, it's generally a guarantee that civility is going to erode; the community knows this and doesn't shit its own pants about it. One thing going on here, too, is a bogus reinterpretation of "civility" on the fly to just mean "everything about CT that made me unhappy". Using swear-words isn't by itself a civility breach; we just had a site-wide RfC about that last year, followed by ArbCom using that community decision in their own case reasoning. Being critical isn't a civility breach or personal attack, or we couldn't ever deal with any controversy. Pointing out edit-warring problems and an ICANTHEARYOU pattern isn't a civility or NPA breach (how could ANI exist?), especially when the other side are pointing the exact same fingers at the other party. What matters here is the substance of the matter that has caused the dispute, which is a content dispute. Neither side in the dispute needs censure, though neither is exhibiting perfect comportment. The dispute needs to be actually resolved.

Recommend closure without action at ANI, and an RfC at the article's talk page or at WP:NPOVN, to actually resolve the real dispute..
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::Sorry, but are engaging in strawman argument. (E.g.: swear-words? No, I that is not why we are here. Nor is there any tag-teaming here: that is solely CT's bogus accusation against me.) And you do a disservice in suggesting that the civility issue here is simply a lack of "{{tq|sweet-toned and fawningly courteous}}" behavior. Civility is the core issue here.

::Nor is the issue here (ANI) any matter of encyclopedic content, POV, RS, etc. Those should be dealt with on the article's talk page. This page is for (per the statement at the top of this page) discussion about "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." And that is exactly what is evident at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair, and here: pervasive behavior, mainly by one editor, that confounds all attempts sort out the issues. (Do you need an annotated list of diffs?)

::As a counter proposal I recommend this: TBAN for Curly Turkey, and see if the remaining editors can then sort out matters; post a request for more eyes if there is any concern about the article or its remaining editors. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::: "Do you need an annotated list of diffs?"—yes, that's a basic requirement at ANI.

::: Discussion has returned to the talk page, and happily Littleolive oil has returned to the discussion since Legacypac's indef, and we've enlisted Blade of the Northern Lights to monitor. J. Johnson, who has contriubuted nothing but belligerence to the discussions and nothing to the article, can thus continue his drahmah here without interference.

::: I do agree that the issue here at ANI was never a "content dispute", though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

::::I wasn't asking you. But if you insist diffs are required, by all means please show us diffs of your claimed (below) retractions of uncivil behavior. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

::::: "your claimed (below) retractions of uncivil behavior"—I never admitted uncivil behaviour. I retracted my accusations against Pavelshk. This is you moving the goalposts to kick up more drahmah. WP:NOTHERE Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::I am not "moving the goalposts" asking for diffs: that is your requirement (above, at 22:12: "{{tq|that's a basic requirement at ANI}}", and further above at 22:28, 1 May, and following, where your complaint seems to have been that I had not provided a diff). Why are you unable to play with the same "goalposts" as everyone else? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{archive top|result=There is no consensus for a TBAN against any of the editors. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)}}

TBAN from SNC-Lavalin affair–related articles for Legacypac, Darryl Kerrigan, and Safrolic for persistent POV-pushing, sourcing-policy violations, and WP:IDHT behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer per copious evidence in the sections above. None of these editors will give up on contaminating the article or preventing it from being cleaned up, and have already driven others from the page via attrition and personal attacks. At least four editors have noted POV issues with the article. Our WP:Core content policies are at stake—we cannot allow it to spread by turning a blind eye here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Won't even dignify this with a vote. This is an embarrassing and vindictive way to try to win a content dispute when you haven't provided solid diffs of these editors doing any of the things you have accused them of, additionally you didn't user link a single one of them and I'm sure they would like to defend themselves against these charges: {{user|Legacypac}}, {{user|Darryl Kerrigan}}, {{user| Safrolic}}.

:The only instance of blatant sourcing violations was the "illegal political interference" statement added by {{u|PavelShk}} {{diff|oldid=https://legacyplayers.com/Raids/Viewer/?id=33689&exp=0&upl=53496}}, this was rightly fixed by Curly and no one objected. This {{diff|oldid=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=893093624&oldid=893074625}} appears to be Curly misunderstanding citations, the first sentence in the paragraph is a paraphrase from the CBC citation, while the quote is from the National Post citation and no violations of souring policies occurred here, except removing citations for well-sourced content. SWL36 (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:: The source was never removed—it was moved only to content it supported (your diff even shows that)—but this keeps being framed as "removing sources". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: Agree with SWL36. This is not way to try to win a content dispute when solid diffs have not been provided. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unsurprisingly, I agree with SWL36. This is an attempt to win a content dispute which has been discussed at length on the talk page. My dispute with CT relates to that issue. I think I have stated solid reasons for forming the opinion I have, namely MOS:LEADALT, WP:POVNAMING and the consensus on the talk page. I have also taken issue with CT's disruptive behaviour toward others here and on the talk page. From where I am sitting {{u| Safrolic}} has done nothing but attempt to discuss edits and improvements with CT in good faith. {{u|PavelShk}}, a new editor, made the inappropriate (but I assume good faith) edit adding the term "illegal". This was reverted and there does not appear to be any continuing debate about it from him or anyone else (CT excluded).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Good morning to you too! My [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=893107979&oldid=893105020 diff] from two weeks ago should provide some additional context to SWL36's reply. Note that there is significant overlap between the Natpo cite and the CBC cite, and the CBC cite is fine for everything but the exact wording of the quote (CBC paraphrases it). I still await someone else supporting your interpretations of sourcing policy. Safrolic (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• : So again you admit {{em|the quote does not appear in the citation}}, but 3RRed to keep it where it is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• ::I'm still puzzled as to what the perceived problem is with this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&type=revision&diff=893093960&oldid=893093624 paragraph], both citations cover the content and a quote is used from the NP citation. There is no policy prohibiting the use of 2 citations for a paragraph. SWL36 (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• ::: SWL36: "There is no policy prohibiting the use of 2 citations for a paragraph."—under the condition that both citations {{em|support the whole paragraph}}. When they don't, we place the citations after {{em|only that content it supports}}. Look at the first paragraph of the first section of Today's Featured Article. There are two citations. The first supports the first half, the second supports the second. Putting them both at the end would imply they both support the whole paragraph, which is an WP:INTEGRITY violation. I've given more details [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=prev&oldid=893114223 here.] Keep in mind that I've been involved in scores of WP:FAC and WP:GAN assessments (both giving and receiving)—this isn't {{em|my}} interpretation of sourcing requirements, but what the community has required for many years. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• ::::Even if I accept your narrow reading of WP:INTEGRITY, the two sources support the paragraph as a whole because the CBC source closely paraphrases Dion's quoted words: "Dion said he would investigate the prime minister personally for a possible contravention of Section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act." (from cited [https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ethics-commissioner-pmo-snc-lavalin-1.5014435 CBC source]) "Dion said he has 'reason to believe that a possible contravention of section 9 (of the act) may have occurred.'” (from [https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ethics-commissioner-launches-investigation-into-political-interference-allegations-in-snc-lavalin-case NP source]; the text in single quotes is what is quoted by the wiki article). This non-violation of a very-narrow and atextual reading of WP:INTEGRITY is not sufficient for a Tban, a trout, or even just a revert. SWL36 (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• ::::: So—you admit, {{em|and provide evidence}}, that {{em|the quotation is not in the source cited}}. No policy allows the sourcing of a quotation to a paraphrasing of a quotation, which the community would never support. This is but a symptom, though, of wider behaviour patterns throughout the various disputes on the page—the TBAN proposal is for those behaviours.
  I'm curious, though, SWL36—what problem could either of my proposed fixes cause? Neither removes the source. Nobody has engaged with the question, or seems concerned that Safrolic would WP:3RR over it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I appreciate Safrolic's view that this proposal should not be dignified, there needs to be a clear and definite rejection of this one-sided, disruptive, and even frivolous proposal. It is also quite inappropriate. There is a rather entangled dispute about content, sources, and POV, but all that belongs on the article's Talk page. What is pertinent here (as I have said above) is why these issues have (so far) not been resolvable. That is due mostly to CT churning the discussion so much (such as with this inane proposal) that there is very little chance for anyone to grapple with the issues and sort them out. I explicitly reject his various contentions (such as "{{tq|copious evidence}}", "{{tq|WP:Core content policies are at stake}}", and the rest). But as CT has raised the issue of a TBAN, I think we should consider a boomerang. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

::Again, unsurprisingly, I agree this should boomerang towards CT. I see more WP:IDHT behaviour [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=895264826&oldid=895264749 above] and to {{u|SWL36}} immediately above concerning citations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• TL;DR, on behalf of basically everyone who hasn't already commented here. I'm not sorry to say, the sheer length and hydra-esque quality of this thread basically kills any attempt to get any definitive resolution. At this point, I think the verbiage is enough to bore a judge. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::I can definitely understand this. (how) Can we fix this, so that some kind of resolution can be found? Safrolic (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

: The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'd like to ask a favour. I've opened a discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#Prevalence of "LavScam"—out of the numerous disputes, this is the most contentious. I've headed it with a note to keep on topic and refrain from personal remarks. Could you monitor it to ensure it does indeed keep on topic, and that participants refrain from dragging in other (or past) disputes, WP:NPAs, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:IDHT, etc.? I'm not asking you to so much as peak at any other part of the page. Or if you're not up to, do you think you could recommend another admin? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::Yes, I can watch over that discussion. I don't have any strong views on the subject, so it shouldn't be a problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

::: Thanks enormously! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment My single edit has been mentioned here multiple times. Let me explain. I am a new Wikipedia editor and I created an account specifically to edit SNC-Lavalin Affair page. I've done a lot of research for that page when it was just starting. I did make that edit where "illegal" political interference was mentioned. I had my reasons for it because that was my understanding of the source after reading it, but when it was reversed, I agreed with the reversal and never tried to edit it back. So it should be a non-issue. Also, it looks like I correctly tried to remove citecheck from that page. Mr Turkey never explained to me what specific sources must still be checked. However, Mr. Turkey immediately accused me of being a sock puppet, astroturfing, being a single-purpose account, violating a million wikipedia policies I have no idea about, and all other imaginable sins in figurative language! So, by now I pretty much lost any desire to contribute my time and edit anything more here. I though experienced editors like Mr. Turkey would be supportive and help new editors instead of trying every option to intimidate and silence the opponents. PavelShk (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::{{ping| PavelShk}} I hope you won't be disheartened by one uncivil editor. It is because of his continuing "{{tq|trying every option to intimidate and silence the opponents}}" that we are here at the Administrator's noticeboard, hoping that some administrator will step in. If you have any questions or would like some help please feel free to ask on my Talk page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: Bookmarking yet another in a long series of WP:NPAs. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• : To clarify: Pavelshk removed the {{tl|Citecheck}} twice in one day, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892468597&oldid=892448302 once as an IP] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=892503931&oldid=892501834 once under their username.] This appeared to me an aggressive way to game the system, especially given the amount of editwarring that has been going on at the page since before I even showed up—including by IPs, and including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=891422092 removal of maintenance tags]—and the continual aggression and editwarring from several of the other editors. I jumped to conclusions about PavelShk's motivations. I thought we had cleared this up weeks ago. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::As an experienced editor you shouldn't have to be told to not bite the newbies. It is a further indication of your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that at no point did you attempt to advise the new user (neither on his talk page, nor the article's talk page) on his missteps, but you immediately accused him of sockpuppetry and of ulterior motives. If you no longer hold those views you should retract them. And even apologize for your aggressive, uncivil behavior. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: I already retracted them. Now it's time for you to "apologize for your aggressive, uncivil behavior". Not expecting anything, given your comment above above "one editor" that has been refuted multiple times now. Here's your chance to prove you're not here just for the drahmah. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::Retracted? That looks like false statement. Which being made knowingly sure looks like nothing short of a lie. But show me wrong: give us some diffs (you like diffs, right?) where you have retracted the several comments where you accused PavelShk of sockpuppetry, ulterior motives, etc. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::: Uh ... scroll up? But no, you'll move the goalposts and demand a particular wording. Like I've been saying: WP:NOTHERE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::As I just noted further up: I am not "{{tq|mov[ing] the goalposts}}": providing diffs is your requirement. As to your sockpuppetry accusations (such as {{diff2|892511232|here}}): I see no retraction, neither with strike-thru text nor any follow-up comments. Your statement that you have "{{tq|already retracted them}}" is false. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: Heads games—WP:NOTHERE. Won't be responding to your belligerent horseshit further. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::Curly, I am trying to keep an open mind but I have to agree with Johnson: you need to "give us some diffs". - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::: I retracted the accusations against Pavelshk in {{em|this very section}}, so I'm not buying there's any good faith in demanding diffs from an editor who has refused to provide diffs either here or elsewhere. J. Johnson's now framing it as if I need to provide diffs for an "apology" (having moved the goal posts). I haven't apologized and won't—my concerns with Pavelshk's inappropriate edits were legitimate. Nothing will satisfy J. Johnson regardless, who has contributed nothing to the article or the discussions that hasn't been pure belligerent drahmah—and with no diffs to back up any of his horseshit claims over these weeks.

:::::::::: So, Ret.Prof—when will you demand diffs for any of the claims J. Johnson's made over the last several weeks? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose for Legacypac, no vote for others: I don't see this as fair to LP. The editor is currently blocked and can't post in their own defense. It seems very unfair that LP might come back from that block and then find a TBAN. Additionally, my feeling is that LP's current block boils down to a civility issue. I don't think anyone has accused them of competency issues. Thus if LP's block is lifted it will almost certainly come with a new understanding of civility. That should address any concerns that a TBAN was meant to address. Springee (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Involved parties should not be proposing sanctions against those they are in a dispute with. Blackmane (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Springee Legacypac has in the past threatened to have someone sanctioned at a noticeboard while they were blocked for simply removing his uncivil comments from there talk page.

I don't see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat from Legacypac. I point out this was made after Legacypac was asked to stay off there talk page WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72bikers&diff=next&oldid=833851396] that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:72bikers&diff=833853361&oldid=833852878]

He has also more than once had his competency questioned. By admin BrownHairedGirl[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Block_review_note_-_Legacypac_blocked_by_Spartaz_for_personal_attacks_on_BrownHairedGirl] and in the GiantSnowman Arbcom Case[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Legacypac/Archive_13] he was removed from participating in the GSM case because of this and his incivility. There are also numerous other examples on his talk page. And this was the reasons behind his incivility issues along with differing opinions (which is all he is brining to the table).

As to his current block it seems admin Floquenbeam (who apparently trumps all others) is giving him a pass and all the other editors and admins are bending the knee to Floquenbeam even aftet there staunch condemnation of him and his behavior.Editspring (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:Obvious sock struck. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{atop|See my closing comment at the very top. El_C 23:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)}}

Whereas issues of content, point-of-view, sourcing, and edit-warring have been raised at SNC-Lavalin Affair, and the editors there have not been able to resolve those content issues at the Talk page, which failure is reasonably attributed in large part to disruptive and uncivil behavior by User:Curly_Turkey, and whereas the attempt to address that behavior at this noticeboard has floundered, again due primarily to the tendentious, disruptive, and uncivil behavior of Curly_Turkey, I propose to resolve this disruptive situation as follows: User:Curly_Turkey to be WP:ABANned from SNC-Lavalin Affair and its Talk page for a period of not less than one month, the intent being to give the other editors an undistracted opportunity to resolve the article's issues.

CT's behavior is amply demonstrated through out the discussion here. For those new to this discussion I provide the following summarization.

It has been suggested (by SMcCandlish at {{diff2|895519124|20:35, 4 May}}) that "{{tq|What matters here is the substance of the matter that has caused the dispute, which is a content dispute.}}" That is not exactly true — the underlying content disputes are a matter for the article's Talk page. This page (the ANI noticeboard) is, as stated at the top, for discussion of "{{tq|chronic, intractable behavioral problems}}", such as claimed (with diffs!) by Safrolic in his opening statement of this discussion. The discussion here is properly of why the several discussions at the Talk page have failed to resolve the underlying content disputes.

It has also been suggested (by SMcCandlish at {{diff2|894952530|01:37, 1 May}}) that "{{tq|this ANI got opened because some of [CT's] responses were a little brusque.}}" Sorry, no, this is not a matter of "a little brusqueness" (nor a passing instance or two of a little curmudgeonliness), this is a persistent and disruptive behavior that violates the Wikipedia policies of WP:Civility, WP:No personal attacks, and WP:What Wikipedia is not (i.e., WP:Wikipedia is not a battleground: "{{tq|Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation.}}"). CT has also violated several WP behavioral guidelines, such as WP:Disruptive editing ("{{tq|a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article....}}"), WP:Assume good faith (particularly WP:AOBF: "{{tq|accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs.}}").

In his {{diff2|892098459|opening statement}} Safrolic listed some of CT's questionable comments, including imputations of bad faith {{diff2|891924215|here}} and {{diff2|891938386|here}}. Typical of CT's behavior here is his first comment in this discussion ({{diff2|892108375|07:47, 12 April}}) where he accused another editor of "{{tq|personally attacking every editor who calls out your POV-pushing}}".

As a single illustration of Curly Turkey's typical behavior is his response to a {{diff2|890166964|questionable edit}} made to the article by new user {{u|PavelShk}}. (See discussion at Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair#RfC: LavScam in the collapsed section titled "Discussion of PavelShk edits ....") {{diff2|892511232|CT's response}} was to accuse PavelShk of being a sock puppet (a violation of WP:AGF). Upon being {{diff2|892603862|cautioned}} about such accusations CT's {{diff2|892645571|response}} was that "{{tq|Pavel has made controversial edits that didn't hold up to verification, followed by editwarring}}", and "{{tq|people started attacking me ... and started treating our policies as if they were optional.}}", showing definite WP:IDHT.

But it does not stop there. In the section (immediately above), we get into quite a tussle about where CT claims to have retracted his accusations, but, not seeing any evidence of that, I ask him to give us some diffs. Whereupon he complains that I will just "{{tq|move the goalposts}}" ({{diff2|895704108|00:33, 6 May}}), and responds ({{diff2|895879604|02:04, 7 May}}): "{{tq|Heads games—WP:NOTHERE. Won't be responding to your belligerent horeshit further.}}". Such behavior is NOT in accord with the expectation of WP:Civility] to "{{tq|Participate in a respectful and considerate way}}", and "{{tq|to be responsive to good-faith questions}}".

To fully examine Curly Turkey's disruptive and uncivil behavior would take a week. I trust the forgoing is sufficient to show persistent violation of Wikipedia behavioral polices and guidelines that warrant an article ban for user Curley Turkey. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support, as explained above. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support, I've been following this discussion for over a week now, and have definitely been troubled by Curly Turkey's behavior. He keeps on saying that other users are openly declaring a bias[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=896238491&oldid=896229512], even when the other participants have ever done anything like that and are clearly just posting legitimate concerns. He's continuously filling up the talk page with personal attacks and snarky comments, like "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=896239406&oldid=896238491 discussion can only be in bad faith]", "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=895431959&oldid=895430741 I have zero faith in Safrolic's willingness to engage in good faith]", or "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=895752408&oldid=895730712 Why is this article attracting such an army of aggressive newbies?]" Looking over the talk page, most of the users here are trying to be neutral and discuss various controversies in a serious manner, but Curly Turkey stands out as the user who is not editing neutrally or commenting productively.Handy History Handbook (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support, reluctantly. I fully explained to Curley Turkey the context of my edits and that I'm a new, inexperienced editor. I expected an apology but received yet another insult ("[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=895752408&oldid=895730712 Why is this article attracting such an army of aggressive newbies?]") on the talk page. This is rude and absolutely inappropriate. I very much prefer an environment where disputes are resolved peacefully, by advancing arguments and taking votes on talk pages, without engagement of administrative rights and banning, but if banning is what it takes to force everyone into a civil discussion, so be it.PavelShk (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support, for the reasons explained by {{u|Safrolic}} and {{u|J. Johnson}} above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This appears to be the "contradict SMcCandlish in a grand-standing manner by dramatically proposing an opposite sanction" section. Rather WP:POINT-leaning. On the substance of the matter, there's way too little evidence that the root problem in the dispute is Curly Turkey. Yes, the editor's verbal approach isn't as smooth as some of us would like, but the WP:CCPOL issues raised by CT matter more than whether those on the opposing side have a politeness complaint. (And they always do. Otherwise WP would have collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy years ago, since all any PoV pusher would need to do to WP:WIN is being really polite but maddeningly stubborn, goading policy-compliant editors into eventually getting angry, then run to ANI and claim their opposition was being unreasonably incivil. We don't fall for it, and have an entire page about this at WP:CIVILPOV; see also WP:GAMING.) This is an encyclopedia, not a social-networking site. Facts beat feels. PS: My really, really obvious point is being misrepresented by J. Johnson. Obviously ANI is not for settling content disputes. My point is that the dispute that actually matters "here", as in {{em|on Wikipedia}}, at this stage is the article content dispute, not the background personality squabble. We might have an actionable behavioral matter for ANI if CT were going around telling people he wished they were dead, or using bigoted epithets, or following people around page after page and revert-warring against everything they do, or other things we deal with here regularly. But he's not; nothing diffed above rises to the actionable level. I mean, really; why on earth is this thread still even open?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::Mac: please don't take it amiss if I addressed certain considerations as enunciated by yourself. While I think your positions on these matters are wrong, yet they are pertinent, and warrant consideration. And, quite simply, you are a better advocate than CT, and less prone to name calling and WP:AOBF, and more likely to "{{tq|Participate in a respectful and considerate way.}}"

::Nonetheless, I do criticise your positions. E.g., you say that what "{{tq|actually matters}}" is the content. I say that is correct as the long-term goal, but getting there requires consideration of how to get there. E.g., we can't win a car race if we don't deal with why the car's wheels keep falling off. Nor is the matter here a mere "{{tq|politeness complaint}}": it concerns behavior that has disrupted the content-resolving process at the article, and impaired the discussion here. (I direct your attention to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, and especially "tendencies" #1 ["Is tendentious"], #3 ["Engages in 'disruptive cite-tagging'"; I have in mind the issue of the cite_check template], #4 ["Does not engage in consensus", and particularly "repeated disregards other editor's questions"], and #6 ["Campaign to drive away productive contributors"], which I believe have been violated. I can explicate in greater detail if you require it.) As to "{{tq|an actionable behavioral matter for ANI}}": personal attacks are not limited to threats, or "abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases"; it specifically includes "{{tq|Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.}}" Also (under WP:AVOIDYOU): "{{tq|Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack.}}" And particularly, under WP:CIVIL: "{{tq|Note that per WP:AOBF "repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack."}}". WP:NPA states that "{{tq|Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans}}", and WP:Banning policy states that "{{tq|Problematic behaviour may lead to editing restrictions (partial or complete) to be applied to any editor, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.}}"

::As to "{{tq|way too little evidence that the root problem in the dispute is Curly Turkey}}": I think most others would disagree. (Though perhaps this depends on what the "dispute" is.) But this can be easily tested: ban CT for a month or two, and see if there is an improvement (or not) at the article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:::A ban is not a trial or a test, it is only preventative. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::::The test would be changing a possibly key factor in the article's environment – CT's involvement – and seeing if the other editors can then deal with the content issues. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I came here looking for a reprimand, clarification of rules or some sort of stepping-in-and-setting-straight for one or both of us. Since that time, Curly's repeated accusations of bad faith or misbehaviour in nearly every reply he's made to any user who disagrees with him, and requested that several of us be topic-banned. He's brought personal attacks into this ANI discussion against someone who came in from a noticeboard he pinged. Regardless of whether the underlying issue is a content dispute, there's really no way that discussion can move forward like this, especially when the behaviour continues right up to his [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=896761569&oldid=896758051 most recent] set of diffs. Safrolic (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – I guess if you keep an ANI thread open long enough, somebody will say something sanctionable? Close this month-long discussion and archive it. There's been a very small group of editors participating (even smaller if you just count the WP:EC accounts); it's clear the community at large is not interested in sanctioning anyone here. Leviv ich 23:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

This user has been asked many, many times not to put unreferenced articles into the mainspace. Numerous other editors have also contacted DA, who does seem to read the messages, but has only responded once in the 166 messages. Nearly all 166 have been about lack of referencing/copyvios, articles being moved to draftspace because of these issues. They have been getting concerns raised on this exact issue for 2 years, but has continued to behave in exactly the same way, including as recent as yeterday creating this unreferenced articles, swiftly moved to draftspace: Draft:The Cows (painting). Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::If {{ping|DilletantiAnonymous}} would just respond there could be things we could do - I see that a couple have been referenced and patrolled, but this is clearly endemic and required draftifying from multiple editors. If Dilletanti actually is willing to communicate, then there might be things we can do. Otherwise WP:CIR may require an indef. Alternatively - could we revoke autoconfirmed?? I believe it technically can be removed (it's an accidental issue with de-sysops), I've no idea if the community can/has done so, but it would in effect be a forced use of AfC post-ACPERM. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I agree that if DA would communicate, this could potentially be easily solved - but it's been 2 years and I've not got anywhere yet. Hopefully they will engage here. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Iftequarfohyan has added dozens of unsourced edits (almost exclusively regarding the Mahdavia sect) over the last few years, the most recent being a few hours ago.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/823680464]

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/823681866]

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/836564438]

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/888672220]

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/896098401] As per their Talk Page, they have recieved several warnings about their disruptive editing, but none seem to be sticking.

In addition to this, (though it may not be too relevant given how long ago it was), in August 2017 they recieved a warning regarding the use of copyrighted material.[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iftequarfohyan&oldid=796722452] A few months later, on 8 January 2018, they apparently ignored this by adding what appears to be copyrighted material on Dollah Darya Khan (sorry, I'm not really sure how to make a direct link to this particular edit).

I've spent a decent amount of time disproving and cleaning up their edits and I'm struggling to find one that was constructive. Alivardi (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:Looks like a WP:CIR issue here. Their English looks pretty broken and they don't seem to be engaging at all with the warnings they've gotten. Only 63 edits from them total, they don't seem to be a very prolific editor, only 3 edits this year. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::{{reply|CaptainEek}} Yeah I get you. I'm gonna give it another go with the warnings and I'll make it a bit firmer and clearer this time. Thanks anyways. Alivardi (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

:::It might be time for a block of Alivardi, if they don't reply to or engage with this and continues their behavior, then an indef block may be in order. The community might support a ban, or an admin might just executively decide to block. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Pardon? How is blocking the reporting user warranted here?--WaltCip (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=GoldenRing blocked BZAW31559 1 week for disruptive editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|BZAW31559}}

The account’s activity, especially {{diff|User_talk:BZAW31559|diff=895301588|oldid=895301463}}, makes me doubt that the user is here for a right purpose. Can any sysop, at very least, revdel this stuff? The very first edit on Meta-wiki created global.css. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

: {{ping|Lectonar}} not one revision, but all revisions since 895301588 to 895913570; the current one may be kept. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

::Sorry...was interrupted by a real life meeting...should be done now. Lectonar (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

:::What is this "real life" of which you speak? EEng 04:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::::{{small|I think Lectonar is talking about a fantasy. --Blackmane (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)}}

• I came across this user today in the course of declining a clearly-inappropriate speedy deletion request (I came across it as a "user request" in another user's userspace, but they'd liberally sprinkled it with everything from G4 to G11). Browsing through their edit history, they appear to be young (one edit suggests they might be 13), clever and potentially quite a capable editor, but in sore need of some guidance. I don't have time to use anything but blunt tools here; I wonder if someone might have some time to help them out? {{ping|BZAW31559}} If you're interested in doing useful things here, please let us know and we'll try to find someone to help you out. If you're not interested, well, it'd be useful to know that, too. GoldenRing (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
• I think a mentor would be best for them as their efforts are clearly in good faith, albeit misguided. {{ping|BZAW31559}} Please please let us know if you need help doing something. While we encourage you to be bold, I would strongly advise that you consider stop editing articles directly for now, and ask someone else before you attempt them, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figurate_number&diff=prev&oldid=896545609 edits like this].--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• Sadly, given that they have ignored both of my attempts to reach out to them on their talk page, and seem to be not heeding any of the warnings or other messages he's been getting, I'm beginning to think a block might be the only way to compel him to listen.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
• As this was continuing, I've blocked for a week. If he doesn't respond either at his TP or here, it'll be extended. {{ping|BZAW31559}} You really need to respond to this. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::I'm a bleeding heart, eager to give troublesome editors a second or third chance. BUT I do not understand this editor, why he is editing another editor's user page and then tagging that user page for deletion for being an attack page? I do not get it unless this is a vanishing request which, given his stated age (which may or not be accurate) would not make sense. There are lots of editors who make editing decisions that don't seem logical but I simply don't know what this editor is aiming for, what they want (except for working on user pages about color spectrums) or what they want to accomplish here. But even though THREE admins declined their speedy requests, they reposted it twice. I'm not feeling optimistic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=Oshwah has indefinitely blocked Saintouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)}}

{{userlinks|Saintouse}} has made several edits in the past few months that show a pattern of being WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. See his talk page and contribs. He has also said he would remove all content by people he thinks are "liberals", because they are a "cancer". Disclosure: I self-identify as liberal; however, I would open this thread if he showed the same hostility to conservatives. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:Account created in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Saintouse June 2016]; first (non-deleted) edit in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Saintouse March 2019]. Also, compare [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_rifle&type=revision&diff=894859179&oldid=891253323] with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assault_rifle&type=revision&diff=896150502&oldid=894999522] from a different (albeit new) account. From my chair, this looks like a classic throw-away sleeper account. VQuakr (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

:This account is stale right now, as it hasn't made any edits since April 30. However, I'm willing to overlook this fact and indefinitely block the account given the circumstances in this case. The user's blatantly biased edits and disruption, their deleted user page per G10, as well as their repeated threats against those who revert his/her changes or oppose their viewpoint (diffs: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saintouse&diff=prev&oldid=894857655 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saintouse&diff=prev&oldid=894884268 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saintouse&diff=prev&oldid=894906534 3]) show me that should they resume editing, it will only result in more disruption, threats, and violations of policy. Even though their last edits were over a week ago, blocking this account will prevent further disruption to the project. Hence, I have blocked this user per WP:NOTHERE. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=Editors are encouraged to revert overlinking when they see it on articles associated with tokusatsu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)}}

I am not asking for intervention{{snd}}unless, of course, the pattern of behaviour I am about to describe sets someone's alarm bells ringing. I am asking more if anyone else has seen this sort of thing.

The problem is restricted to articles related to anime, and only involves IP editors who may only edit during a single day. A particularly bad example can be seen in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyousei_Tsukui&diff=next&oldid=893933033 this diff], before my reversion. (Spartan, Yatsudenwani and Kanadegami{{snd}}really?) I have seen this sort of nonsense perpetrated by at least 3 IP editors, over several months. As a DABfixer, I see the phenomenon only when one of the links is to a DAB page and User:DPL bot picks it up. (There are no links to DAB pages in my example diff; I spotted the IP editor in another article, and checked to see what else they'd been up to.)

Reversion of such nonsense once found is easy enough; the problem is finding it. The IP editor in my diff made fourteen edits, of which I think only one included an ambiguous link. Narky Blert (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:It's not something we see so much of now as the Allwiki approach is dying out across the broader Wikiverse (Wikipedia is so big, our standards now tend to be those adopted by other wikis), but it's still not {{em|that}} unusual for someone in good faith to think "anything that has an article should be linked" and try to be helpful. All you can really do is point them towards WP:OVERLINKING and revert their edits until they either understand what they're doing wrong, or get bored. ‑ Iridescent 08:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::Iridescent, it is not a case of good faith overlinking when someone changes "Yatsudenwani" to Fatsia japonicaTelephonyCrocodilia (changing the piped links to the actual links they hide). No one would in good faith make that mistake. Fram (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:::@Fram, although it looks like vandalism in this case I don't think it is—Yatsudenwani [https://i2.lisimg.com/13838192/411full.jpg genuinely was a fictional Fatsia japonica–telephone–crocodile hybrid]. ‑ Iridescent 09:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Hmm, you have a point. Still a terrible way to present this, but not vandalism. Fram (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::No way is linking Spartan as Spar tan (mouseover or click the links) anything other than vandalism. Narky Blert (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

:I've cleaned up dozens of these edits in the past. They focus specifically on tokusatsu rather than anime, and I presume it's only one person doing it. Besides reverting I'm not sure what else you can do, pretty much every article for Japanese actors who appear in tokusatsu shows are a potential target. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

::Ahh, so that's two of us who have seen this stuff then. I agree that from what I've seen, it looks like just the one editor under different IPs (all stale when I've found them, none still active). The timewasting bit is working out what on earth is going on the 1st or 2nd time you come across it. If my post has jogged memories or will jog memories in future, it's served its purpose. Narky Blert (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Reported user blocked. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)}}

I finally come to my end with U1Quattro aggressive behaviour on Wikipedia, I may not be completely innocent but U1Quattro way of a editing is getting to the point of disruptive. Numerous of times the user threaten and taunt me to getting me a "permanent ban" and taking it to the incident for "misconduct". These all stems from dispute with the edits they done which I disagreed with. The first wave we didn't do a good job at addressing that conflict and both of us got a 1 day block.

U1Quattro has made numerous of accusation against me, claiming I broke Code of Conduct, breaching [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:U1Quattro&diff=prev&oldid=896044101 confidentiality just because I linked a diff from his public talk] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toyota_Hilux&diff=895869015&oldid=890887730 page during a discussion which I apologise for]. Threats includes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:U1Quattro&diff=895887721&oldid=895871320], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMW_5_Series_(E60)&diff=892275404&oldid=892275131], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMW_5_Series_(E60)&diff=892172446&oldid=892172108], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMW_5_Series_(E60)&diff=892172446&oldid=892172108]; this diff was when he accused me of covering up my tracks because I removed my "Favourite Car Photographer" list which I did back when I first joined Wikipedia and my opinions has changed with these photographers, so I removed it, but he used it against me and saying that I'm being bias.

Another thing which I find unfair and disruptive is during a discussion over a dispute of edits, such as a image discussion, he like to overwhelm the reader with several images that were not the subject on the original discussion which makes solving dispute a lot harder for everyone. Such as the Talk:Toyota Hilux discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toyota_Hilux&diff=890856863&oldid=890706259 as pointed out by another user].

I'm not the only one who been having grief from this user, other users includes {{u|Carguy1701}} and {{u|Ybsone}}. One of which claim there was racial allegation but I couldn't find anything related to it, I assume these users have their own evidence they can give.

Diffs of his rude behaviour:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:U1Quattro&diff=next&oldid=895867342

On top of that, he tries to cover up his tracks by removing both discussion in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:U1Quattro&diff=896526399&oldid=896117907

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:U1Quattro&diff=896526435&oldid=896526399

He claims that I breached confidailty because I linked a diff from his user talk page onto

This incident report is incomplete so I will be adding more over time. --Vauxford (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:Over past year my edits were reverted 18 times by U1Quattro, and not once I would say it was necessary, but that is a different although simillar matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ybsone#April_2019 "Posting a ching chong Japanese site in your defense with zero confirmation that the 3200 GT was sold in Japan by Maserati won't work." ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AYbsone&diff=prev&oldid=893720057 diff]) In my opinion this citation constitutes a racial outburst. YBSOne (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:Well, looking at the diffs provided, it's been made clear by U1Quattro numerous times that he/she has "evidence and information" on Vauxford and enough to get him/her "permanently banned". I'll get to the less-than-civil comments later, but for now I'm interested in this "evidence"... Instead of bringing these concerns forward to the community and discussing them at the time they occurred, it looks to me that U1Quattro is instead using this "information" as a weapon in order to control and force the cooperation of others (namely, Vauxford). If that's the case, this is clearly unacceptable and a violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy. I'm very interested to hear what U1Quattro has to say about why he/she didn't bring this "evidence" forward and instead used it to repeatedly threaten Vauxford. I'd also like to see what "information and evidence" he/she has that show "misconduct", "damage to my credibility", and other claims..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Well, since everyone has been presenting their evidence, I'll present mine. Here are Vauxford's incidents with other users which clearly shows his disruptive behaviour. Since he is trying so hard to prove me guilty, why not join the conversation? This all seems like a conspiracy as Vauxford has been trying to recruit users in order to get editors off this site:

:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles01#/talk/106

:::Snarky remakes about age:

:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles01#/talk/96

:::Snarky remarks again about a user's nationality and clear hatred for him:

:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles01#/talk/79

:::Rude outburst at getting his preferred photograph replaced:

:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles01#/talk/78

:::Gets told by another user how rude he has been (also shows how he has been linking a talk page discussion to frame me as a bad one in the eyes of other users, damage to my credibility it is):

:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Hilux#/talk/4

:::His other discussions showcasing his rude behaviour:

:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/891346494

:::Shows pretty much his refusal to reach a concensous:

:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/891131198

:::Hiding his faults:

:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/890930923

:::Shows how he got me blocked as well you his disruptive behaviour and refusal to reach a concensous in a civilised manner:

:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R8_(Type_4S)#/talk/1

:::Won't stop arguing and not letting other users comment freely on photos also shows how he doesn't care being blocked himself which shows that his behaviour has not been good to other users (also a proof of damaging my credibility by also getting me blocked which I accepted and didn't protest against like he did multiple times) also clearly shows how he has "no hope for justice" which is a violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette :

:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_5_Series_(E60)#/talk/16

:::Speaking of taking up the issue, I did take the issue to an administrator in order to resolve this dispute and was ready to forgive and forget (bury the hatchet) but I preferred to ignore him, but somehow the issue again resurfaces on the Toyota Hilux page when he claimed to have obtained a concensous when it wasn't reached at all and kept reverting my edits there:

:::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/892285123

:::Now I am not the innocent one, I admit that but such a degree of evidence is enough to present as an incident filing for misconduct and disruptive behaviour which can get one blocked. Why I didn't take it up with the community, well when I would inform Vauxford about the notice board discussion, he would waltz in and begin to argue, not letting anyone judge the situation. I will leave that upto you to decide. Also, why did I removed the discussion? Well, it was over and my talk page was getting heavier to load. You can also see how he had removed his ban notice.U¹ _quattro TALK'' 19:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::::{{u|U1Quattro}} You really strawmanning everything I say. What so sinister of removing a ban notice when I was already unblocked? There nothing with that? Recruiting users!? Another baseless accusation, where are you even getting these from? [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles01#/talk/96 That post] was actually a normal conversation I had with Charles01 before the conflict, why are you trying to turn unrelated discussion I made into malicious ones? I didn't question his age in a rude manner whatsoever, I was generally curious, this isn't the first time you accuse me of something that had no foundation towards it and actually mistaking a picture that was taken by OSX which was actually taken by me. It frustrates me so much that you trying to use every single bit of sentence I ever said on Wikipedia like it a insult, compare to yours, yours has intention to be intimidating to other users while mine are mostly innocent and good faith, a lot of these diffs you posted are just poor attempt to cover up what you been doing in the past 3 months.

::::https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/890930923 - This diff was when I was discussing with others users about something but you butted in when you weren't actually involved in it so I reverted it, that isn't me "hiding" my faults, if that was the wrong thing to do according to a admin I apologise. Also if your talk page was getting heavier to load for you, why couldn't you archive them rather then removing them entirely? Now I'm not accussing you but why remove the ones where it was involved users you don't like very much? You could've removed any of the automated ones like you done before which was perfectly normal but you didn't. --Vauxford (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::My take on the BMW 5 Series discussion is that I did the right thing by creating a discussion to pick which photo was better and it was going well and I thought people decided that the one previously on there was fine. U1Quattro reverted my edit and then made another with completely new images and so that what people chose and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMW_5_Series_(E60)&diff=next&oldid=892272636 even isolated me from having my say] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BMW_5_Series_(E60)&diff=892261445&oldid=892261316 even trying to convince others that I should not be listen to]. --Vauxford (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::{{u|Charles01}} I know I may not be your most favourite person on here but please clarify to U1Quattro that this discussion we had about photos and people ages wasn't intended to be insulting to one another. --Vauxford (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::::Did you do a ping to alert me to this or did the little red bell on my screen happen spontaneously when someone wrote my name here? Either way, there's an awful lot about you - i.e. Vauxford - on my talk page which I think, more logically, probably should appear on your talk page because there seems to be an awful lot on "my" talk page by and about you. But till now I have resisted the opportunity to delete it. Maybe I'm overdue with archiving the 2017 stuff, though! Anyhow, I think it all really speaks for itself, the good, the bad and the other stuff. If I think of anything else useful to discuss on this page I'll add it. But right now ... no further thoughts available for sharing. If there really are people reading this who want to try and figure out how you deal with wikipedia, and who have the time and abundance of good will to do so, the place to start with is probably your talk page rather than mine! Including some of the more recently archived stuff. But my underlying thought is that talk pages - even the talk pages of individual wiki-users - are at their most useful when they concern themselves with trying to make wikipedia better. Nothing wrong with the odd friendly off-topic observation along the way. But wikipedia is not really a forum for opening up the soul to an eager wiki-public. There are other sites that do that, I gather! Or does this look a bit tooooo terribly English? Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::That wasn't what I mean, the discussion we had was off-topic yes, but it wasn't us having a go at each other or me calling you old in a insulting manner. U1Quattro is using that against me even though there was nothing malicious about the discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::::Charles01 - Yes, I'm here and looking at this ANI report. I understand if you don't wish to add to this discussion, but if you don't mind... if you could summarize any key points about what's going on between you all, why, and what's causing it... it would be helpful. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::::Some of the links U1Quattro provided were mobile links to discussions and others were mobile diffs. I took what I could find and translate and tried to grab the appropriate diffs that I believe he was giving:

::::#Untitled: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charles01&diff=prev&oldid=895981164 diff]

::::#"Snarky remarks about age": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACharles01&type=revision&diff=880474646&oldid=879933479 diff]

::::#"Snarky remarks again about a user's nationality and clear hatred for him": ???

::::#"Rude outburst at getting his preferred photograph replaced": ???

::::#"Gets told by another user how rude he has been (also shows how he has been linking a talk page discussion to frame me as a bad one in the eyes of other users, damage to my credibility it is)": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AToyota_Hilux&type=revision&diff=895869245&oldid=890887730 diff]

::::#"His other discussions showcasing his rude behaviour": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=891346494 diff]

::::#"Shows pretty much his refusal to reach a concensous (sic)": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=891131198 diff]

::::#"Shows how he got me blocked as well you his disruptive behaviour and refusal to reach a concensous in a civilised manner": [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAudi_R8_%28Type_4S%29&type=revision&diff=891094712&oldid=890509681 diff]

::::Some of the diffs don't show snark in my opinion, but curiosity and fascination (such as with the diff labeled "snarky remarks about age" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACharles01&type=revision&diff=880474646&oldid=879933479 here]). Some others I either couldn't find due to lack of information of what edit it was referring to. Either way, I supplied the diff that U1Quattro did, translated the mobile diff to the regular diff, or tried to locate the diff from the mobile link provided... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford, U1Quattro - To be quite frank here (and I mean this will all due respect to the both of you here), I honestly don't think that any editor, user, or admin is going to take the time to go through this entire ANI discussion and pick through everything that you've both dropped here and rebutted and argued back and forth over. From what I've gone through in this discussion, it's clear that you both have been uncivil to one another and over a long period of time. You both have exhibited battleground conduct between one another, have kept grudges, past arguments, and even "evidence" of each other's breaches of civility in your back pockets to use in making future threats at each other. This bad blood needs to stop, and you both need to go and sort all of this out between you two, and get yourselves to a level where you can both make peace, commit to working together in a positive fashion, and where you can both move on from the arguments in the past. If you two don't do this, and if you two continue to pack your past arguments and frustrations along with with your luggage... and/or if your inability to work together and be productive with one another gets to the level where it begins (or continues) to disrupt any articles, content, images, files, or media - the next step from here will be a discussion asking the community to impose sanctions, bans, or editing restrictions - which is not something you want to have happen. Please take this discussion to one of your user talk pages, and please take this opportunity to work things out like adults while you two still have the ability to resolve things without community or administrative intervention. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:I tried doing that, just look at the removed Toyota Hilux talk page discussion, he said he "doesn't give a damn" and tries to drop the discussion. Because I'm not the only one who is having problem with this user, which is why I took this incident onto here for intervention. This is not a personal problem between me and U1Quattro. {{u|Oshwah}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:U1Quattro&diff=895848572&oldid=893788847 As you can see here], I tried to resolve a dispute with U1Quattro but that didn't work and made things worst. --Vauxford (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::Despite Oshwah's doubts, I've looked through all these. I'm not impressed by some of what I'm seeing of Vauxford in U1Quattro's diffs, but if we were coming from a punishment perspective, I wouldn't think sanctions needed, and hopefully the long discussion here will demonstrate to Vauxford that he needs to calm down. However, I'm strongly un-impressed by much of what I'm seeing of U1Quattro in Vauxford's diffs. For example, you're trying to get someone sanctioned because he violated internal policies prohibiting employees from outing users? I quote WP:WIAPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki. This is an extremely serious accusation, and no evidence whatsoever was provided. U1Quattro, this is your warning: if you continue such incivility and such attacks, your next block is likely to be much longer. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I admit I did get upset and personal quite a bit on those diffs which I apologise for, I wasn't thinking straight and when being under this pressured during a dispute/conflict you tend to slip things out of your mouth. Again I am sorry, it the reason why I refrain from trying to solve it with U1Quattro and just see what could be done on here, regardless of the outcome this would have on me and the latter user. --Vauxford (talk) 02:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Nyttend! Thank you for taking the time to go through this entire ANI discussion and help sort things out. My view from what I read so far was that both users were being uncivil to one another, but it's obvious that you've looked into more diffs and at a deeper level than I did. I appreciate your analysis and input, and the action you took. My hope is that things will work out peacefully between Vauxford and U1Quattro, and that we won't have any more issues occurring as a result. Again, I really appreciate your time... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|Discussion now happening on the article talk page. I think this can be safely closed. El_C 17:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)}}

This article really requires administrative intervention. User:AddMore-III is a bully who has clearly attempted to take over ownership of the Orthodox Judaism article. I have observed him and he has taken every step possible to keep out discussion of the Orthodox Jewish population in the United States, which has the world's largest and most notable Orthodox Jewish diaspora and nearly matches the Orthodox population of Israel itself. Look at his User page, which obviously points out his bias toward a (small) British Orthodox presence. He is eliminating notable and constructive material which had been there for years before he took over the page and removed valuable content over the past year or so. Rather than making constructive edits, he insists on blanket reverting material that had stood years which many editors had carefully contributed to. This has got to stop. Thanks. Castncoot (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:I find the above-mentioned editor's conduct preposterous, especially his attempt to present me as a "British-POV pusher". First, I deleted almost all of the article, which was, well, bad. Second, the plaintiff attempts to add, in the section "organization and demographics", data which is utterly irrelevant. Most of it is a long, trivial list of small Orthodox communities in the US. There is some historical data, which is impertinent to the section and mostly irrelevant to the article in general (I'll chronologically write about the history of Orthodox Judaism in the US and Israel after I'll complete a section about Eastern Europe; just finished the communal schism in Central Europe.) There is only a single detail connected with demographics, a comparison of Lakewood's population between 2008 to 2012 (BTW, only some 60% of them are Jewish). How is this long, trivial addition pertinent to the article? I don't know. American Orthodox demographics are much better covered there already. I certainly don't intend to add lists of Orthodox communities in Israel or Europe, as suggested by the other party. His data has no place in the article, which should be informative, not filled with trivia. AddMore-III (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::{{tq|I'll chronologically write about the history of Orthodox Judaism in the US and Israel}} Ownership much? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::: MPJ-DK, why are you cutting out the rest of his quote? He wrote, {{tq|(I'll chronologically write about the history of Orthodox Judaism in the US and Israel after I'll complete a section about Eastern Europe; just finished the communal schism in Central Europe.}} Not sure how ownership plays into this. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::::{{U|Sir Joseph}} - doesn't make it better in my view. Is it not ownership to dismiss someone's concerns with "I'll get to it when I rewrite the article"? Just me getting that vibe?MPJ-DK (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::::: {{ping|MPJ-DK}}Why are you putting words into his mouth? He's saying he's going to write sections of the article that does not yet exist. He never set re-write. What he is describing is how Wikipedia articles should be. He writes sections and expands articles piece by piece. That's not ownership. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::: {{u|Sir Joseph}} If I read the first comment right it's not there because he removed it. If I may quote {{tq|he insists on blanket reverting material that had stood years which many editors had carefully contributed to.}} - that is ownership, removing what was there and then saying "I'll get to it when I am done with other stuff", that does not jibe and does smack of ownership. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Please watch the edit warring, both of you. Page protected for one week, the rest is beyond our remit. But I do note with disapproval that the last comment on the talk page is from August 2018. El_C 22:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:Castncoot, this is your only warning: loaded words like "bully" are entirely unacceptable, and further disruption will result in sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::Castncoot, your edit summaries show that you might have an agenda to push. Telling someone that they are only here to push an "European POV" is not the way to edit. Further, you don't use the talk page, and even if that doesn't work, you can always go to WT:JUDAISM to seek more input. I have seen User:AddMore-III on quite a few pages and I don't recall him being a bully or someone who pushes an agenda. I suggest you use the talk page and write out your concerns for the page or go to the project page and ask people to come over and get more people to look it over. There are 239 people watching that page and quite a few more over at the project page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::I missed that bully accusation — indeed, that is not okay and should not be repeated. Anyway, the problem I allude to above is that you two are communicating through edit summaries in an adversarial way, but ignoring the article talk page. That's what it's there for — to discuss changes to the article. Lengthy edit summaries without accompanying article talk page discussion are almost always a bad sign. El_C 02:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I noticed that the last discussion on the article talk page was early 2018. How about using it discuss your differences? It doesn't look like the article has had any discussion about it in a year and a half. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::::For those confused by the different dates given above by El C and Liz I think it's in part because the most recent edits (well before mine) were by a bot, although I admit I'm not sure where the early 2018 comes from since there were no edits then. The most recent editor comment on the article talk page before the one I just posted seems to have been in September 2017. Nil Einne (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::You're gonna hurt the bot's feelings! El_C 05:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::MPJ-DK, if by "ownership" you mean actually writing the article, ownership it is. Some other editors, mainly Editor2020, have actually written parts of Orthodox Judaism and I barely meddled. I haven't seen Castncoot trying to add relevant info. He could have written another section in "history", or anything else, or perhaps expanded the demographic info. He did none of these. I definitely attempt to safeguard the articles I'm involved in from the "let's-add-a-ton-of-trivia-out-of-context" plague making so many articles unreadable. AddMore-III (talk) 05:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:El_C, when someone starts communicating via aggressive edit summaries, that's how I'll respond. The other party, which sought to change the article, did not resort to the TP but to ES threats. I find the protection unwarranted, and problematic because it leaves Castncoot trivia section in place. I'd have suggested reversion to the uncontroversial version before that addition. However, I hope it will draw editors to the TP when the protection is lifted. AddMore-III (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::The version may be the wrong version to you, but this is just the last version that was there at the time protection was applied. I very rarely revert a page that's about to be protected or is protected. (Even though I just did so now in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julius_Evola&diff=prev&oldid=896683490 another article] — the irony.) El_C 06:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::In addition to El C's point, if no one starts a discussion on the article talk page, and you all start edit warring again when protection ends, don't be surprised if you're all blocked. Since you're suggesting it's the wrong version, it seems particularly pertinent as it sounds like you want to revert. Of course a good way to get protection lifted is to come to consensus on the article talk page, so if you're so sure it is really the wrong version, there is no reason to refuse to initiate discussion. Ultimately someone has to initiate a discussion, and a good way to convince the community you're in the wrong is to refuse to do so. (So yes, this applies to everyone in the edit war.) Many editors, including me have zero sympathy for people who come to complain to ANI about how the other editor is clearly in the wrong because there is no discussion when by no discussion they mean "zero discussion including by me" rather than "I tried to discuss but the editor ignored me". Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::::This is AddMore-III's statement a few paragraphs above: "First, I deleted almost all of the article, which was, well, bad." That ought to say it all. Since when do you get to unilaterally override consensus of longstanding material? I stand by my viewpoint regarding his ownership, as others have also observed here. I have also offered to him to carve out what he doesn't like rather than blanket reverting previously longstanding material, which he did not accept. From experience, I know that going to the article Talk page (my standard practice) is a futile exercise in attempting to rationalize with certain editors. From a purely content vantage point, rather than starting a dedicated Europe Orthodox section, which I would welcome but don't have the topic experience for, this editor has chosen to take the back door by eliminating the longstanding notable and constructive U.S section and to unduly underweight the vast and complex U.S. Orthodox presence in the article. Castncoot (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::Maintaining that article talk page discussion is "futile," in this case, is an assumption of bad faith, which does not reflect well on your position here. Now I'm tempted to revert to the other version, just to motivate you to present your ideas there. Please do so, both of you, without delay. El_C 17:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::I've started the discussion at Talk:Orthodox Judaism. Castncoot (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{Clear}}

{{archive top|result=Editors Felix Montana and Sabbatino are encouraged to use dispute resolution to resolve your differences or air your dispute at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music or one of their relevant task forces to get more input from other editors. You seriously need a third (and fourth) editor to settle this dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)}}

Hi! Please help me somebody with these articles:

• Run-D.M.C. (album) - I added 15,027 bites
• King of Rock - I added 10,517 bites
• Raising Hell (album) - I added 16,721‎ bites
• Tougher Than Leather - I added 7,219‎‎ bites
• Back from Hell - I added 8,164‎‎ bites
• Down with the King (album) - I added 12,331‎‎‎ bites
• Crown Royal (album) - I added 8,105 bites

A week ago I improved these articles by adding links to them confirming the release date of the album (some pages have an incorrect album release date). I also updated the old dead links (in reviews, charts, album description). Added information about the samples. All accompanied reliable sources. Spent for each article about one night. Today one user Sabbatino has deleted all my contribution (!) in each article (!) with one click with the same reason ("since it largely goes against the accepted format"). Maybe I incorrectly designed tracklist (maybe the samples should be written separately from the table of songs), but even in this case - this is not a reason to delete all my contributions on the page completely! I also looked at the history of all the edits of these pages. For 15 years of existence of these 7 pages, this user Sabbatino has not made a single edit on these pages. Please help someone who is experienced in this matter. I hope for your justice. Felix Montana (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:First, I do not see where you notified :User:Sabbatino, as is required in the notice at the top of this page. (I have now done so for you.) Second, what Sabbatino did is not vandalism. Third, what you should have done is open a discussion on the talk page for each article, and ask there about what Sabbatino sees as the problems with your edits. (See :WP:BRD.) - Donald Albury 16:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::{{reply|Felix Montana}} You should get familiar with the definition of vandalism before falsely reporting me here. I have also edited these pages in the past and I have them on my watchlist so that is another a big "no, no" to your accusation. Before making huge changes you should always consult on the talk page. In addition, you directly went against the documentation of the infobox when you changed the information there. The track list has also been changed to an obsolete format. Adding non notable "accolades" is also unacceptable. If the organization, nomination, award, etc. is notable then it has its own page on Wikipedia. The "Sampled use" section is simply trivial and should not have been added in the first place. Using such websites as [https://www.whosampled.com/ WhoSampled] or [https://www.songfacts.com/ Songfacts.com] is unreliable. I assume that you are not familiar with Wikipedia's policy's given for how long you have been registered here, because we did not have any prior run-ins with each other and you went directly to here making accusations. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:::I'd like to speak up for {{U|Felix Montana}} here. Wondering what was meant about the sampling and how weird the format was, I looked at one of the articles, and it didn't seem outlandish, although I noted a punctuation error and a lack of references for the videos. The sampling info does seem useful to me, now that I realize what was meant; are there any reliable places that info could be sourced to? And while editors vary a lot in how they work, we are still allowed to be bold; it's not at all necessary to get permission before overhauling an article. {{U|Sabbatino}}, it can be unnerving to find someone following one around, especially if they are blanket reverting. Expecting the other editor to then open discussion on every single page is a bit much, and likely to use up a lot of time. What's the appropriate Wikiproject talk page for a broad discussion of the format problems you see with the edits? And I would have gone to the editor's talk page to explain after seeing similar problems with two or three articles; did you do that? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::{{reply|Sabbatino}} I did not call it vandalism, I wrote that "it looks like vandalism", because the reason for removing a large contribution is too dubious. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=whosampled&title=Special:Search&fulltext=1&ns0=1| Wikipedia search], 1,413 pages now use [https://www.whosampled.com/ WhoSampled] as the source. Why these 7 articles do not have the right to use this site Whosampled as a source. When I edit a page, I first look at how other articles are written and what sources are used there. In addition, WhoSampled is the main source of use of samples. Therefore, I don't know where you read that Whosampled is unreliable source. I think that a link to WhoSampled is required. I used website [https://www.songfacts.com/ Songfacts.com] only once until I find a reliable source. About "accolades" - I used "accolades" only in 3 articles: 5 "accolades" in one article, about 20 "accolades" in another, and about 30 "accolades" in the third article. That's all. Why for the sake of these little "accolades" need to create a separate page for each album? It's enough to place them here, so I left them here. "The track list has also been changed to an obsolete format." - Why? Everything was fine with the track list. Can you imagine how much time I spent writing out each song, each guest participation, each producer, each sample (and found a link to this artist on Wikipedia)? I think no. I spent many hours improving these articles by finding all these reliable sources (more than 100 sources) on the Internet. For Wikipedia. For all of you! For Free!! Instead of appreciating my work, you ignore it. Felix Montana (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:::{{U|Yngvadottir}} Thank you very much! I also think that it's not at all necessary to get permission before overhauling an article. I know only one source of samples - WhoSampled, all other websites are no longer working. Felix Montana (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

:::: Information on samples is difficult to come by in reliable sources, but it can be found. For popular bands, Google searches can be helpful. You have to know where to look, though; most sources that catalog this stuff are content farms, self-published blogs, or user-generated. WhoSampled and SongFacts should not be used, and just because some other articles cite them doesn't mean that even more articles should. When working on industrial bands, I often check digitized magazines at Archive.org and Google Books. But, yeah, nobody needs permission to edit an article or even to make big changes. I rewrite articles from scratch sometimes if I think they're poorly-written enough. One problem with making big changes, however, is that you need to understand Wikipedia's bureaucracy and complex rules. There are a hundred reasons that your changes might get reverted, and big changes tend to be scrutinized more closely. Also, please don't use the word "vandalism" unless someone is adding stuff like "SCREW WIKIPEDIA LOLOLOL". Don't even say it "looks like vandalism". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::::{{U|NinjaRobotPirate}} Thank you. I appreciate your opinion. I have never heard about samples on the Archive.org website before, I will try to search. Google Books I often use as a reliable source for the description of the album. I also think that we can use album booklets that are posted on the Discogs, but there are very few samples there, sometimes due to the fact that they are not cleared. And he deleted a contribution to 7 articles at once in about 1 minute. How could he read all 7 articles in 1 minute? And view all more than 100 reliable sources in 1 minute? How else to treat it? I spent the whole last week on them so I'm offended. Felix Montana (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::::: Discogs is also user-generated and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has some good sources listed. Archive.org is a digital library, so it has many digitized magazines. One of them probably has an interview with the band about what samples they used. issuu is also a good source for digitized magazines. Incorrect formatting should be fixed per WP:PRESERVE instead of used as a reason to revert someone. But it sounds like Sabbatino has other issues, too, which you two should settle via dispute resolution. I don't know if Sabbatino gave your edits a fair look, but dispute resolution will probably make it obvious whether that is the case or not. WP:DRN is one possibility, or maybe a WikiProject, as suggested above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

::::::{{reply|Felix Montana}} "it looks like vandalism" is the same as vandalism. But that is not the point here. The point is that you were bold, got reverted and did not even try to start a discussion at one of the articles' or my talk page and just went here. In addition, you just restored to your preferred version without even waiting for me to explain. At the moment I am very busy with other things in my life and cannot regularly edit Wikipedia until at least Wednesday or Thursday. However, since I found some free time, I cleaned up the Run-D.M.C. (album) page (explanations in the edit summaries at history section of the page). – Sabbatino (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}