Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Starship.paint (talk | contribs) at 16:01, 23 June 2019 (→User:LilBillWilliams a.k.a. BobRoberts14). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Page move topic ban for Ortizesp

    Ortizesp is Topic Banned from moving pages until 23 August 2019 (two months). A breach of this ban will incur an immediate block, without warning, of a duration at administrator's discretion. Logged Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This issue was previously raised at ANI here on 10 May 2019 but it was archived with no action taken.

    Since that discussion, further editors have raised issues with page moves, including @MYS77: here. Ortizesp said he would start using RM here, but he hasn't, and MYS77 had to raise the issue again with him here. Today I have had to revert another undiscussed page move involving the Rubén García Rey article.

    Based on the above, given the number of editors who have raised concerns about/reverted his page moves, and given the number of broken promises to stop, it is clear that Ortizesp lacks the competence to make page moves. As such, we need an indefinite topic ban from making any undiscussed page moves, and he can only nominate using WP:RM. GiantSnowman 07:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse topic ban: Ortizesp is not reaching any compromise when it comes to moving pages, and has not kept his promise of using RMs to raise opinions over the page moves. MYS77 ✉ 13:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse TBAN with v. minor exception - repeated issues despite agreement otherwise seems to warrant a TBAN. I've spotted a few things in your edits that look like they will turn either into AfC drafts or articles. If this generates any 1-off redirects that should be fine, but otherwise it needs to cover all pages. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply disagree that moving Rubén García Rey needed nomination from WP:RM. Rubén García Rey is simply not his common name, and all external links and references state that. Most of my moves follow this logic, and i believe are valid. Obviously you and MYS77 disagree with my moves, but they are generally uncontroversial. I haven't used WP:RM because I'm leaving those pages for later, for actual controversial moves. In case you guys haven't learnt, it is recommended to be bold - and not the other way around.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As @SMcCandlish: said at the last ANI, "Hint: If people are controverting your moves, then they are controversial". The fact you still cannot see that is very concerning, and raises WP:CIR issues. GiantSnowman 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blackmane: amazing, thanks! GiantSnowman 12:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Breach of a topic ban would lead to blocks. GiantSnowman 10:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, there is no formal TBan, but this issue was raised in ANI for a few times. I am not sure enforcing a formal TBan and delivered the TBAN statement to his user talk page, has any change, if he seem did not know what is happening. But anyway, lets give him a final chance by giving him a formal Tban. Matthew hk (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While there's no definition over the subject, he's still doing the same thing (i.e. Jaime Asensio de la Fuente and Fidel Chaves de la Torre). Not a single compromise, and for every new page I create, he's moving it. I would add a WP:HOUND on this too, aside from the TBan. MYS77 ✉ 14:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also reading the old ANI about him, and I've noticed that he thinks "it's normal to make errors and learn from them, and at least it's not the same kind of error being made continuously". The thing is that his mistakes are quite the same since the old ANI until now. MYS77 ✉ 14:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is ongoing disruption, an editor refusing to listen to concerns about their conduct and competence, and a clear consensus for a topic ban. Please can an uninvolved admin review and implement? GiantSnowman 09:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: I would. But the issue for me, and I suspect others assessing this, is that you have five editors supporting a ban; one of those with an exception and one with what read to me like significant reservations. That's a pretty thin thing to call consensus, especially given the traffic to this page. Don't get me wrong, I think the ban is warranted and I'll do my bit and support a ban; but I don't feel like I can, in good conscience, close this as 'consensus for a ban' at this point. GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Six editors now... GiantSnowman 18:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody else wish to chime in? GiantSnowman 16:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the proposed ban, but let's make it temporary. The unfortunate, but still best result when an editor, unfortunately, persists in problematic activity despite other editors having issues with that activity. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, and let's hope he communicates more in such cases in the future. Kante4 (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks guys. Can somebody close and implement the topic ban please? GiantSnowman 13:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive anti-China editing from Syopsis

    @Syopsis, MJL, and Viztor:, please all take note of the comments by Mackensen. ANI reports like these are just a drain on our admin resources and patience. No admin action is necessary here and even if comments are not PA (which they aren't here), please learn to be objective, more civil, and drop the petty bickering. For your content disputes we have WP:DRN, use it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Previous AN/I report
    Related discussions
    Warning given
    Report

    Let me preface this with saying that I was told I should stay away from the dramaboards, and since then I have followed that excellent advice for the most part. Also, most of this report refers to the bolded conversation linked above except when mention is made to the RFC.

    This report comes about from an off-wiki conversation that occurred at WP:Discord. Viztor asked for some feedback on the situation and was advised to take it to AN/I. Instead of getting involved with that*, I made a few edits to the article. [1] [2]
    *I later did though.Diff unavailible

    Since then, most of my substantial edits besides one were removed. [3] It's hard to get a diff for this because of edits like this, though.

    What was the one edit? A tag I put on the article citing my concerns with WP:GLOBAL. [4] [5]

    Now, despite Nyttend saying there was significant undue weight in the article at ANI, [6] an RFC being started on completely re-writing the article [7] with multiple editors agreeing in said RFC [8] [9] (Well, it's only 2/3), and my repeated explanations... Syopsis has insisted that the tag be removed. [10]

    In the conversation that labeled "Article concerns" (which concerns the tag), this user has made personal attacks against editors, [11], doubling down on those attacks, [12] [13], WP:SHOUTING [14], and has even stated "I could give two flips if the tag was a drive by or if it was constructive."

    This is on-top a general habit of ownership of the article in general. [15] [16] [17] [18] I have additional concerns about their WP:BOLD editing style which generally features an anti-China POV. [19] [20] [21] Even more concerning is their propensity to follow Viztor around to undo their edits. [22] [23] [24] or give them unneeded warnings [25] [26] (this second diff alerting them to an ANI thread that Viztor started! That might have to do with this edit, though?). On its own, these edits would be fine, but taken together I have to include a mention here.

    I know I have lost patience at least more than once and have had my own fault in this mess. I tried resolving the dispute on my talk page, but as mentioned before Syopsis doubled down. I don't have any recommended action to take, but I would prefer to see a resolution into this matter. I really hate spending more time on this than I need to.

    I don't watchlist ANI, so ping me when needed. Thank you all, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • His POV is another question, the more serious one is his behavior: (1)persistent blatant attacks at multiple other editors (2)hounding them around, (3)tracking and reverting their edits in a systematic manner, so to scare (4)the editors from contributing (5)in the attempt to own the article in question. None of which is an acceptable behavior in this community. Viztor (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to request help with Syopsis. I can't even tell you if I agree or disagree with their POV because the content issues we are trying to discuss are being obscured by Syopsis' personal attacks against other editors. For example after my very first post at Talk:China–United States trade war, [27], Syopsis responded with this — and keep in mind this is also our first interaction on Wikipedia [28]:

    "It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias... it's mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling... just meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing [sic]"

    I thought I had only been recommending measures for article improvement, so I objected [29] to Syopsis' rude response, and they quickly came back with this [30]:

    "let's not pretend that you are editing from a non-partisan position"

    Syopsis has been ever more rude to MJL, for instance supposedly repeating their concerns using a kind of pidgin spelling, mockery and insults [31]:

    "I have to say the "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) is as good as a dog's breakfast - it's bad reasoning... it just smacks of tryhard dog whistling... what you are doing seems like just another mediocre attempt at buck passing..."

    This is really distasteful and I hope something can be done to stop it. Wikipedia talk pages are supposed to be editorial boards: more or less professional environments. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since @MJL: was the one who filed this request I am going to respond to directly to that user and i am not going to bother wasting my (or anyone else's) time by responding to the borderline personal attacks by the other two users here; everything i have to say to Darouet i will say on the related talk page and I am not even going to address the comments Viztor made because it will just degenerate into a useless back and forth. But i will say at the outset I absolutely, 100% stand by the things that i wrote which that user quoted ("mediocre," "dog's breakfast" "pseudo-intellectual dog whistling") - they were attacking arguments. That is obvious to anybody who actually read the whole conversation...in full. They were not personal attacks because they were not even directed to a user. I've never made a derogatory personal comment since I started using Wikipedia and I will never make a derogatory personal comment so long as i use this encyclopedia. If that is what you call a "personal attack" then I would hate to see what an actual "personal attack" looks like. It certainly pales in comparison to some of the other things i have seen on wikipedia.
    "...their WP:BOLD editing style which generally features an anti-China POV. " Ah so there it is. Your point-of-view to attack "anti-China" (what ever that means) POVs or defend a "pro-China" (again, I have no idea what means) POV. Little wonder that the user contacted you for help on discord (which seems very much like a case of tag-team editing aka Wikipedia:Tag team. Why even bother editing the article in the first place?). yes if things were only that simplistic. Whatever. Of course the label is just nonsensical, there is for starters a difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, and there is a difference between attacking the views of a political party and attacking the culture of a particular place like some mindless idiot. No different than the difference that exists between, say, attacking a religion (christianity, Islam, judaism) and attacking its believers (Christians, Muslims, Jews). I have to say i do find it very curious you did not cite my most recent edits about Hong Kong here, here and here as evidence of my (non-existent) "anti-China" views - probably because you finally figured out the truth of what I just said.
    Please stop misrepresenting things. I didn't remove the material you edited, i rearranged them and I left the tag in there as a compromise gesture - hardly the kind of editing warring that you are trying to make my edits out to be. By the way, you and anybody else who is reading this should also be aware that the changes I made which included reverting your edits have stayed almost entirely in place - again, hardly the kind of editing warring that you are trying to make my edits out to be. I challenged you multiple times on the tag issue with the aim of actually resolving it and all I got from you were just mediocre, sub-standard arguments - that isn't a personal attack, that is just stating a fact. I asked you how the tag isn't a form of discrimination and all i got from you basically was "because it just isn't". And that is before we even get to your allegations of bias in the content. And about the RFC...that was before the people involved in it made massive changes to the article to rectify the bias and whatever else the RFC initiator complained about, which in any case it must be said was decisively rejected.
    Okay I will admit: I have to tone down the language. Going forward, i will do my best to refrain from using profaniies and just using general insults. I and like most of the people on the encyclopedia (including everybody involved in this request) are passionate about things, but at some point you have to draw a line and say enough is enough. Fair enough. As for the hounding accusation - that's not accurate. There was one edit that was hounding (the one about Xinjiang) but the one about the anchor was to revert a hound edit by the other user and then the third one is not even an example of hounding. That said, I apologize for that one edit and haven't done anything like that since.
    It's pretty simple. My position is that these are content disputes which should and can be resolved...between the two of us. If it helps, I am willing to shift the basis of my argument so that we now focus on the hard evidence that you have that the sources are "biased". This is a further compromise by me because I am downplaying the fact that it is wrong for you to discriminate the sources on the basis of nationality. Involving the two other editors is just going to drag this out way longer than it should and they aren't adding anything to the debate that we don't already know anyway. I don't know why you are trying your hardest to railroad this conversation and turn it into a conduct dispute when it isn't. Syopsis (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only should you not curse, don't insult people at all, let alone in "general"! Argue over content, not editors, on talk pages. And in terms of POV, it /must/ be neutral. Overall though, from these edits I see serious attempts to WP:OWN the article, and little effort put into building consensus. Syopsis is clearly very difficult to work with. In terms of resolving the issue, I would support a carefully worded warning on conduct, or a post 1932-American politics T-ban. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @CaptainEek: post-1932 politics t-ban seems a little much. Maybe a subset that has to do with US-Chinese relations, but I would not support such a broad topic ban for a relatively new editor.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Syopsis: response incoming. Let me start with what is good about you. I think you are genuine person who takes criticism better than most. I appreciate your contributions so far to this project, and I hope nothing that occurs as a result of this ANI report discourages you in anyway from being a part of this community.
    That being said, your tone can be very off putting at times. As CaptainEek pointed out, you really shouldn't be insulting anyone nor anything. It's a bright line violation of our WP:civility guidelines. The sorts of language you tend to use has a negative effect on people.
    In that regard, I must address the tag team allegation because that most certainly is something I aspire to never do on Wikipedia. I believe I have been, from the beginning, the most transparent I could possibly be with you in regards to any offwiki communications I have had with Viztor. As previously said, Viztor had general conduct concerns that were brought up on discord (which is fairly common among editors there). I personally took notice of the article (it covers a subject I care about- namely trade) and made the edits. I never even knew Viztor before this interaction, and they had no reason to believe I would get myself involved.
    I said I had concerns about a bias on your part, and then I provided diffs to substantiate this claim. I did not review every single edit you made and only reviewed significant additions or subtractions to Chinese-related articles. Also, China in this case was shorthand for People's Republic of China (the government). Sorry if that wasn't clear.
    Listen, I really, really, want to work constructively with you, but just take a look at some of the changes you made which concerns sourcing. [32] [33] That second diff was really bad in my opinion because you removed something cited by Reuters but left a statement that was cited to a tweet by Donald Trump. It's hard for me to make sense of that.
    I appreciate your ability to own up in the places you know you were wrong. I also like your passion for the subjects you cover, but I don't like it when that gets in the way of the group's ability to cooperate with one another. We're all on the same team here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. This is not the first time concerns of his questionable behavior has raised, This editor responded in a similar way last time and stated it was just content dispute. When he said that what he is really saying is that we should neglect his conduct issue because this is just a content dispute, that is denial of problem for me. If he do not acknowledge his problem, this will just keep happening, until everyone just get too tired. This is not "the debate just got too heated and I lost control" kind of situation. He was literally throwing words at people who he just met, on first encounter, people who showed gestures to reconcile the difference. That is beyond content dispute that I have no plan to dive into, for that would just be exactly what he want.Viztor (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Syopsis, you cannot continue engaging with Wikipedia in this way. If this is, as you say, a content dispute, then you need to focus on the content and avoid commenting on other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment and these types of remarks degrade the experience for everyone. I would not support a topic ban at this moment, given the lack of a prior formal warning, but going forward I would consider that an applicable remedy if Syopsis doesn't change their behavior. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bumping thread for 7 days. To give admins time to review this.–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 12:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In that case, can an admin formally warn Syopsis about conduct, and remind them that if the behavior continues they will find themselves escalatingly blocked? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ^An acceptable outcome to me (just as much as saying, MJL, there is nothing actionable here. would potentially be). I'd like to see some sort of response from an uninvolved admin. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread is ready for a close and should be pretty simple to close too... Thanks - Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ineedtostopforgetting and disruptive editing

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

    Could somebody please have a look at the edits by this user? They were recently brought to my attention when they developed an interest to articles on Kuril Islands (which is part of Russia internationally recognized by every country except for Japan) and started renaming articles to Japanese names (example) and removing Russian names example). They did this in a dozen of articles. In the discussion of my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#New editor's suspicious edits at Kuril Islands-related articles, they said that they do not see any problems with their edits and they do not understand why I reverted all of them, even after I provided a detailed explanation, however, they stopped doing these edits, and I decided to let it go. Today, I noticed that they were engaged in edit-warring with Calton on a completely unrelated topic. For example, here (second revert) they claim they add sourced info and removed unsourced info, whereas the situation is exactly opposite - the architect's name is in the article and is sourced, the contractor name is nowhere else in the article. If you look at the user's contribution, you see that this is not a isolated case. I would have blocked, but I consider myself involved due to the previous exchange a week ago. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I literally just added the source minutes before you made this. How about you take a look before making another baseless accusation? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, I forgot to mention that the behavior demonstrated here and elsewhere is another ground for the block, along with edit-warring and disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're just going to conveniently ignore what I said about me adding the source BEFORE you made this section. Okay then. You're the one with the 'authority' after all. Are you going to block me for saying this now? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The elephant in the room is that you removed sourced information from the article and edit-warred over iots removal. Repeatedly, in several articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And you actually edit-warred as a response tio a warning for removal of information. If anyone needs more diffs, I can lay out more diffs, but they are pretty obvious from the user contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're still harping over the Kuril Islands articles, the sources there did have the Japanese translations for these islands, and I was merely reflecting it. You accused me of 'edit warring' for that, and I decided not to bother anymore as you're just going to revert it back again. Now, you're making this section over an unrelated article without looking at all the facts, and decided to accuse me again for 'removing sources', despite the fact that the source to the architect's name links to an unrelated dead page (check the source for yourself) that does not even show his name. You said you couldn't find the contractors name 'nowhere else in the article', despite there being a source for it. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just came here as I saw Ineedtostopforgetting's edits on Roppongi Hills Tower, something on my watchlist. I had just reverted their edit on that article as the source doesn't support the claim. All the source shows is that the company claims they worked on it. No supporting evidence in the source, primary source so not reliable, and the source doesn't even claim they were the main contractor only that they worked on it. They may have just designed the hinges for some doors for all the evidence the source provides. So I reverted it as not a suitable source. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's how is going to be, what about the source for the architect? Are you telling me that is a suitable source? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reference was already in article, so I've just added the link to that field. Canterbury Tail talk 12:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is unfortunately that you continue misrepresenting facts even though everybody can check the diffs. Japanese names were in these articles already years ago. You just removed Russian names and moved articles to Japanese names. This is pure disruption, not even part of these edits was in any way useful. If you do not understand this, you must be blocked per WP:CIR. If you do, you should be blocked for disruptive editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely some problematic edits — I just clicked the contribs at random and got this. Sorry, Ineedtostopforgetting, that does not inspire confidence and, if it's representative of your edits overall, isn't tenable. El_C 10:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought it seemed pretty obvious that the Navy of a sovereign country would have it's allegiance towards its head of state, and this is shown for other countries such as China, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. If so, what is the point of 'allegiance' in the military unit infobox then? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Communist Party of China is not the PRC's head of state. Anyway, this was explained to you here. El_C 10:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I let that matter rest and did not revert it back. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that you are too quick to revert, even if you let the matter rest eventually. This sometimes reaches heights of absurdity (example). El_C 11:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to block users for being 'too quick to revert', a majority of users on Wikipedia would be blocked. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been warned multiple times before for disruptive editing and edit-warring, so it is about time for you. Other users can wait.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, no matter how hard I try to defend myself, you're obviously still not going to change your opinion or judgement. It just ain't worth all the time and effort. If you wish to block me so badly, just get on with it already. It's not like there's anything I could do anyways. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the edits, I don't believe Ineedtostopforgetting is being deliberately disruptive. I think there is some learning to go, and some experience to gain. Their habit of adding non-native names as native names in some articles needs to stop, but I don't believe that's a blocking offence unless they deliberately continue it. Their edits appear well intentioned. Maybe a mentor instead of an admonishment? Canterbury Tail talk 12:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ymblanter, The user that you're defending, Calton, is currently edit warring, reverting my constructive edits and accusing me of removing 'material' despite the fact that if you compared the revisions, I was adding more information (with sources). What exactly have I done wrong here? Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I suggest people take a look at this user’s talk page history. They have been warned numerous times (once by me) for things like removal of content, edit warring, and POV. Their response is to immediately archive the warning - usually without comment, although this edit summary stands out and kind of reinforces the attitude you see in their comments here. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, MelanieN, I've only been warned once, which is from you, and not 'numerous times' like you falsely stated. The rest were general notes. Also, I made my first archive on 20th March, after my talk page was created on the 21st January, 2 months prior. That is not 'immediately'. I then archived again on 5th June, a day after your warning. That is again not 'immediately'. Furthermore, is archiving supposed to be an issue here now? I think we have had enough allegations on this section as it is. Ineedtostopforgetting (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no further comment. Your talk page history speaks for itself. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have given Ineedtostopforgetting a 31 hour block for disruptive editing, including lying about the warnings on their talk page. If the disruption continues, the next block will be longer. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Just to note that the user has continued his disruptive practices like repeatedly adding Japanese translations of names to articles where it is not justified [34], and has been blocked a second time by User:Cullen328. Let's not close this yet, since the issues with this user have not been not resolved. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That one is not even a 'translation' but just a Japanese transliteration of the English name Changi Jewel Airport(ジュエル チャンギ エアポート), of zero encyclopedic value. It's like glossing and article on the word 'Please' with pureezu just to get in a Japanese angle. Nishidani (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No. We're not going to do this "Proposal 1", "Proposal 2", ...., "Proposal 10" thing again. Make one proposal that has a chance of passing, and don't stir up massive amounts of drama with the hope that admins will clean up after you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Let's make some decisions, shall we? --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: Temporary ban/block per WP:CIR and/or WP:DISRUPTIVE

    • Support, accused user is blatantly lying about "only being warned once" when their talk page history disapproves that theory. Multiple warnings have been issued, but to no avail. I feel like a temporary block is thus necessary right now. However, the ban should not be permanent as the accused user currently has a clean block log, and such edits would probably not warrant an instant indefinite block. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 2: Let the accused user go with a final stern warning

    Proposal 3: Place the accused user under some form of surveillance so this would hopefully not happen again

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

    Topic ban proposal

    The behavior seems to be continuing his/her tendentious editing, this time at Singapore-related articles. (See [35] and [36].) Japanese is not even an official language in Singapore. I propose, therefore, that Ineedtostopforgetting be banned from adding, changing, or removing translations or foreign names in articles, and from making edits related to Obayashi Corporation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @LaundryPizza03: - that's not Japanese in the second diff. That's Standard Chinese, spoken in Singapore. you got the wrong second diff. Its [37] starship.paint (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am finding this a little confusing. Please clarify your concerns. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    {{subst:DNAU|Ret.Prof}} My concern or Starship.paint's? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably a little of both. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ret.Prof: - I had a misplaced concern because the wrong diff was linked. I provided the correct diff of the offending edit. starship.paint (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles01 behaviour

    Extended content

    I'm at a breaking point with Charles01. Since January he has been formally bashing about me for the past few months. He constantly making callous remarks of my editing even though I kept asking him to help me of how to edit collaboratively on around 2-3 occasions which are included in the diffs but comes out nothing but more condescending comments and antagonising. He tend to call my editing "Vauxford Vanity Project" and create made up phrases such as "Vauxfordy". Almost every edit he does he would at least include something personal about me.

    Diffs of cases where he has taken his edits personally over a user rather then on the content:

    Slipping in personal comments of me e.g "Then again, where a picture taken and uploaded and linked by the one and only Vauxford is involved" [38]

    Another revert which mostly include grievance towards me rather the a practical reason why he reverted my edit [39]

    More personal comments and remarks within his comments about me, including accusation that I god rid of a editor from the project even though that was never my intention. Described my personality as "narcissistic and arrogant" [40]

    Respond after I told him that it isn't a "personal vanity project" [41]

    The personal revert and warning template I put in his talkpage [42] [43] His reply to the template message [44]

    Reply after I told him again that it isn't a personal vanity project [45]

    Audi A2 reverts including more conscending mention about my "vanity project" and using the word "Vauxfordy" as something negative [46] [47]

    Another RfC he created which include a number of personal remarks in his sentence about me [48]

    One of his RfC edit that include many of his personal grief against me [49] [50]

    I do want to come forward that I did called Charles01 "a bully", at the time, I was simply fed up and upset with the brash and condescending commentary he leaves when something to do with me but at the same time I ask and plead many times for him to tell me how to be collaborative which he doesn't, most of the time when I do leave a message on his talkpage asking this, he just dumps everything (including the warning template that I left because I found his revert summary about the Audi Q3 unacceptable) I said onto my talkpage even though it was all addressed to him. [51] [52] [53]

    The Audi Q3 discussion I find unfair and Charles01 wanted my picture gone because it was taken by me. Despite the fact Alexander-93 who made the talk page discussion does the EXACT same type of editing as I do, yet he does get scruntised and made to feel degraded about themselves as Charles01 and other people does to me. Hence why I reverted the edit even after a "consensus" was reached Just to clarify, this wasn't me edit warring or even slow edit warring, at the time I thought the action was justified but after thinking over it a bit more, I felt the purpose was more then a disagreement over a photo replacement. I even added a alterntive photo to try and see if they agree on that because I really disagreed with the picture was being used for that article, but was simply ignored, shortly followed Charles01 added his unheartfelt message which consisted 20% of why the other photo should be used and 80% saying how How I "constantly create edit wars", how my photos are "mediocre", what I'm doing is just a "personal vanity project", saying I am "damaging Wikipedia" and simply saying how much a disruptive person I am and any photo I proposed on these articles should get voided, simply because they were by me.

    I'm not innocent myself and I did messed up a few times but even after trying to improve my way of editing and seeking consensus with people rather then straight out reverting if someone disagree with my edit. It almost feels like Charles01 is simply talking me down with a chance that I would break down and possibly quit Wikipedia or something even though what I'm doing isn't disruptive and even if it was disruptive I had no awareness it is and formally apologise for it. I'm also not doing this to oust Charles01 in any way, I just believe the way he has been treating and approaching me like this is wrong and no editor whatever position they have on Wikipedia should go through that. --Vauxford (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I looked through all of the diffs and I see your frustration with the removal of photos etc. I agree that the editor was terse, however probably annoyed by your failure to get consensus first. My best advice is to get consensus on the talk page. The editor was blunt, but probably not a bully and probably not wrong on the edits. Often editors here (especially on automobile articles) feel like they have to protect every edit and photo on the article. Simply placing a photo without consensus on an auto article will likely always be met with a speedy deletion and a terse remark. I myself have added photos to BMW and to 5 series. The one on BMW was kept the one on 5 series was deleted. I thanked the editor and moved on. So short of it is: get consensus on the talk page before adding anything. I hope that helps. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So removing ones photos because they are "Vauxfordy" and calling it a "personal vanity project" and bringing up a person I used to interact in the past almost in every respond isn't condescending? Half the things he ever said when it comes to me (Spanning from about January 2019) is more of how much a burden I am to everyone rather then the images themselves, and when it is the image, he simply call them my "blind spots" or medicare" it getting to the point that I'm the one to blame simply because I did it, if it any one else such as the user who created the Audi Q3 discussion, they wouldn't get this ridicule at all. As I provided on the diffs I did ask at times to cooperate with me so we don't get in to a mess, despite being long paragraphs they get lead to nowhere or he just simply paste the whole lot back onto my talkpage. --Vauxford (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It was archived as udea, and I am not sure that you deciding it should not be archived is a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The archive was done by a bot. I provided diffs, evidences and everything, how can they not try and evaluate this? They can't just discarded this because it was created by me. This been going on way before anything else prior to that. I don't want to let this get sweep under the rug and forgotten. --Vauxford (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    u|Oshwah I know I shouldn't really ping admins but I talked to you about this before. Please at least look at this, this is nowhere near worst then what I got myself into with the previous discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Re-opening this because he has been archived the 2nd time now since nothing has been done about this. Charles01 has reverted my edit after I replaced a picture that wasn't even discussed, it might of been in the talkpage discussion but it was simply ignored, YET again calling it my "personal vanity project". I'm going to blow a fuse if he going to accuse me of that one more time. Please something be done about this, I really think the talkpage discussion on the Audi Q3 wasn't justified (see Extended content for the original post I did). I tried talking to him, solving it on the talkpage discussion, but now he simply reverting anything I do because he calls it a "personal vanity project". I'm at a dead end here and doing anything else would just become disruptive. Please can this be look at that, I know I can a handful but still this has been going on for half a year now and I don't know what else to do. --Vauxford (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, it's a bit much; but you do also suffer from a conflict of interest when it comes to adding your own work. Best to try to argue for its inclusion on the article talk page rather than inserting it yourself. El_C 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did discuss this on the article talk page, I added a alternative image but it was never discussed except for some opinion about the wing mirrors. I thought because it hasn't been discussed I could use that instead of the one which a consensus have been reached, but even the consensus I find unfair because 80% of the reason for why they choose the grey one over the blue was mostly personal rather then actually talking about the picture. --Vauxford (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to change the consensus by getting wider input, taking advantage of your dispute resolution resources. El_C 21:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one should I pick for this sorta thing though? Also this incident isn't just about the Audi Q3 dispute it the overall misconduct Charles01 has been giving me all this time. --Vauxford (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure. That, indeed, depends on the depth and breadth of your dispute. El_C 00:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [54] Charles01 made another lengthy comment making personal remarks of me rather then the picture itself in another talkpage, this often happens when I start discussion on the talkpage or anything with my name on it and when he gets involved it the comments become personal very quickly. --Vauxford (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C I made a request for comment on the talkpage discussion and I reverted a comment by a user who has already had their said about the photo in the previous discussion. Charles01 reverted that with yet another lengthy comment which mention I have "destructive arrogance", "toxicity" and implying that I edit warring all the time which I don't. I thought RfC was made so users who aren't involved in the previous discussion can have their say? --Vauxford (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody is free to express their viewpoint on a request for comment. You removing that comment was totally inappropriate. Please don't do that again. El_C 14:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake then, sorry. --Vauxford (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    [55] Now it seem one of the users (who is more active on the German Wikipedia) is favouring Charles01 photos over ones that were done by me, the fact isn't whether which one is better, the fact is this user is acting biased by siding with Charles01 on anything now. Alexander-93 was the one who created the Audi Q3 talkpage because he wanted the grey car (which he took himself) to be used. The thing that bothers me the most is he insert his OWN photos into articles both on English and on the many Wikipedia I personally thing their nothing wrong with that as long as it isn't disruptive but I'm the one who been getting all the hassle saying I'm a "destructive user" and is "degrading Wikipedia" by Charles01 and he doesn't. Now I'm predicting that Charles01 gonna revert the recent edits Alexander-93 done with another lengthy scolding about how much a problematic user I am. What I find unfair is the sheer hypocrisy this is becoming and all I am is a scapegoat simply because the photo or edit was done by me. --Vauxford (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Examples of edits Alexander does on many Wikipedias: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]

    [74] Alexander just made another talkpage discussion which is just gonna be the same bias outcome from Charles01 and I'm fearing he just going to continue doing this on any photos taken by me (whether I put them there myself or not) --Vauxford (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not prioritise anybody's photos. I changed the image in the Fiat Panda article since I think it is better! After you reverted my edit I started a new discussion on the talk page. It is the same procedure as I already did for the Tesla Model S and the Audi Q3. It is getting stupid since every edit, in which a picture of you is replaced is endling like this. It seems like not even I have a problem with this behaviour.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexander-93 The photo was taken by Charles01, and recently you have been siding with him for any comment he post about me. I'm going to be honest, I know this may seem rude and unethical because you have every right to edit on here, same with me on the German Wikipedia, but you are mostly active on the German Wikipedia because that your native language, I haven't been making edits/replacement on your Wikipedia because people on there got upset with me because their manual of style for automobiles is different to here which I respect that so I leave them be, same thing happened with me and the Italian Wikipedia so I also leave them alone, As far as I'm aware, it not against any polices to do edits on other Wikipedias unless it disruptive but if people on their really oppose my edits I would leave them alone. Why do you insist of trying to get your own way on here when it not even your main Wikipedia? --Vauxford (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first read the words 'vanity project', 'Vauxfordy' etc. I did not know, what the others meant. I'm not someone who bullies someone and I will never use such words. But after a while working side by side with Vauxford, I can understand the others. And to be true: Since a few days, I'm looking at your and Charles01 edits. But I do not side with anybody! I'm following different users on Wikicommons, who upload (car-)images regularly. And if I'm convinced by an image (as I was for the new Fiat Panda image), I share it on Wikipedia. And it doesn't matter if it's from me or another user. I think this isn't a problem. It seems to me like Vauxford is creating his own rules and if someone says something against him or his edits, it's ending like this. As I mentioned above, I do not prioritise anybody here. I also vote for his images ([75]) or implement them in some articles ([76]), but if I find a better than the existing one, I replace it ([77]). And if someone isn't convinced by my edit, we can discuss. For sure I'm not doing the replacing only with your edits ([78], [79], [80]), but your behaviour is different to others. You do not assume good faith and do not respect the work of other users!
    As El_C mentioned before: Anybody is free to express their viewpoint on a request for comment. And just because English is not my native language and I'm also active in the German Wikipedia, I shouldn't do that in your point of view? I think you have to be careful with statements like this! Your problems in other Wikipedias are not my fault! In the German one there is the guideline to use mainly LHD-vehicles, since 99% of the vehicles in the DACH-countries are delivered with the steering wheel on the left side. And since you didn't stick to that rule, the German users had a problem with your edits. If I see it right, nobody here without you has a problem with some of my edits. But you have a problem with many edits, since I think you are making your own rules - and if I see it right, I'm not the only one thinking about you in this kind of way. So I do not care about your statement, that I should not use the English Wikipedia!--Alexander-93 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Vauxford, while I don't know the full depths of this dispute as it's been mostly outside of my sub-topic area, I've noticed a few things. Your photographs generally range from decent to less-than-passable, but you don't seem to understand that. You also don't seem to understand that replacing one adequate image with another adequate image isn't particularly productive. Whether your intention is to fill Wikipedia with your own pictures or not, your editing pattern gives other editors the impression that you are. I suspect these issues are where Charles01's frustration comes from, and that repeated attempts to get you to see that have left him believing he has no alternative but the unpleasantries you mention above.

    If someone wanted to make a measurable improvement in terms of illustrating automotive articles, one would identify articles where an existing image is lacking and seek out opportunities to replace it, rather than taking photos in mass quantities whether they will be helpful or not. The goal should be to replace poor images with adequate ones; replacing adequate ones with excellent ones is icing on the cake (but in the vast majority of cases, a curbside shot like those you have access to is never going to be at that level). The point of having images in the articles is to provide the reader with a reasonable idea of what the vehicle looks like. As long as an existing image does that, ad nauseum discussions of whether a new image is a 1% improvement or a 1% detriment are wholly unproductive. --Sable232 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgery: Other editors write fake message alleged to be from me

    I've removed the offending signature. Don't add it back. Fences&Windows 06:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikipedia users Sam Sailor, LauritzT and Dicklyon are engaged in forgery. They start a discussion that they know is doomed, but instead of their own signature, they use mine.

    Here is the first diff.

    Here is the second diff.

    And here is the last diff. While perhaps the other two are just lazy and don't want to verify that I never wrote the original message in the talk page, Dicklyon actually knows this message is copied and pasted from elsewhere.

    If anyone wants to start their own discussion, they are welcome; just use your own and your own sig.

    5.219.86.66 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no "forgery" here, it is a contested RM/TR. Best, Sam Sailor 05:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And I never said the it was a money forgery or other forms of forgery. Do not start disscussions on my behalf. Start you own, use your own sig. 5.219.86.66 (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: User Baffle gab1978 has joined the harassment and forgery party. Diff. If anyone wants to move a page, they are more than welcome to start their own discussion, with their own words and their own signatures, not MY signature. 06:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Update 2: User Sam Sailor continues to harass me by posting template messages in my talk page, despite his knowledge that this discussion is in progress and the legitimacy of the message I am deleting is in question. This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Here is the diff: [81]. Notice the time stamp. 5.219.86.66 (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @5.219.86.66: – Sam Sailor was transferring your original post from RM/TR to the article's talk page, which is where requested moves are usually discussed. Your comment, including your signature, was copied along with it. Apart from uncontroversial fixes (e.g. spelling and grammar, reverting vandalism), requested moves are generally discussed on article talk pages to determine whether or not there is a consensus in favor of renaming. RM/TR is intended more for situations where a page move is prevented by some sort of technical issue, such as the destination page being move-protected or already existing. Kurtis (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • I forgot to add that moving pages is not technically restricted for editors to do without discussion, but if a page move is contested, a talk page discussion becomes mandatory. Kurtis (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, I think that's wrong. It would be better to just inform that person who filed the RMTR request that if they still want to move the page then they need to open a discussion. In this case, he did not want to, as it will clearly lose. Dicklyon (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      You'll get no disagreement from me. With only a handful of exceptions, I always favor getting people's thoughts on something before taking action that will affect multiple parties. Kurtis (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Querying User:Fences and windows to explain their actions and their closure above. (A) Under which purview did they remove the signature of another editor on Talk:Al-Tusi in Special:Diff/902192930? (B) Why did they leave the edit summary "Stop signing on someone else's behalf" when nobody had done so, and do they in hindsight understand why nobody had done so? (C) Why was the above closed on the notion that the signature was offending rather than addressing the facts that the IP editor (1) already had blanked the talk page discussion five times, four of these, in breach with 3RR, within 19 hours prior to filing above, and (2) had expressed a clear intent of returning and move the article in spite of the move being contested? Sam Sailor 18:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sam Sailor, the IP editor did not make that initial post on the talk page. You did. Your edit was done in good faith, moving their comment from elsewhere, but the IP editor objected. Instead of accepting their wish to not have it appear that they made that comment, you and others repeatedly reverted them. That escalated things, which could be defused by removing their signature. I could have blocked the IP editor, but I didn't need to be so harsh. If they move the page despite discussion, then we can revisit this. Fences&Windows 21:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, I hate to invoke BOOMERANG, but as another admin who was reviewing in real time, their request to not sign the post to them when then didn't make it was reasonable, and it was disruptive and harrassing to keep doing it, even if borderline policy compliant. It was very clear to me from the first thing they posted what they'd objected to. Sam Sailor, if you did not understand that, please go back and re-read their posts and replies. If you didn't feel that was a legitimate objection, please step back and reconsider. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (←) I am surprised by the replies here that show a lack of understanding of process. The statement "Stop signing on someone else's behalf" by Fences and windows (F&S) and the statement "and their request to not sign the post to them" by Georgewilliamherbert are both misunderstandings. Nobody has signed the IPs post.

    A. Process:
    Running userhist.js on history of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests I notice that neither F&S nor Georgewilliamherbert have ever edited at RM/TR. Let me expand on Kurtis' comments above and explain how things work at RM/TR.
    When a move request is filed as uncontroversial but is contested by another editor, it is sent to discussion on the article talk page. This is standard operating procedure, and it is {{RMassist}} that preloads the talk page section with the original posts from WP:RM/TR, see {{RMassist/editintro}}, and that includes both the original, signed request, subsequent comments made at RM/TM, and in this case a level-3 survey heading with instructions. The RM then runs for the normal minimum period of seven days, like any other RM, with the participation of other editors.

    B. IP edit warring:
    If the editor on 5.219.86.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had removed the discussion from Talk:Al-Tusi with a reasonable edit summary along the line "I withdraw the RM and I'm fine with the article staying at the current title" I would perhaps have thought "OK, let's apply NOTBURO to the situation" and I would not have done further about it. But that is not the case here.
    Here 5.219.86.66 removes the discussion in Special:Diff/902046641 with the edit summary

    "Removing the discussion. I'm the original poster. There is no point waiting for a community that does not exist, in the talk page of an obscure dab page. It is easier that I sign up for an account and just do it. Sure the community can revert... the non-existent community."

    That shows a clear intention of disruptively circumventing community discussion in order to make the move at a later date despite objections. On top of that, it is a WP:TPO violation as it removed comments by other editors, and therefor the IP was reverted by me, LauritzT, and Baffle gab1978.

    C. Actions and comments:
    I don't know under which purview if any F&S "[accepted IPs] wish to not have it appear that they made that comment" and removed the signature in Special:Diff/902192378/902192702. They seem to realize that they removed attribution, and inserted the IP number in Special:Diff/902192702/next. There is nothing "offending" about IPs signature.

    User:Georgewilliamherbert contends on the mistaken basis that anybody "sign[ed] the post to them" that reverting IPs five TPO violations "was disruptive and harrassing [sic]"; I'd venture to suggest that they undertake a reread of our P&Gs now they are back from a 2-year hiatus. Their "I hate to invoke BOOMERANG" should presumably be understood as a veiled threat to block LauritzT, and Baffle gab1978, and me, and I am quite "amused". WP:BOOMERANG is a concept we apply to the reporter, here the IP, not the editors being reported. Sam Sailor 21:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The first revert of the IP was reasonable, but everything after that was not. It would have been one thing if you had quoted the IP, but instead you created the appearance that he had posted to the talk page himself. That is not itself a disruptive act, but once it was made clear in the IP's second edit summary that this is what he objected to, that changed. Satisfying his concern regarding the use of his own signature would have been a trivial matter if anyone had bothered to do it, but instead, experienced and normally reasonable editors decided to war over something insignificant and threaten the other party with the possibility of being blocked. This has ultimately resulted in a couple orders of magnitude more time and effort being spent than were actually necessary, which is far more disruptive than altering a signature. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sam Sailor, I think you're annoyed because the IP editor was "breaking the rules" and you reported them for vandalism/warring, but you didn't get what you wanted and people are criticising you instead. I was not aiming to narrowly apply policy, but to resolve the situation (a mountain out of a molehill) without anyone getting blocked or further disruption. That seems to have been achieved other than your objections here. Please let this lie and please don't ping me further about this. Fences&Windows 06:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LilBillWilliams a.k.a. BobRoberts14

    LilBillWilliams (talk · contribs) formerly BobRoberts14 (talk · contribs) has been editing for about a week and has accumulated nearly 700 edits between their two accounts. They claim to be a newbie, which...I'll take their word for it. My concern is that while Bill/Bob's intentions are clearly good, they are wasting a lot of other people's time with WP:Randy in Boise behavior. Their typical MO is to seek out an article about a controversial subject, make some BOLD controversial changes, reinstate those changes when they're reverted by another editor, and then engage in long, defensive, circular arguments on the talk page. I've already issued multiple warnings, topic-banned them from American Politics, and I suspect they may eventually be topic banned from the Abortion topic area as well ([82] [83]).

    I'm not sure of the best approach to take with enthusiastic, overconfident, young (as in teen-age) users. I don't want to indef the next generation of Wikipedia editors, but I also hate to see so many current editors getting bogged down with monitoring their edits and trying to explain policy while being accused of harassment. I know I don't have the time to review their edits as much as they need reviewing. I think some kind of restriction would be helpful, maybe a global WP:0RR, or some kind of mentorship (if anybody's interested). Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. As one of the users who posted on their talk page at least a few times recently [ever since they made a botched AIV report (link], and as an newer editor who has been adopted, I feel like mentorship would be a great idea for Bill! I normally don't review their edits except as it comes up in my watchlist, so I thought I should make that clear. However, in getting the link for that AIV report, I found this MFD. Need I say more?
      They're very clearly new to Wikipedia and in need of some dire help to be productive. While it would be a lot of work in the short term for whoever takes on that task, in the long term the project would gain a really bright young editor. Bill has a lot of potential were they to leave their current path, so that is the scenario I would most like to see. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've tried to help so far (haven't scrutinized every single edit though), but I fear I don't have much time in the future to do so. Certainly, a very WP:BOLD editor that definitely needs to learn more policies. That first abortion diff, yikes. Bill, you need a reliable source! Here's some advice, Bill. Pretty much everyone here is more experienced than you. If we're telling you you've done something wrong, you should be open to listening - because we're speaking from a place of much more experience than yours. starship.paint (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry for the intrusion, I'd just like to comment. Although I did make many mistakes at the start, I have not been involved in any edit wars with this current account. When someone reverted my edits, I instead took it to the talk page. So although you're right about me doing that in the past, I am reading over policies/guidelines and will try not to do that in the future. Also, I'm not just "claiming to be a newbie", I most certainly am. I've only been editing for a week and a day, so I don't know as much as you guys/girls do. Bill Williams (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      LilBillWilliams, You are on Gainesville, Florida. You just reverted a revert of one of your edits and I had to revert it back. You were asked to stop editing the lead without getting consensus in the talk page but you continue to do so. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 14:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - as one of the early editors to take notice of his behavior, I offered to help him but there is only so much one can do. It appears he is taking some of the right steps with the new account. I see the biggest issue being his unfamiliarity with community standards, and quite frankly prevailing ideologies and biases. How do we teach that from a NPOV? Atsme Talk 📧 14:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This user (BobRoberts14/LilBillWilliams) has recently been discussed on the edit warring noticeboard and

    here. Today LilBillWilliams made a bold edit to Gainesville, Florida, which I reverted and he then re-reverted without discussion. He does not seem to be learning WP:BRD. - Donald Albury 14:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Your sentence was a run-on and had a total of 5 commas in it, so I removed the unnecessary end part of it. "Gainesville is the county seat and largest city in Alachua County, Florida, United States, and the principal city of the Gainesville, Florida, metropolitan statistical area," is a run-on sentence, and the last part about the metro area is unnecessary. I haven't seen any other city article saying that the city is in a certain metro area in the first sentence. Obviously it is the principle city in the Gainesville metro area. Anyone who can read would figure that out in a second, since it literally has "Gainesville" in the name. Trying to argue about that doesn't make any sense. @PopularOutcast: of course having that in the sentence is redundant. It says the Gainesville Metro area a few sentences later. Bill Williams (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This where you get into trouble. Five commas does not make this sentence a run on sentence. It is not a run on sentence. Donald did not edit that sentence to be a run on sentence; it has been the lead sentence for a long time. Comments like "anyone who can read would figure that out in a second" is one of the reasons that you are having so much trouble. This isn't an online game where we put each other down. We are trying to make this better and you just keep on editing based on faulty information about things that you think you know ... like if something is a run on sentence. I reverted you. Told you why and you come back arguing the same thing. It's exhausting. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 15:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It being a run-on sentence isn't even the main reason it should be removed. It's a long sentence either way, and I said ""anyone who can read would figure that out in a second" about it being in the metro area, so don't try to use my words for something else. Those words are perfectly accurate. Read the name of the metro area, and the name of the city. You can tell the city is in the metro area. It is stated three sentences later. There is no need to have that in the first sentence. Tell me one other article about a 130,000+ city that is the principle one in its metro area and includes that in the first sentence. Almost no articles are like that. Bill Williams (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, I reverted a single person's edit one time. That's not a violation of the three revert per day rule, and wouldn't even be a violation if the article had a one revert policy. Bill Williams (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it isn't just controversial articles. The editor has been editing Gainesville, Florida, and a few editors have spent a lot of time trying to educate him/her. Continues the same behavior. Just look at the talk page there. Has apologized at least twice to me but then does the same thing again. I know it has been a short while since the editor has started but in that time I've had little time to do any other editing since I've spent so much time dealing with this user. I ended up taking a wikibreak partially because this user has been tremendously frustrating and I feel that my efforts to educate are getting nowhere. The only reason I came back today is because I was alerted by email with a ping from the user. I am frustrated and I know it's coming across in my tone and my comments and I know that ends up not being effective. I am at a loss as what to do. I had already brought this user to AN/I previously but I had never reported anyone before and apparently did not do a good job of it. Still, the report did not help user with edits. I, too, welcome new and enthusiastic editors even if they make mistakes, but in an environment like Wikipedia I don't know how to assure that someone understands the basic tenets before allowing them to continue to edit. Anyhoo, my two cents. I am sure that the more experienced editors and administrators can come to a decision that works. THanks for helping out. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding - just based on the editor's comments here, I would suggest a time-limited IP ban so the editor has time to read through the educational material that Wikipedia provides. This behavior of being argumentative then showing contrition has been seen several times but the problematic behavior continues. A more permanent solution could be used if the editor comes back and exhibits the same behavior. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 17:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That won't be necessary, since if me debating things is just causing more trouble, then I will just back off and not argue about anything at all. I guess if someone reverts my edits I'll just have to ignore that and move on. If I'm not able to ask questions or debate things, then so be it. Bill Williams (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The main problem with what I have done is that I know about the topics, so I think I am right too often. I agree completely that I am not always right, but I can go too far in trying to prove that I am. I promise that I am not at all biased ideologically or politically Atsme, it's just that I know a lot about the topics and try to prove that I am right by arguing. I am just not good at debating things, as you can tell. So because this is obviously a problem, I'll just have to stick to mainly copy editing or adding citations to articles instead of debating more controversial things. Bill Williams (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I get it, but there was absolutely no need for that to be in the first sentence. Again, you didn't give me other Wikipedia articles where the Metropolitan Area is mentioned in the first sentence. You can't just say "you didn't provide sources" about anything and everything I do. I made the original edit, then you reverted it first, because you thought it was incorrect. Saying that a city is the principle city in it's metro are does not need to be in the first sentence. The sentence was already more than long enough. Bill Williams (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Here’s another comment for LilBillWilliams - it’s important you remember that Wikipedia today is the sum total of many, many editors edits, and some articles are even over 15 years old. Every well-meaning editor thinks their edits are correct. So, the more popular (or controversial) an article, the more eyes (and edits) there will be on them. Articles like Donald Trump, same-sex marriage, abortion, Israel-Palestine, Gamergate, I think editors have been ‘fighting’ over them for very long. There must be a reason why the articles are currently this way, and that is effectively the decision (consensus) of the community over a period of years. So if you happen to think something is really wrong about the article, and want to make a WP:BOLD change, don’t be too combative. Even in non-controversial articles like Gainsville, the leads of the articles are probably heavily scrutinised because they are of course the first things people read - so it’s not often that there are major errors in them. starship.paint (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That's good point, and I am not stupid enough to think that I am more experienced or know more than every other editor. That would be really dumb. I definitely agree that many people edit controversial articles to try and make them the way they believe, which is normally just good overall, but sometimes in a biased manner. I just can be too argumentative when I think I'm right about something, so I'll try not to be in the future. Bill Williams (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Get used to being in "learn" mode for a couple of years. I've been at it heavily for six years and a lot of it still baffles me. For some things, I probably wouldn't understand if I had edited for a hundred years. It's all about consensus and the ability to defer to consensuses you disagree with. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haven't read the above but just wanted to add Bob originally stated they'd only use one account however as of today they've used both accounts (which apparently was to get around the 4 day restriction on their new account)[84][85] - Anywho prior to all that I had redirected their Bob account back to the Bill one however if anyone disagrees with this they're more than welcome to revert my actions, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This editor argued that imposing sanctions on Russia is one of Donald Trump's most noteworthy policies. His current inability to grasp our community standards aside, I disagree with MJL's assessment that this editor is "really bright" with "a lot of potential." There is a long-term CIR problem here, in my view. R2 (bleep) 18:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't try to misquote me. I never said "most noteworthy", that's a complete lie. I literally said "it is too minor to belong in the lead... I was just giving an example of one of his policies." Again, you were angry at me because I mentioned how you once told an administrator to "fuck off". I shouldn't have used that against you, but it doesn't mean you can lie. Bill Williams (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove "most noteworthy" and I can agree with the rest. Otherwise you're just insulting me and lying. Bill Williams (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff stands for itself. The CIR issue isn't so much your view on noteworthiness; it's your belief that increasing sanctions on Russia is one of Trump's policies. R2 (bleep) 19:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not as much of a "policy" as it is a minor part of the presidency. Again though, tell me what https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/03/trump-signs-russia-sanctions-bill-moscow-calls-it-trade-war.html is talking about. There are other sources as well. He did increase sanctions on Russia, but that was not a major policy of his. I would not say that it is "major" at all. Bill Williams (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And you edited my comment in this very thread--twice. [86][87] Yeah, I think this is hopeless. R2 (bleep) 19:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I still don't see why you are involving yourself in this. You've told administrators to f off, so you cant't just come here and say "it's hopeless". I edited out two false words from your statement, then realized you aren't supposed edit other people's comments, so I reverted it. What a deal changer. Bill Williams (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What seems hopeless is me asking is you to stop bothering me, but I guess you never will. Bill Williams (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now the third discussion in which you've brought up that, six months ago, I told Awilley to fuck off. [88][89] After the second time, I warned you that I'd report you for harassment if you did it again. So here we are. R2 (bleep) 19:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the only thing you've done. What I am saying is that your blatant insults are just bothersome. They aren't necessary at all. This is about me and what I have done, but not for you to just lie and insult me. Bill Williams (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Since it seems as if I am not helping the community by debating things when people revert my edits, I guess I will just have to not ask questions or defend my edits. That's okay I guess, so I'll instead try to actually help the community starting in a few days (when I'm free from school work) by making less controversial edits about grammar, spelling, sources, etc. Sorry for causing trouble, I was just trying to help. But since it seems as if I am not helping, I should obviously do something else. Bill Williams (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I wanted to chip in here with Bill's activity on Fetal viability. He made a bold set of edits that I disagreed with comprehensively. I reverted and listed reasons on the talk page. He reinstated one of the edits immediately without consensus. This was at 0044 June 18th. This is a strong pattern. Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean I reinstated a part of the edit a single time because you said nothing on the talk page? Look at the time of the edit, and see that you hadn't said anything yet. Putting back a single part of an edit one time is not a major issue. Then when you reverted my edit for a second time, I spoke on the talk page. Bill Williams (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that's the one. I made a comment with my edit: "Reverting to last edit before LilBillWilliams made multiple edits; see talk page for description of multiple issues with edits." It took me eleven minutes to have my comment in the talk page, but it only took you five minutes to... I don't know? Assume that I wasn't going to say anything? Assume that my reason for reverting your edit was wrong? And reinstate an unsupported claim in the lede. Triacylglyceride (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    First, some people have told me that "lead" only applies to news stories, and that "lead" should be used for wikipedia. Second, I only reinstated part of my edit, and it was not "unsupported". It was sourced. I deleted something saying that the point of viability is 28 weeks, and replaced it with 24. I also provided a source, and offered more. How is that unsupported? Again, you reverted my edit twice, not the other way around. I reverted it once and then went to the talk page instead of reverting it further. Even if you disagreed, you could have just talked about it first. Bill Williams (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I would urge the new editor to recognize that a dash of humility, both epistemic and personal, goes a long way. I see many minor issues in this thread that don't particularly bother me, but I also see an overall attitude that strikes me as quite troublesome. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid: I agree that I haven't been a nice guy in this thread, and I am sorry for that. It's just bothers me somewhat to hear certain accusations that are false, and even the ones that are true still annoy me sometimes. I'm just very defensive, so when people revert my edits, I debate with them. That isn't the best attitude sadly, so I am trying to improve it. Thanks for commenting on this issue either way . Bill Williams (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    After giving this some thought, I'd like to propose a custom sanction to directly deal with what I see as the root problems.

    LilBillWilliams is subject to the following sanctions:

    *If an edit that LilBillWilliams makes is challenged by reversion, LilBillWilliams may not reinstate that edit without a clear consensus on the talk page.

    *To prevent WP:BLUDGEONING, LilBillWilliams may only make one (1) edit per day to any article talk page. (Thank very carefully about what you want to say.)

    This sanction may be appealed no sooner than 1-year and only with the approval of an experienced editor with whom LilBillWilliams has undergone a mentorship.

    (Note: on the talk page sanction that's one edit per day, not edit per 24-hour period. It averages out, and counting that many 24-hour periods is too much of a burden. Also, that's one edit, not one post.) I realize there are admins who would sooner just indef-block than fiddle with custom sanctions, but I'd like to give something like this a try first, assuming I haven't lost patience and indef-blocked before this closes. ~Awilley (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that not allowing me to reinstate my edits without getting consensus would work, but to do that I need to be able to talk a lot more than one message per talk page. How about, if I go on for too long in a talk page (which I will try not to do), any admin can tell me that I am not allowed to argue about that specific thing any longer? That way I can continue to participate in talk pages, but I can be stopped from arguing for too long. Bill Williams (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One edit per talk page would just be way too low. If I proposed something, I would not be able to comment further on my proposal, or if someone asked about it, I would not be able to clarify anything. Bill Williams (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think that a year is too long of a period. If I am active and contribute to the community (multiple dozen edits per day on articles), how about an appeal is possible after a month? Bill Williams (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support Awilley's proposal, it seems amply justified. As Dumuzuid says, there's a troublesome attitude, in this thread and even more on his own talkpage. I'm not really impressed by BillWilliams saying that he's trying to improve it, because, well, it just doesn't seem to be working. He has posted a whole lot of badgering and bludgeoning and nagging today. But you're not saying he already has a mentor, are you, Awilley? More that in order to appeal the sanction, he needs to have a mentor at that time? OK. This may sound mean, but I'm not sure I'd recommend a constructive editor to use their Wikipedia time for mentoring this user, unless he really shows a different attitude, right now. The way he wore out BullRangifer's good will and attempts at advice on his own page reads like a terrible warning to any prospective mentor. As for your response just above, Bill Williams, saying "any admin" can always tell you to stop arguing, I understand your perspective there, but I'm afraid it's a dud. There aren't that many admins around the talkpages, and Awilley's point with an edit a day is to stop you wasting other users' time, whether or not there happens to be an admin watching. They should definitely not have to go ask an admin, either. But I actually agree with you that a year is a very long time for such restrictions. A month is a very short time, though. Awilley, would you consider an appeal after three months or six months? Bishonen | talk 21:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    You didn't make any mention of one edit per day on any talk page. That would not make any sense, since allowing me to not revert edits requires me to be able to access a talk page. Also, I did not tell BullRangifer to stop bothering me or say anything rude to them, so I didn't just "wear out" their good will. As for the months, I would say three months at max. Any more than that is a long time for sanctions on me. Bill Williams (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know the one-edit-per-talk-page restriction seems harsh, but honestly, I think it might be a good thing. With all respect, I believe you really need to take some time to consider your responses. I absolutely think you are competent and want to improve the encyclopedia, but right now, you are choosing battles which are nothing but downside for both you and the editors with whom you interact. This response seems a good example of that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dumuzid: For this specifically, I don't see what's wrong with commenting on what Bishonen said. I'm just responding and stating my opinions. The one edit per talk page doesn't make any sense though if you want me to be able to work with others on edits. Say someone suggests an edit to my proposal. I can't respond and work with them on said proposal. What could be done is if I obviously and just arguing at some point, call me out on it. If I don't stop then, I get blocked for some time. If I do stop after being asked though, then we can just move on. If I repeatedly have to be asked to stop though, then I could be blocked for multiple more days. Bill Williams (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As you said, I do really want to help out the wiki, and I agree that so far I have not done a good job by arguing. But how am I supposed to prove myself if I am not allowed to talk/collaborate on any talk pages? Bill Williams (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You "prove" yourself by following the restriction and learning to make your points clearly, concisely, and logically, instead of filibustering. ~Awilley (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate Awilley's thoughtful approach, though it seems quite cumbersome for Bill and the editors he interacts with. Enforcement could also get quite messy. I'm inclined to suggest something much simpler, that Bill be topic-banned from editing articles (and associated content discussions) until he's found a mentor. R2 (bleep) 21:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ahrtoodeetoo: that could definitely work, but which topics specifically? I could understand politics "indefinitely", i.e. until I can prove that I won't argue as much. Bill Williams (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All topics until you find a mentor. R2 (bleep) 22:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So I don't get to edit any articles, anywhere? What even is the point of talking about it then? If that's what you want, then (whoever agrees with you) just block me right now. Why waste time debating it if you just want to block me completely forever? I get that I made mistakes, but the other people who have been blocked permanently in this talk page were normally much worse. Topic banning is not banning me from all topics. One makes sense, the other doesn't. Bill Williams (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be satisfied with Awilley's restriction, subject to appeal in 3 months, coupled with a topic ban on DS topics the user was warned about, also subject to appeal in 3 months. El_C 22:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentorship also is definitely a good idea, if the user is able to swing that. El_C 22:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: I would also be fine with an appeal in three months, me not being able to reinstate edits of mine that people remove without going to the talk page, and a topic ban on post 1932 American politics. But one edit per talk page would not allow me to reasonably get consensus for something or participate in any conversation. Mentorship would also be nice, I just hope I don't waste their time like I sadly have with some people already... Bill Williams (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also include abortion to that list — not sure about BLPs. The talk page restriction is about your tendency to bludgeon discussions. El_C 22:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand that, but could it at least be higher than one? Maybe just five? That way I wouldn't be able to go on for a long time arguing about something, but could explain my points clearly and concisely. Bill Williams (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is sanction negotiation a thing? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything's a negotiation when you're a master with the bludgeon. R2 (bleep) 00:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fine with everyone else here commenting, but Ahrtoodeetoo needs to just stop. His comment above is just another insult. Most of his comments, such as "this is hopeless", saying that I have a "CIR problem", which literally means that I am incompetent, and others in different talk pages are just rude to me and not civil. They are just insults. Can you please stop Ahrtoodeetoo? Bill Williams (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    His editing interests are eclectic. He has been a problem at Gainesville, Florida as well. He has been a drain on time and energy for several editors there. I favor the tightest restrictions that the community is willing to impose on him. - Donald Albury 00:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would be more lenient and grant two edits to talk pages per day. In case they need to make a correction. starship.paint (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, definitely more than one edit. If someone says "well what about we do ... instead" I would literally not be allowed to respond if I could only edit once per day. Bill Williams (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be more lenient as well. Kid is off school and he has time and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt (no matter how personally frustrated I am) that s/he will be constructive. I would give two to three edits on a talk page with the restrictions going on for three to six months. I agree with the mentor part but if the mentor sees the behavior continue and not improve significantly, then maybe a block. For instance if s/he is seen significantly editing his comments or those of others, that would be cause for immediate block. No appeal until this shorter-than-a-year time period is over. I don't have an opinion on the topic ban. I don't know how troublesome all this is to implement so I will agree with whatever is the easiest, even if it goes against my suggestions. I do appreciate the thoughtful approach and everyone's help here. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 01:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @PopularOutcast: I completely agree with what you said. I think three edits per talk page would be less than what I want, but still enough to contribute a little bit. And about three months sounds like a good amount of time, so hopefully I can improve by then instead of six months. Bill Williams (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on today's behavior of
    1. editing the lead of Gainesville, Florida, to be something not close to what we are working on on the talk page diff,
    2. after being asked to stop editing the lead until we come to a consensus [90] [91],
    3. and deleting his and others comments on the talk page diff [92] after being told several times by different people on different pages that this is not good form
    As I was looking for examples for my list, I saw that the suggested restriction has been implemented. I am not sure that the restriction is going to help the editor become a better editor. I am adding this so the administrators know about the continuing behavior and I retract my more lenient proposal. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 16:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a single to the edit to the article. That is more than allowed. I did not revert anyone else's edit after they reverted mine. You then said go to the talk page, which I did. How is that a problem? Bill Williams (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not say "don't edit the lead without getting consensus first", you said to include the metropolitan area in the lead, so I did. My edit did not go against what you had told me. Bill Williams (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you are allowed to remove a comment about personal information that is unnecessary. My edit did not go against the guidelines on redacting information. Bill Williams (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure it does - WP:TPO, WP:REDACT. However, as the diffs above show, you not only deleted your own comments but those of another editor. Now you've gone back and only deleted your own edits. We are trying to be collaborative with the lead and an editor even asked for your opinion, but then you just went ahead and changed it to what you thought it should be. As Donald says belows, it does not seem that you are in a collaborative mood. Now you've made three edits in a row here even though the reasoning behind your talk page sanction is because of your WP:BLUDGEONing behavior. Also, you are simply lying. You discussed the lead in the talk page before my revert. There are time stamps, y'know. /head_desk PopularOutcasttalk2me! 18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    LilBillWilliams You edited the lead of the article while a discussion was under way on the talk page about the lead, without regard to that discussion. That goes against Wikipedia:Consensus. I am not willing to give you a pass on not knowing one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. You removed other user's comments along with your comments. That is what is not acceptable. In any case, your comment is still visible in the page history. - Donald Albury 18:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that my edit was acceptable because you guys had just disputed me removing the metro area from the lead. I am sorry for misunderstanding, and will be more careful in the future. I'll just stay clear of that article, since I sadly am not being helpful. Also, I did not know that my edit went against guidelines, since I do not know them as well as you. I believed that I could remove that from the talk page. But again, don't call me a liar for being confused. I did not just try to go against what you wanted, I didn't think I was doing something that you disliked. I thought my edit would be acceptable to you and Donald. Bill Williams (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think BobRobert14/LilBillWilliams has amply demonstrated both WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE. I know that we have had productive and collaborative editors of his self-reported age, but he is not there yet. Maybe in a year or two he will be able to return to Wikipedia in a more collaborative mood. - Donald Albury 17:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been staying away from this ANI thread, but there seems to be no end to the disruption, good intentions or not. I have to agree with Donald Albury's assessment. Meters (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added that article (and related ones) to their editing restriction. Let's give em one more chance to see if they can edit without getting into trouble. Though I agree this is starting to become a bit much. El_C 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK with one more try, but I think the rope is now fully stretched.. Meters (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    Events have moved passed this thread... just documenting. starship.paint (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • El C and Awilley topic banned LilBillWilliams from American politics and abortion, subject to appeal in 3 months. LilBillWilliams can only use an individual article talk page once per day, subject to appeal in 3 months.
    • On 20 June 2019, LilBillWilliams was blocked 48 hours by El C for violating the topic ban on American politics.
    • After LilBillWilliams returned, on 23 June 2019, LilBillWilliams was blocked 72 hours by Cullen328 for disruptive edits. Kudpung declined the block appeal. starship.paint (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) - massive removals of cited materials, editing restrictions are in place

    Some massive removals of cited material at Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 94.66.220.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 94.66.220.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 94.66.220.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) involved. There is an page notice prohibiting more than one revert in 24 hours, and I did this less than 24 hours ago. Please could Admins take a look>? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Has anyone really look up to tye credibility of the citations used? Both of the authors are widely recognized for Turk-favoring interpretation and presentation of historical events. Furthermore, there are opinions of people without scientific recognition on the issue, just presented in order to make the reader more favourable towards tye Turk side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.220.148 (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistently disruptive anon 82.132.244.0/22

    IP range:

    Example IPs:

    Deliberate errors, joking edits, pointless edits to targeted articles:

    Actions other than mentioned above:

    Blocks, warnings, requests don't help after yesterday's warnings and requests — see 82.132.246.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Proposing long term block on relevant IPrange 82.132.244.0/22.

    Notified recent IP on User talk:82.132.246.173. - DVdm (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for compiling all this, DVdm; it's certainly been an ongoing problem. A couple pages have been protected, but that doesn't seem to be helping much, as this user just moves on to another one or several. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The math-related contributions from this range are presumably all disruptive. There might be other people in the range who don't edit math. I've looked around to see if any good-faith contributors might be affected, but the overall percent of vandalism from this range seems high, even if it's not all the same person. So I'd propose a range block on the /22 of two weeks or more. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) This is quite possibly the funniest vandalism I've seen reported on this noticeboard (particularly the assertion that 3*3 approximately equals 9). creffett (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's not so funny the 10th time you see it. --JBL (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rangeblocked for 72 hours; it's credible that it should be extended for a while. Input on duration sought. I am wondering if this is a school based on some of the behavior, not finding good identification data. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I had seen that. There was nothing math related before that, except that this arguably thing seems to have started a few days before your diff with this edit from another location: 81.108.77.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This one belongs to a much smaller, less active range 81.108.77.0/24, and from another region. - DVdm (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    IP hopping ban evader

    Over the past few days someone (I don't know who) has been repeatedly showing up on my talk page to evade their ban. They seem to have some sort of axe to grind regarding the Fram situation and also seem keen on editing the article about Bethnal Green.

    The IPs used on my talk page have been (starting with the most recent):

    I'm going offline for a few hours now, so this is a request for others to be aware. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It's WP:LTA/VXFC, and yes, the have an axe to grind with much of Wikipedia and many of its admins. They using the Fram situation to piggyback their main campaign, which is against Future Perfect at Sunrise I believe. WP:RBI is pretty much the established response  :) ——SerialNumber54129 10:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Best thing is for admins to watchlist Thryduulf's TP and indef the IPs who post super-massive rants. Or semi-protect Thryduulf's TP and watchlist WP:FRAM and indef the IPs who post "Oppose" with snarky edit summaries. The IPs all geolocate to the London general area. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    My reversion/speedy deletion of the AfD nomination of Shooting of David Ortiz

    Just to insure that there is no question of propriety, I note here that I reverted an IP addition of an AfD tag at Shooting of David Ortiz, and deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of David Ortiz, created by a newly established account following the addition of the AfD nomination tag. I did this because the IP address that added the tag, 129.100.255.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has previously stalked User:Geo Swan and vandalized articles that Geo Swan has edited (see here and here), and added this tag to the article not long after GeoSwan had edited the article and initiated a talk page discussion. The AfD was created by User:NeoKnowsBest, a new account with no other edits, which circumstances suggest is merely an extension of the IP account. Of course, legitimate proposals can always be made to suggest that a subtopic should be merged into its supertopic, but I deemed this to be sufficiently within the pattern of previous stalking/vandalism by this IP to undo the actions altogether. bd2412 T 20:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks okay to me; thanks. All the best, Miniapolis 22:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, good call indeed. User:NeoKnowsBest is CU blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, all. bd2412 T 01:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Might have been better to let the AfD run to "speedy keep". Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider it a ‘CSD G5: Creations by banned or blocked users’ deletion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anyone figure out what's going on here? This user (users?) has been, without leaving an edit summary, removing links to studenti.it from talk page archives. Or, I should say, at least from talk page archives, because the only way I noticed was that those edits tripped filter 973 (hist · log). So the damage might be much more widespread, since the IP is so dynamic that I can't even find what else they've been up to, or attempt to communicate with them. Has anyone else seen this? Should the links be removed, for some reason I'm missing? (User not notified; it's unlikely that they're still at any of those IPs.) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    They may have good intentions but we may never know! Regardless, they shouldn’t be removing these links from talk pages archives. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I had assumed based on the IPs that he was switching networks, but no, that appears to be a single pool of dynamic addresses. What an insane ISP. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And they're not all dead links... IPs and website Italian, it seems (but hosted in the US). —PaleoNeonate – 02:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at some /16 ranges on either side of each IP address, for what it was worth, and saw no other edits to talk page archives so hopefully Suffusion of Yellow caught them all. The site itself appears to be a student portal and probably not the sort of thing we would want to use as a source: there are only a couple of articles, I think, where it is used. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dynamic IP continues to harass me

    I previously posted about an anonymous editor with a dynamic IP who deleted my article entries for Bryant & Stratton College then falsely identified himself as a lawyer ("Harvey Clouston") for the school. After failing to meet his demands to revert my edits, he continues to harass me under another fake name ("Steven A. Miller") and identifies himself as a Wikipedia editor. It appears he may have emailed at least a dozen US businesses, identified himself as a Wikipedia editor, and told them to contact Wikipedia Legal. I believe I have his real email and first name. What are my options? CollegeMeltdown (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Your sole option is to contact the Wikimedia Foundation, whether via Trust & Safety or Legal. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 02:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a problem at the article any longer? If so, please identify it and at least that might be handled here. In principle you could contact the WMF but getting action against a dynamic IP for crankery is unlikely. If there is some action that could be taken on-wiki (blocking a user or range of IPs, or protecting some pages), and if sensitive information is involved, you could email Arbcom (see User:Arbitration Committee). However, the internet is full of troubled people and the above description suggests that specific action might not be achievable. In what way are you now being harassed? Presumably via email? Do they know your email address or are they using Wikipedia mail to send you messages? Do not reply to any messages! Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I emailed Wikimedia Legal yesterday. The Bryant & Stratton College article is semi-protected, so there is no longer a problem with the article. The person has sent me about 15 emails so far, through other email services. My concern is that this man could escalate the situation. I believe I have his real email, real first name, and real work phone number, but am not sure how to proceed. CollegeMeltdown (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no further action that can be taken on wikipedia beyond blocking the IP and protecting the article. Any further action would be have to be taken by the Wikimedia foundation. We cannot and will not out names or emails or other personal information. Emailing legal is the right step here, as they can better tell you how to proceed with the matter. Now if a user continues to harass you here on Wikipedia, tell us and we can block them. But if a user is harassing you off-wiki, that is a matter for the Trust & Safety team at the Wikimedia foundation. They have tools that we just don't have access to on the Encyclopedia side of things. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing and other disruptive behavior by 7&6=thirteen

    It's doubtful that anything good will result from leaving this thread open any longer. Lepricavark (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Background: I WP:PRODed several building articles. User:Andrew Davidson dePRODed all of these without any explaination as usual (I am not here about Andrew, although that seems to be an ongoing issue that the community failed to resolve [96]). I nominated the articles for AfD and Andrew subsquently listed them at "Article Rescue Squadron". Because I believe that listing articles in this manner violates WP:CANVASS, I nominated the Article Rescue Squadron itself for deletion. This is where User:7&6=thirteen became involved:

    Then on the Article Resque Squadron Talk Page in violation of WP:CANVASS which specifically require neutrally worded messages (one already appears at the top of the page):

    I find 7&6=thirteen's behavior to be completely unacceptable and WP:BATTLEGROUND-like. The community needs to discuss whether the article rescue squad is appropriate or not, but 7&6=thirteen adds nothing of value to the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I nominated the Article Rescue Squadron itself for deletion — at least you're forthright, I'll give you that! Sorry, but that does come across as a provocation. I find it surprising you fail to appreciate that. El_C 04:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing that surprises me about this sequence of events is that you seem surprised at how it worked out. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by what I said. This was simply a factual announcement of another purposeful and coordinated attack on a useful WP:Project. The Project's participants should be apprised of what is going on. "Deletion of a page" is not what they are trying to do. That Rusf10 finds that my defense of WP:Rescue Squadron and its mission and performance inconsequential tells you everything you need to know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 08:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Rusf10 arguments at the deletion page consist largely of personal attacks Argumentum ad hominem on me. That is the best he can marshal. Oh well! At least I didn't go to ANI 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the Article Rescue Squadron is a canvassing club. No, the community has no will to actually do anything about it. That said, it's not the disruption it was in its heyday when one member would slap its rescue template on a bunch of articles and the other members would then go around to each AfD in turn to vote "Keep- notable. Keep- notable. Keep- notable" on all of them. Reyk YO! 09:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As for the MfD itself, I agree it was a silly idea without much prospect for success. However I see no personal attacks from Rusf10 there, only (IMO justified) complaints about canvassing. Comments like "deleetionist provocateur" and "vindictive" are personal attacks though. Reyk YO! 09:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This spat has arisen from series of deletion proposals and nominations recently made by Rusf10. The topics are all places in New Jersey – either regions like North Hudson and West Essex or yuge buildings like Hudson Greene or Liberty Towers. Rusf10 has a history of this behaviour and there are details at the Arbcom case about New Jersey-related AfDs. My view is that the issue keeps arising because Rusf10 escalates too quickly. In one of these discussions, he said that he only took 15 seconds to review that topic. He then uses Twinkle to rapidly punch out a nomination with a cookie-cutter text. In a couple of these cases, the text was incorrect -- saying that it was an apartment building, when it was an office building or a large complex of five separate buildings. The combination of haste, error and escalation is inefficient per the adage "more haste, less speed". Rusf10 should slow down and be encouraged to follow our policies WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    CAT:ALLPROD
    • As a prod patroller, I usually look at CAT:ALLPROD every day. This category shows all the pending prods and, as they stay there for about a week, I get to see the same topics again and again. I drill down into the titles which look promising and check those topics out by reading them and browsing for sources. I had been keeping an eye on this bundle for several days but didn't rush to act. When I did decide that they merited further attention, I dealt with them all at once. I have followed up all the AfDs which then resulted and that took a lot longer than four minutes. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • sniff sniff- what's that I smell? Is it a post hoc rationalisation? Why yes, I do believe it is. Reyk YO! 11:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a process of triage – most topics are hopeless and get no attention; some get consideration and a few get saved. What you don't get to see are the prods that I review but take no action. For example, currently there's City Square House – another large building. I took a look at that the other day but decided that, as the building hadn't been constructed yet, it probably wasn't worth any effort. Patrolling Wikipedia is often compared to drinking from a firehose – you have to be careful about sticking your head out! Andrew D. (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, it's not the disruption it was in its heyday when one member would slap its template on a bunch of articles and the other members would then go around to each AfD in turn to vote "Keep- notable. Keep- notable. Keep- notable" on all of them. To be fair, that's true - these days there's usually only three regulars doing that, and they generally use "Meets GNG" rather than "It's notable" as the boilerplate. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One does not have to be a prophet to see the writing on the wall. WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I'm frankly surprised no one has blocked or sanctioned Thirteen for his behaviour, and canvassing isn't even the worst of it: here he copy-pasted a comment previously made by me elsewhere, here he compared me to a "fart on an elevator" that he hoped would "fade away". But Andrew's guilty of a lot worse than that, such as calling editors trolls for not agreeing with him (Yes, I've called at least one of the above editors a troll before, but only for blatantly trolling behaviour. If either of them provide diffs of me doing so, I would strongly urge any onlookers to look into the behaviour that I was describing as trolling and try to tell me with a straight face that I was wrong.), removing sourced content because he didn't like the editor who added it, unapologetically posting OR to the mainspace, unapologetically promoting the pushing of fringe theories again and again over multiple years, repeatedly arguing that a copyvio article was not copyvio after it had already been deleted despite having refused to do so in the three days that the argument had been made at AFD and the page was publicly visible... I've basically given up all hope that editors like this will ever face any sanctions for their consistently counter-policy behaviour, and I doubt anything worthwhile will come of this thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You posted here that you think the forum should be 'retired' but MfD was not the 'right way to accomplish that'. You have had well-known long-term negative interactions with multiple members of the forum including Dream Focus, Andrew and 7&6. If MfD is not the way to 'accomplish retirement', what is? -- GreenC 14:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any evidence of canvasing?, not posting notifications of a notice board, canvasing?Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SS, it might be a good idea for you to refrain from saying "this user who recently agreed with me on something is not canvassing". It didn't work out the last time you did it.[99][100] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about me, please do not make it about me. This is my last repose to any comments about my actions here it is a derail then will end up being hated anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (Responding to the second version of the above, which was live when I started to respond.) I know it's not about you. I'm saying you should probably stay away from discussions of canvassing until you have familiarized yourself with the relevant policy. Saying "You shouldn't be commenting here" is damn near the opposite of saying "This is about you". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't respond to or interact with Hijiri 88. He is bad juju, who cannot disengage, even though he has been told to do so. Personal animosity and Argumentum ad hominem] are beside the point. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment – Conduct issues involving deletion discussions are sufficiently common that draconian remedies are in order. The community should impose Community General Sanctions on editors whose conduct about deletion is disruptive. (This includes editors who attack other editors, and editors who make too many XFD nominations.) If the community does not act, ArbCom should accept the next dispute involving deletion, and should impose ArbCom discretionary sanctions on editors whose conduct about deletion is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said at the MFD that opening that MFD was an unnecessary escalation. The same thing is true of this thread, which has generated more heat than light. Lepricavark (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I recommend a quick look at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list#Editor conduct, for the lay of the land. There are certainly ways that the project can be seen as canvassing for keep, but there is also a very straightforward way to avoid any whiff of canvassing. Just post at the AfD that the AfD has been listed at the Rescue List. Then everything is transparent. (And I urge admins who close the discussions take that listing into account when evaluating consensus.) I've been watching the patterns of conduct in this regard for a pretty long time, after having a strange experience at an AfD when a bunch of keeps suddenly appeared in a discussion that was heading towards delete, and it initially was unclear why it happened so suddenly. In my experience, 7&6 has been very conscientious about this kind of transparency, as are most other ARS participants. And 7&6 seems to me to be generally quite civil about this stuff; the MfD just seems to have pushed his buttons, but I would recommend that no action be taken against him. I find that two editors, Andrew D. and the editor you will see in the link I gave at the beginning of my comment, to be on-and-off in disclosing at AfDs they've listed. Sometimes, they disclose, and sometimes, they don't. And when they don't, I post it for them. You're welcome. This happened yesterday at the AfDs discussed here, which is what led to Rusf10 taking the actions that he has taken. In my opinion, having a project that "rescues" and fixes keep-able pages is a good thing, and it's just a matter of the conduct of individual editors. Really folks, just disclose at the AfD that you have listed the AfD at ARS, and then everyone will be a lot calmer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I always post except for that one time I forgot. You can easily go through the list and see what I added and confirm this. Dream Focus 22:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Not anything near to one time. And you are always so collegial about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal: Community General Sanctions for XFD

    Wrong venue. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I propose that the community authorize Community General Sanctions for disruptive editing in the area of deletion discussions, where disruptive editing is defined to include, but not be limited to:

    • Personal attacks.
    • Casting aspersions on other editors, e.g., on editors having different deletion views.
    • Canvassing of !votes on deletion discussions.
    • Disruptive bundling of nominations, by the insertion of pages into a bundle after discussion is underway.
    • Disruptive bundling of nominations by the submission of bundles that have nothing to do with each other.
    • Violation of talk page guidelines on deletion discussions.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (By the way, for examples of disruptive bundles, look at some of the packages of portal deletion nominations that have been waiting for closure since April. I generally support the deletion of portals, but the bundling of unrelated packages of portals is disruptive.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose most of these suggestions as unnecessary. Personal attacks, aspersions, and canvassing are already against Wikipedia rules. These incidents are unfortunate and should be sanctioned, but they don't happen very often in articles for deletion, as least relatively so. These things happen a lot more here at ANI. In most articles for deletion, people usually just post a single support or oppose comment. The more structured format results in far less problems than in other forums. We should be more vigilant to deal with disruptive acts like those described, but articles for deletion discussions are, relatively speaking, the best behaved areas on all of Wikipedia. I don't know why we are singling them out.Worldlywise (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just going to add here that nothing I wrote was "off-topic", and that disruptive and inflammatory hat should be undone. I'm not going to try doing so myself, but I would really appreciate this thread getting a proper, admin close rather than the above involved close that was clearly meant to give the closer the last word in expressing their idiosyncratic view, and removing or retitling the hat. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't on topic at all. You were trying to personally discredit someone for the crime of asking a simple question. This after you made unwarranted attacks on Andrew Davidson, who was not the subject of the above thread. And you were also pleased to share your own negative experiences with Thirteen, regardless of their relevance here, further cementing your reputation for making everything about you and dredging up things people did (or may have done) to you long ago. And then you had the nerve to lecture GreenC at their talk page for supposedly personally attacking you. That's just laughable. Feel free to continue framing yourself as a victim (without personally attacking others) in your userspace, but I suggest you stop disrupting pages that other people edit. Lepricavark (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: On his user page, Hijiri has accused me of insinuating that he is mentally handicapped and/or insane. I don't recall saying anything of the sort, and certainly hope I didn't. The evidence that he has provided so far doesn't back up his claim. Indeed, I am perturbed that he finds anything seriously objectionable in those edits. Lepricavark (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive Editing and Sanction Gaming in Supernova Article

    In the Supernova article, a new Section Talk:Supernova#The "bulk" of all elements? was introduced by Attic Salt here[101]. This contains a false editing accusation, as explained here[102].

    1) An attempt to fix some of these issues[103] was then reverted by Lithopsian with the uncivil PA "Undid revision 902199003 by Arianewiki1 (talk) not what the sources say, and of course complete rubbish".[104]

    They then decided to remove an entire paragraph actively being discussed on the talkpage, using the excuse by saying: "address the accumulation of edits into the lead without any mention in the rest of the article - create a grab-bag section for now, and summarise it briefly in the lead"[105] Their statement is untrue (they are discussed) and is clearly disruptive editing.

    Parts of the paragraph and end paragraph was again restored here.[106], then added two new references supporting the statements.[107] (Quoting the exact text from the source.) But instead of using the article's talkpage, Lithopsian reverts with the dismissive : "Undo: too tired tonight for mind-games and trawling through stealth reverts, trash the whole lot."[108] The removal of this paragraph took out all the references remaining in the Introduction that inhibits the process to gain consensus.

    Are these not are examples of avoiding scrutiny, talkpage discussion (BRD) or in attempting to gain consensus?

    Yet when a discussion does appear, they instead goes to Attic Salt's User talk:Attic Salt#Supernova edit clash, knowing full well than Attic Salt doesn't want me to interact with them on their talkpage.[109] (Exclusion?)

    2) Some additional recent revert edits by Attic Salt now claim: "As explained in edit summary and in paper by Johnson, much of the nucleosynthesis occurs before the supernova phase"[110] makes little sense. Edit summaries are hardly the place to justify changes, it is supposed to explain the edit. If challenged, it should follow BRD not a revert.

    They make a 2nd revert claims: "Well, I all we can do is invite you to read Johnson and look at the periodic table in this article."[111] (the "we" pretends they have more support; inferring presumable Lithopsian.)

    A further 3rd revert edit here[112] for the following sentence, had it instantly reverted because: "Please read the Johnson source"

    Yet, this paper does not seemingly appears accessible and the abstract does not state what they contend[113], and even the available abstract contradicts the edit. Even Lithopsian tells them this here[114].

    This is surely sanction gaming because another editor cannot verify the source: with the available information already contradicting it.

    There is no justification for this kind of behaviour and it is plainly gaming the system. It is seemingly intended as a means of excluding another editor, by using Wikipedia processes to put another editor in an invidious position by 'muddy the waters.' None of this is constructive editing.

    Note: On the page Supernova was restored a likely undetected vandalism [115] and explained the reasoning on the talkpage here[116]. This clearly shows intent in trying to improving this article. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This indenting style is confusing. I had to look it up in the page history. It was all written by Arianewiki1. El_C 04:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks to me like a garden variety content dispute that does not belong at this noticeboard. Arianewiki1, you need to state clearly what you are asking administrators to do here. We do not adjudicate content disputes. Before coming to this noticeboard, which is for discussion of intractable behavioral incidents, you should first exhaust all of the other options listed at Dispute resolution. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again. Lithopsian saying : "Undo: too tired tonight for mind-games and trawling through stealth reverts, trash the whole lot."[117] is now acceptable practice? Repeatably being pummeled in articles is unacceptable. Being berated for every minor slip up is unfair. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Turning this back around to look at your own behavior, Ariane, you may not have access to scientific journals, but I do. And I can see that not only does the Johnson source say precisely what the article already said it did (and contradict your own version), but also your other addition based on a quote from Sciencedaily actually contradicts the scientific article that the news piece was about. It's really not all that helpful to add or change content based on publications that you are unable to access based on assumptions drawn from the abstract or a hope that second-hand accounts in the news are accurate. Otherwise I agree with Cullen that this is an ordinary content dispute with no apparent need for administrative attention, but the way you are making contributions here will be a matter for administrative attention if it continues. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Might be true, but this my edit [118] was justified, because "nitrogen" or "heavier than nitrogen" in relation to an element is mentioned only once in the Introduction but not in the main article at all. Even looking at the figure in the article "Periodic table showing the origin of each element" shows Carbon with exploding massive stars. Again quoting the article under Supernova#Other impacts#Source of heavy elements "...supernovae are a major source of elements from oxygen through to at least rubidium." (with the Johnston cite). Which is it? There are problems with the statement which is why it might be to generalise it. Yet how can it contradict a simpler version that tries to make a more generalised statement? But even if that is justified, gravitational waves or cosmic rays are unlikely appear in Johnston article at all. Even Lithopsian change this comment here[119] to oxygen saying: "Start with oxygen which is included in the list, instead of nitrogen which isn't (or start with carbon, if "significant but less than half" is considered to be covered by "major"" Yet Johnston cite "about nitrogen" was not likely accessed by Attic Salt at all, because he says: "the Johnson article makes it clear that this should be qualified as "about nitrogen" given her Figure 1."[120] I've since accessed the article, and "about nitrogen" does not appear in the document. I can only conclude this is original reaseach. As you have read this article too, please point out where this appears in the paper, as I can't find it.
    Yet the negative portrayal of me here "It's really not all that helpful to add or change content based on publications that you are unable to access based on assumptions drawn from the abstract or a hope that second-hand accounts in the news are accurate.", but I didn't do that. I responded on the talkpage under Talk:Supernova#The "bulk" of all elements?, where a cite already appeared[121] that was introduced by another editor, WAFred.
    If anything, Attic Salt is doing what you accuse me of.
    My revert was this edit[122] because the deletion by an IP didn't seem helpful. (Attic Salt has made false accusations of me, refuses to acknowledge the mistake. This editor continues to do this kind of behaviour and is unwilling to change even if the evidence is against them. e.g. User Talk:Attic Salt#Recent Provocations Everytime there is a dispute, you have to climb another mountain to fix the mess. e.g. [123],[124], [125], [126] or this.[127] It ils called sanction gaming Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment (EC) If I'm counting correctly, this is the 4th time since April that Arianewiki1 has complained about some editor here at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1011#OWN Behaviour : Admin Review Request [128], Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#User:Attic Salt [129], Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Harmful Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Lithopsian [130]. I think 2 of those 4 have been about Lithopsian and 2 of these have been about Attic Salt (including this thread). AFAIK, none of these have resulted in any real action. (From the initial discussion, it doesn't seem like anyone feels any is warranted here either.) Also from what I can tell, no one has brought up Arianewiki1 in that time not counting any discussion that followed one of the threads they started. (And I think a long time before their April post.)

      It's possible that Arianewiki1 is right and the the other editors are big problems and we've just missed it. But most of the time, when an editor keeps complaining about other editors, especially the same editors and nothing happens, it starts to become disruptive. To be clear, this doesn't mean there is no fault from others involved, but for better or worse, editors do have to find a way to deal with some degree of non-ideal behaviour from their counterparts without taking them to ANI every time.

      I'm not suggesting any action at the moment, but I would strongly urge careful consideration before another thread is opened lest a WP:Boomerang results.

      As a disclaimer in one of the previous discussions I strongly criticised Arianewiki1 for referring to themselves in the third person in their complaint. I believed I also commented either at ANI or in one of the talk page discussions or both, that people needed to cut out the personal commentary. I also found their refusal to use edit summaries disruptive especially since it seemed to come close to a WP:POINT violation in my eyes. And I have to admit, when I looked into I think 2 of these disputes, my impression from a quick overview was that while there was non-ideal behaviour from several people, Arianewiki1 seemed to be at biggest fault. So I'm not unbiased. Although I don't believe I've otherwise been in a dispute with Arianewiki1.

      Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Also as a final comment, it's IMO easy to shoot yourself in the foot whatever the merits of the general concerns if there are serious flaws in your complaint. Referring to yourself in the third person was a previous example. Part of your complaint seemingly boiling down to "I don't have access to the scientific journal article" would IMO be another. There are plenty of possible solutions for that including asking at WP:REX or simply asking the editor with access for a direct quote of the relevant sentence or paragraph. While paywalls may be annoying for article improvement, paywalled sources can be an important part of an article. Nil Einne (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      And as a final point, I should say it's unlikely I'll ever propose (as opposed to !vote in other proposals) action against Arianewiki1 in the near future even if they do open more of these threads. I've said why they seem to be a problem, if no one else shares my concerns enough to propose action if they keep happening then there's nothing to worry about and apologise for even bringing this up. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I share your concerns. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    Thinking about this a bit more, I have two comments specific to this particular dispute. User talk page discussion are generally a bad place to discuss article content especially in depth. Notably if editors made a decision on their talk pages and implemented it and then when challenged said 'we came to consensus' and referred to a user talk page discussion and refuse to discuss it again, this would almost definitely be a problem. But still for various reasons editors do have reason to use them at time. And in any case, there's no need to complain about every user talk page discussion over article content. I can understand it may be frustrating there's an article content discussion you cannot participate in but the simple solution to that is to initiate a discussion on the article talk page explaining your POV on how to improve the article and wait for others to join in. (Please don't get into pointless debates over who should initiate the article talk page discussion.) If already done so then just wait. On non urgent issues like this, editors should give others a reasonable time no matter what these others may have said or done elsewhere. And that's my other point. I don't see any reason why Arianewiki1 should have been aware of that user talk page discussion before they started the process of opening this thread. If they've been asked to stay away from the other user's talk page, they shouldn't be watching it. And given their lengthy disputes with both editors, they probably shouldn't looking at the 2 editors' contrib histories except when actively investigating the editors to bring a complaint to an appropriate noticeboard. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very interesting point asking: "I don't see any reason why Arianewiki1 should have been aware of that user talk page discussion before they started the process of opening this thread. If they've been asked to stay away from the other user's talk page, they shouldn't be watching it." What about looking at Lithopsian discussions? Also I found their discussion just before I posted the ANI notices to Lithopsian and Attic Salt's talkpage. I then modified the ANI again before posting it. Was that wrong?
    It is also notable that the (Attic Salt) "ban" is likely being made as an excuse to avoid scrutiny. Also the entire reason why this ANI turned up was because I reverted an edit by an IP, where Attic Salt launched into their attack accusing me of "...so one can interpret Arianewiki1's sentence as meaning..." and "Anyway, I think Arianewiki1's sentence either needs to be fixed or removed." They refuse to retract these statements when asked.
    In summary, what is going on is (as said here): "But even if this is acceptable, it is clear that you targeted this part of this only only because of my revert of an IP edit, and you thought it was a chance "to nail me" on some esoteric point just to frustrate the editing process. You were pushed on by Lithopsian pointy edits here[131] and here[132], especially when they claim "…and of course complete rubbish." (Then to make sure of this, they then delete the cites, making certain the burn their bridges behind them[133] on a unrelated pretext.)" As you've already point out, this kind of tactical behaviour is not the only time (over several ANIs now).
    What is disturbing in the way gaming works. They see a weakness, like an 1RR, and exploit it. They force discussion onto talkpages, then either ignore it, make an accusation (like above) or attack the premise or a simple mistake on the talkpage or attack it in the edit summary; or now it seems do it where they can't be touched.
    When challenged, like in this ANI or previous ones, they either target some 'mistake' (like no edit summaries), but avoid the actual problem. Or in this ANI, don't respond at all, and watch the complainer get picked apart by their past actions or transgressions. Easy. When the ends or disappears, you get the repeated attitudes, like Attic Salt's: "The ANI turned out to be a waste of time."[134] Another is Lithopsian's response on User talk:Lithopsian#Reflist dropping down of sources/cites : "And another discussion descends into a paranoid rant with little relation to the real world."[135] (the assertion doesn't match the response.)
    The current justification appears here[136] by Attic Salt, which continues to ignore the problem, even when the problem is explained to them by multiple people. Instead of an admitting any mistake, they finally partly capitulate with this series of edits[137] when they already previously reverted it here[138]. If this full explanation here[139] shows multiple problems with even basic policies regarding editing. And yet they believe "I honestly don't see why this is controversial." (Worst, they are just explained by another editor the basic problem[140], but still do it anyway.
    A Supernova article TBAN warning might just wake them up based simply on competence. Might be nice too, to hear a defence. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Foxhound03

    1. Foxhound03 was asked, on numerous occassions, to provide reliable sources that state that the Hazaras are an Iranian/Iranic people. He has ignored that call on numerous occassions, including messages on the talk page.[141]-[142]
    2. Instead of finding reliable sources which prove that the Hazaras are Iranian/Iranic, Foxhound03 has tried on no less than six occassions to shove in the material into the Iranian peoples article through sheer edit-warring.[143]-[144]-[145]-[146]-[147]-[148]
    3. On 12 June 2019, "Foxhound03" received a 1 week block as he created a sockpuppet[149] in order to continue his same disruptive agenda on the Iranian peoples page. As soon as the block ended, he resumed edit-warring.
    4. As of today (20-21 June 2019), Foxhound03 has also violated the 3RR rule, as he made 5 reverts within 24 hours:
    • 14:59, 20 June 2019 Rv #1[150]
    • 21:55, 20 June 2019‎ Rv #2[151]
    • 07:54, 21 June 2019‎ Rv #3[152]
    • 09:26, 21 June 2019‎ Rv #4[153]
    • 09:53, 21 June 2019 Rv #5 [154]

    "Foxhound03" has not only violated WP:SOCK, but also WP:WAR, WP:CON and WP:BRD. Yesterday, he posted his unblock request (exact copy![155]-[156]) on the talk page of the article as "response". Not only does the text not address a single thing; in the text "Foxhound03" denies any wrongdoing as well. Admin Yamla also voiced his concerns about this when he declined Foxhound's unblock request.[157] Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that this editor is WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This editor started editing the English Wiki on 18 november 2018, after a look at the reported user's contribs, one can conclude obviously that he/she is here on a single purpose mission about Hazara people. The last mainspace edit of Foxhoud03 that was not related with that people was on 13 april 2019, from then on, this editor has exclusively tried to push his POV on Iranian peoples by the mean of edit-warring. As far as i can see, he has not improved the project in any way during his 7 months of editing history. Sounds like not being here to build an encycopedia, rather, to push his ethnic agenda.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 10:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: If you were to look at previous rendition and talk history, I have replied and added citations proving my point so the statement "Instead of finding reliable sources which prove that the Hazaras are Iranian/Iranic, Foxhound03 has tried on no less than six occassions to shove in the material into the Iranian peoples article through sheer" is not entirely accurate as I had provided citations on them, at the moment ,currently undone, there are total of five citations. In addition, this 'material' I am adding is simply putting Hazara people to the list of people who speak an Iranian language and all these undos were unwarranted and I had addressed them when I reverted , this one piece of material which was agreed on (Hazaras being speakers of an Iranian language) had not been successfully challenged on the talk page once!. Upon looking at the history and the talk page, you can see me clearly pointing out that Hazara people are Iranian speakers yet people are accusing me of disruption even though I cite sources which are the same as that appear on the official Hazaragi wikipedia page. I also added a summary of my edit which was dismissed by someone over it being a 'POV' and accused me of vandalism while the title clearly stated 'People that speak an Iranian language'. One such person started talking genetics which were irrelevant,for example: Balochi people are not genetically very similar to the Ossetians and if genetics were the case, why aren't groups claiming descent from Eastern Iranian people such as the Jatts included? The reverts I made were all justified and I had added an edit summary on each point and refuting it; it is not just mindless reversion as I had given my reason. Any disagreement in regards to their linguistics can be addressed by kindly visiting my talk page. Also the unblock request was actually my appeal which was not replied to by any moderator so my copy and paste was merely to defend myself from such allegations. The accusation that i am pushing an 'ethnic agenda' by pointing out linguistics is not true and having knowledge on a particular subject is not a crime, and if people think talking about a certain ethnic group and adding information based on it is bad and putting Hazaras as Iranic in terms of language is now pushing an 'agenda' then they are misunderstood. If adding cited and correct information is suddenly considered to be disruptive, then Wikipedia is now a disruptive platform. This issue seems to be getting ridiculous as everyone seems to be unanimously agreeing of their Iranian linguistics and Hazaragi being an Iranian Language is an established fact, I've provided my citations proving that it is in fact an Iranian language. May I also add the allegations have suddenly changed but delivered in the same style, indicating that the previous allegations seen on the talk page: "Foxhound03 has therefore not only violated WP:VER, WP:RS and WP:CON", is in fact false allegations against me. I would like whoever reads this to launch an investigation on this as well as all the false allegations of disruption which I have addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound03 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I seem to see being pointed out on the talk page, speaking a language is not the same as having an ethnicity. Also I have no idea what "Official statement on the matter:" is supposed to imply or mean. Thus makes me think not only are there not here issues but maybe COI too.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Slatersteven, the table which I had added Hazaras in did not read ethnicity, it was about peoples who spoke an Iranian language. And yes, you are correct in saying ethnicity does not necessarily mean native language but also history and culture, hazaras also share some ethnicity with other Iranic peoples such as the Tajiks and Pashtuns. The definition of ethnicity according to the dictionary on google is: "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition", not genetics. However saying that partial ancestry is irrelevent is not intellectually honest as the genetics of an Iranian Speaker from the Caucuses and one from Pakistan will surely be different. Had this not been the case and all were ancestrally the same, there wouldn't of been such a difference in Y-DNA haplogroups present such R-Z93 and J2 and many others. Finally, the 'official statement' was just a response to allegations. Hope you found this useful, Cheers! Foxhound03 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If RS do not say they are Iranian neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slatersteven Research says they speak an Iranian language and the table's title originally said: "List of peoples that speak Iranian languages". Probably changed when the individual found out I was correct in judgment but didn't want to tell me after all those accusations XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound03 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The "individual" who changed the lead was me. I did that because the lead's sentence was not correct and confusing for our readers. Example, take a look at Turkic peoples, there is no mention of "speakers of the Turkic languages" in the lead about this ethno-linguistic group. Also, your above statement "the individual found out I was correct in judgment but didn't want to tell me after all those accusations" is totally baseless, does not assume good faith and thus, can be qualified as a personal attack.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Wikaviani No, it was not a personal attack as it doesn't meet the criteria and neither was it an accusation as I said "Probably", also I find it strange why you wanted me to assume good faith when It was you who accused me of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhound03 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User Balon Greyjoy replacing Hawaiian okina with Joeytje50/JWB

    I need help to get through to this editor who is not responding. The editor is Balon Greyjoy, and the script he is using is User:Joeytje50/JWB. Automated edit summary on all is "‎ replacing curly quotation marks/apostrophes with straight ones, per MOS:' (via WP:JWB)" Pinging script creator Joeytje50. The problem with the script, is that it does not differentiate between quotation marks/apostrophes, and the Hawaiian okina. The ʻOkina is not a quotation mark. It is an apostrophe-like letter indicating the glottal stop, serving as a consonant. Per MOS Hawaii-related articles. I notified Balon Greyjoy on the talk page of the article 1, but he just keeps going. He also did this on John Dominis Holt. As of this morning, it's on Charles E. King. I don't have every article under WikiProect Hawaii bookmarked, so I don't know how many articles he has done this to ... or will do this to. In the long haul, this tool is going to reverse approved formatting a lot of articles that fall under WikiProject Hawaii.

    Please make this stop before it wrecks more articles. A script that cannot differentiate between apostrophes, quotation marks, and accepted formatting of non-English spelling, should not be working. Also pinging KAVEBEAR. — Maile (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would try leaving a message on the user's talk page. Some people disable notifications from pings and reverts. By the way, I think you posted the ANI notification on Balon Greyjoy's user page instead of user talk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved the notice to their talk page. Also left one at Joeytje50 talk page, a user who does not appear to be editing regularly. It is concerning that there could be a script running, created by a user who isn't around on a regular basis to catch the problems. — Maile (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone disable the JWB for now?Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is another example of disruption caused by obsessing on the MOS. (eyeroll) Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Among other things this script is changing in Hawaii articles, is re-formatting the spelling in article sourcing. There are 7,453 articles attached to WP:HAWAII. That's a sizeable amount of body text and sourcing for this script to willy-nilly change. No way to tell how many editors strictly followed the MOS, but that is a potential large base of changes for this script - not just the number of articles. . Also, numerous Hawaiian articles have the okina their namespace. Hopefully, there is no script that can run to move said articles. Obsessing on the MOS is what Wikipedia does. — Maile (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I did not see the alerts for my talk page while I was in JWB; it was the only tab I had open at the time. I failed to realize that it was improperly replacing the incorrect symbol, I misinterpreted it as properly replacing a curly punctuation mark. I'm sorry for any trouble that I caused. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Balon Greyjoy. While this seems to resolve this with what you were doing, it is still concerning that this script can do this. In the case of "curly quotation marks/apostrophes" the script has no way of knowing that each project may have their individual styles that conflict with this. Perhaps this script should be permanently disabled until - and if - Joeytje50 can correct this issue. With all the languages, place names and biographical names, on English Wikipedia, it seems this script needs honing. — Maile (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Refusal to WP:ENGAGE

    JA617 continually will make edits, without edit summaries, and if someone reverts them and attempts to explain to them why they edits are incorrect, rather than respond they simply just reinstate their edit. For example, in In October [158] I explained to them why their edit were incorrect in fixing a redirect. I reminded them of this again a few weeks ago [159]. However once again rather than responding to my comments they continued to make those same edits [160] [161] [162], and I reminded them of WP:ENGAGE here [163]. Yet despite my many attempts at discussion, the user is continuing to make the same edits [164] [165]. However despite this being reverted they once again came around today and made the same edits without engaging in a conversation [166]. This user is very clearly here to do things their own way and is refusing to WP:ENGAGE. Their talk page is filled with comments, yet they have not edited their own talk page once. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure the user is aware that their user talk page actually exists. May need to block for a short while to get their attention. I've given them one last chance to acknowledge the existence of their user talk page. El_C 14:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    While this discussion is ongoing, this user is still making the same type of editing. The user adding something [167] which was reverted as being unsourced [168], with the explanation given by the user who reverted them. Yet they just came around and put the exact same edit back, while still not providing a source [169]. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a short ban may be in order, it seems they are ignoring any messages.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours. Hopefully, that will prove enough to get the user's attention. El_C 17:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    information icon

    Fixed. In the future, please post these issues at WP:VPT rather than ANI; ANI is for user conduct issues. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T226271

    Could someone fix this information icon. It's been vandalised and I don't know how to fix it. It's all over Wikipedia now. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is freaky... --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 18:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    upload.wikimedia.org redirects to the wikimedia commons but I can't find that file there. Anybody with more experience in commons want to have a look? Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an en:WP problem, not Commons. Unless it's a Meta problem, because Meta (unlike Commons) gets to prioritise some stuff over the local WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is so weird. The vandalized image appears to be at File:Information.svg, but it looks as if Anomie uploaded it back in 2011... there is no updated upload log entry since 2011... Mz7 (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If I attempt to revert the image to the version as of 03:37, October 3, 2011, I get the following error message: The current version of the file is already identical to the selected one. Mz7 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Spooky. Maybe some weird caching issue on Wikimedia's end? Anne drew 19:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And it appears to be fixed 🤷‍♂ Anne drew 19:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) JJMC89 deleted the local file and now it's showing the Wikimedia Commons' version, which is the right version. Mz7 (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not for me. I still see the spooky face. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 19:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingerikthesecond, try purging your cache. Mz7 (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I action=purge'd it and now it's fixed! Thank you. --Erik (ここで私と話してください) 19:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a Keep local high-risk file so @JJMC89: please restore and ensure protected when this is cleaned up. This may be related to a bug I can't find right now about certain thumbnails from the shared repository wrongly overwriting the local image ones. — xaosflux Talk 19:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. I tried to restore the file and to upload a fresh copy, but kept getting DB transaction errors. Since the Commons version is upload protected, I've create protected the local page to prevent anyone from overwriting it. I'll look through Phabricator for a task or create a new one shortly. If another admin is able to restore or upload a new version, feel free. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JJMC89: I can't from where I am right now, but last time I hit that I has to upload to a new name, them move it over the old name. — xaosflux Talk 19:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that worked. We now have a local copy in place. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) Earlier, I also tried to re-upload the Commons version of the file as a new version, but I received this upload warning. I didn't proceed to "ignore warnings", but JJMC89 said they tried the same thing, but the upload didn't work even when they checked "ignore warnings". I think we may have to wait until the bug you mentioned gets fixed. Mz7 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems somewhat like phab:T30299 (if there were redirects in play in the vandalism?) — xaosflux Talk 19:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, the original file description page hadn’t been edited since 2017. If the spooky image’s file description page had been redirected to File:Information.svg, could that have caused the error? (Which begs the question, why would anyone think to create that redirect?) I can’t find the spooky face’s true file to verify. Mz7 (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request IP range block due to abuse on day of the year pages

    Hello, there is a continuous addition of unsourced content/reverting by ip's from range 1.129 and 1.144 not adhering to WP:DOY guidelines. Currently on June 21, June 22 and June 23. This keeps moving along during the year following the current date. This has been a long term problem during this year on many day of the year pages (pick a date and you can find these ip ranges warring). This seems to be a single person completely ignoring every single edit summary helpfully explaining policy but also every warning given, resulting in edit warring by reversion. It seems that some of the ranges have been blocked for a shorter duration before, but this is clearly becoming a case of long term abuse. These edits also keep filling up Special:PendingChanges due to all day of the year pages being pending changes protected specifically to prevent new unsourced additions. Therefore I would like to request some sort of range block since semi protection of all day of they year pages may prevent many valid additions by ip and new users that do conform to policy. Thanks, Redalert2fan (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Redalert2fan: Sasquatch has already rangeblocked 1.129.108.0/22 and 1.144.108.0/22 for 1 and 2 weeks respectively. (block log)
    I also saw the same type of edits on December 4 appear in pending changes. However, the edit I reviewed and reverted, Special:Diff/902808969, does seem to adhere to WP:DOY and WP:V as the linked articles verify the additions - but of course edit warring (and block evasion, as cited in the blocks for specific IPs - though that appears to be caused by a highly dynamic IP) is still impermissible. ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ComplexRational: Thanks for the ping! I hadn't got a chance to review ANI today yet. I will continue to monitor those pages after the block is up. One of the ranges had been blocked before so I made that one longer... There is the possibility of some collateral damage on the ranges so I am keeping them short for now. Sasquatch t|c 20:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-promoting issues on Nathan Rich

    Moved from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Self-promoting issues on Nathan Rich
     – The more appropriate board and the one better able to assess whether this has crossed the outing line. Nil Einne (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Springpfühler's edits on Portuguese language

    Please see the user's use of edit warring on Portuguese language, their refusal to cite sources and constant personal attacks and accusing people who cite sourced content as trolls. --Spirit of the night (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see what writes this user above, how he attacked myself at first, that remains. He may lie, but he attacked, accused and insulted first, and he cannot change it anymore. It is not my fault if he could not interprete correctly what is written in the South African Constitution, which I cited as a source in a note. --Springpfühler (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not been involved in this dispute, but I have been watching it, and it is out of control. It has been going on for a couple days, involving at least three editors and one IP, and everybody needs to stop reverting and work it out on the Talk page. The reported editor has violated WP:3RR, as has the IP (both doing so after being explicitly warned), but the reporting editor has also been firing off reverts and has been incivil/failing to WP:AGF in edit summaries and Talk ("stop trolling" in response to trolling accusations by other editor, accusing other editor of Afrophobia). To my view, the page should be reverted to the last stable version [170] and then all sides need to talk it through civilly and reach a consensus on the Talk page, and a voluntary cooling off period wouldn't be a bad idea for everyone involved (those who don't earn a mandatory one). Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry about what happened, anyways I didn't do it for me or any bullshit, just for the sake of truth. It does not matter a thing to me even if I do not write in Wikipedia for a year, I am not really into that. I just saw that there were a lot of mistakes in this page regarding Portuguese language and I corrected it. Maybe too much, but for a good purpose. I was not the first who insulted or accused, and that can be easily checked. The "old version" was full of bullshit, like Portuguese being official (minority) language in places like Andorra, Luxembourg, Galicia, South Africa, etc...A circus. Just lies. Everybody (should) know(s) it is not like that, in those places Portuguese is just an immigrants' language and sometimes not even that. I am aware there are even more places that should be removed from this box, but I was not sure so I didn't do it. And I insist that the box with the flags should be reserved for the official use of a language, as it is was normally done. If we are talking about "cultural", "honorific", "protected" language, or whatever like this, a mention in the article is more than enough. Putting a small flag of a country where a tongue is NOT officially recognized in ANY area of the country, like it is the case for Portuguese in ALL the countries I mentioned before, maybe just because some guys are so naive or nationalist that take pleasure in seeing their language mentioned in a big amount of countries even if they know it is absolutely irrelevant or even non-existent there, is really a bad sign for the realiability of Wikipedia and definitely not serious, and that is basically why this site is not regarded like that by a lot of people. Because everyone can write whatever he likes without following a definite criterion regarding what should be written. The question we should ask ourselves in this case is: would a "normal", "serious" or "traditional" book or encyclopedia include South Africa or the other countries I mentioned between the countries where Portuguese is spoken? Never ever. I teach languages and between them Portuguese. Not even in Portuguese books, neither from Portugal nor from Brazil, is any of these countries ever mentioned as a place where Portuguese is spoken. Never. No way. Because it would be a lie, as simple as that. So, if Wikipedia puts a small note informing that there are Portuguese speakers also in these countries, that's ok, and that's what I did. On the contrary, if Wikipedia still writes that in this countries Portuguese is spoken as it was an officially recognized language there, that remains a lie and it doesn't make Wikipedia serious at all, just that. Then we cannot wonder or complain about why so many people think like that, more than all at school or in academic environments. --Springpfühler (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have fully protected the page against editing for 3 days. Please take this to Talk:Portuguese language and build a consensus. I am well aware that I probably protected m:The Wrong Version. Sasquatch t|c 21:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ‎Ur and En Wiki Helper

    Ur and En Wiki Helper (talk · contribs · blocks · count · rollback · admin · logs)

    Seems to mainly be interested in POV category labelling. Repeatedly inserts Category:Indian people of Pakistani descent into BLP articles where it is unsourced, and edit wars over it: [171], [172], [173] are examples on one of many articles. The rest is readily seen from the relatively short contrib history. No response to multiple warnings -- Begoon 10:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the same user as these two:
    They're not socking as there doesn't appear to be any deceptive intent here (they seem to start a new account after completely stopping using the previous one, conceivably after forgetting their password). They've also edited from various IPs. POV is a concern, but there are also really really massive CIR issues and no willingness to listen to feedback. A drain on the community's resources without any visible benefit. – Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support a mass-rollback of their edits and, if at all possible, a mass deletion of the redirects they've created: almost all are either just wrong or are to articles without mentions and the one or two exceptions are too vague to be any use. – Uanfala (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought they might be قیومونٹ because they edited a draft begun by them, and edited by no-one else. I noticed them because people abusing categories for POV labeling, particularly ethnic/religious, is a pet dislike of mine. Category:Film censorship in Pakistan seems to be another favourite. Now I look more closely, and at the other accounts, the general CIR issues are pretty stark though, yes. -- Begoon 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Mass rollback sounds reasonable. I changed one redirect (Old Urdu) from the target Hindi, which seemed rather pointy and in any case not very helpful, to History of Hindustani, but it would probably be best to just delete it with the rest. I don't know whether "Old Urdu" is a term that's used at all. --bonadea contributions talk 11:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it's framed in CIR terms, I admit that it does seem that the "basis" for a good lump of their Category:Indian people of Pakistani descent additions appears to be "because Khan"... -- Begoon 11:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is probably a young user, and their grasp of English seems to be a bit shaky. Maybe they ignore the talk page warnings because they don't understand them. --bonadea contributions talk 14:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're possibly right. Even so, if the net result is that they are wandering around slapping incorrect ethnic categories on BLPs, then edit warring them back in when removed, that needs to be prevented fairly quickly. If they don't, or can't communicate then our options are pretty limited. -- Begoon 15:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely, and came here now to ask admins for a CIR block. I posted this to their talk page 45 minutes ago and since then, they have added unsupported ethnic categories to a BLP, created another inappropriate redirect, and created a draft of a BLP for an apparently completely non-notable person - what they haven't done is react to the post on their user talk page asking specifically for a response. --bonadea contributions talk 16:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I've recently reverted the usual addition to Arbaaz Khan, but this time from an IP, which I've warned. Dhtwiki (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I just realised that this is almost certainly the same user as User:اردو کے ممالک، ثقافت، وغیرہ. That account was username blocked so they are not actually socking, but it is worth noting that they were already warned multiple times about the same kind of edits (unsourced additions, inappropriate page creations) on that account, as well as on the accounts listed above. I can't see that they have ever engaged in any kind of discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 17:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming this account is the master, the subsequent accounts would be socks. The master was hard-blocked. Permission to create new accounts would have been required.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Loose Women

    A persistently disruptive editor is finding Loose Women immensely attractive. They remove starring characters/presenters from the infobox, contrary to WP:TVCAST, and sometimes from the article body, only ever using "Good" as their edit summary, if not omitting the summary entirely. Since the editor often changes IP (in the past 24 hours he's had at least 4,[174][175][176][177] and if you look through the article history, you'll see many more. Most of the IPs are from BSKYB-BROADBAND-V6. Because the IPs are only ever used for a short period it's impossible to communicate with the editor so I've gone to some lengths trying to get their attention, leaving notes in the infobox but they are always ignored. Other than reverting the changes, I don't know what I can do so I'm after suggestions. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Range blocked by Bbb23. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A persistently disruptive editor is finding Loose Women immensely attractive – I really don't feel we should be passing judgment on our fellow editors' sexual predilections. I also note that the article says that the show underwent a "revamp" [178], which seems like not the kind of language we should be using; references to "gold diggers" might be more appropriate. EEng 21:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion at AB de Villiers

    IP 122.179.223.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reinstating the same edits as a blocked user, which makes it almost certainly a case of block evasion or some form of sockpuppetry; a ban or maybe a range block could be in order. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Zefr on bacopa monnieri

    User:Zefr refuses to acknowledge three WP:MEDRS sources[1][2][3] in favor of his personal opinion. He cites irrelevant FDA warning letters that do not even address the disputed claim in attempt to refute it. He has successfully edit warred to maintain his version of the article. He has acted similarly on nootropics in the past. This dispute dates back to two months ago when my account was new, and I was not aware of the rules. It was my first ever disagreement on Wikipedia. I have been reluctant to report this user because I violated some guidelines myself, but I can stand his smug stonewalling no longer. If I get boomeranged, so be it. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Aguiar2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. ^ Kongkeaw, C; Dilokthornsakul, P; Thanarangsarit, P; Limpeanchob, N; Norman Scholfield, C (2014). "Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on cognitive effects of Bacopa monnieri extract". Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 151 (1): 528–35. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2013.11.008. PMID 24252493.
    3. ^ Neale, Chris; Camfield, David; Reay, Jonathon; Stough, Con; Scholey, Andrew (5 February 2013). "Cognitive effects of two nutraceuticals Ginseng and Bacopa benchmarked against modafinil: a review and comparison of effect sizes". British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 75 (3): 728–737. doi:10.1111/bcp.12002. ISSN 0306-5251. PMC 3575939. PMID 23043278.
    Uninvolved editor: 1. regarding content: The sources provided do indeed seem to pass all criteria of MEDRS. The FDA could potentially be a valid source per WP:MEDORG; but it isn't listed there, though I guess it's regulations are borderline acceptable since it is a national regulatory agency; though again MEDORG suggests that both the scientific litterature and the guidelines should be discussed (and compared if there are RS which do so). This of course to be taken with a grain of salt since the FDA letters only seem to warn against advertising claims; and I am unsure if they imply that the products are ineffective, or only state that they have not gone through regulatory approval - which is a different thing, and in which case WP should probably defer to the consensus of topic-specific reliable sources (which I have not read so I cannot comment).
    2. regarding behaviour: indeed an editing dispute, page history does seem to show a slow paced edit war over some days in May, though I am unsure if there was any violation of WP:3RR, and in any case there was discussion on the talk page so probably not warranting any action on those grounds. User:Zefr might be a case of WP:IDHT since, reading rapidly, the only point I see being made on the talk page by him is that "FDA notices are 'state of the science'"; claims that 5-6 year old research is entirely outdated seem unlikely, though that is not my area of expertise so I don't know. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The FDA sources do not even address the disputed claim. They would not be relevant even if they were position statements rather than warnings about unapproved advertising claims. If you want to join Zefr in his stonewalling, we can add you to the list of POV pushing IDHT editors. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alex and Zefr are quite right. Personal attacks like that are naughty!-Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for my uncivil tone. I still think this is more a matter of editor behavior than a content dispute, as the lede was formed without consensus by edit warring to push a POV opposite that of WP:MEDRS sources. But I know that it is best practice to only comment once when filing a complaint on this forum, so I will refrain from further comments unless directly addressed. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring should be reported at WP:AN3. Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And IDHT behavior? —Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here - but "IDHT behavior" would be be evidenced by a long-term refusal to accept the obvious prevailing consenus. Here, what seems to be happening is that two editors disagree about which source(s) take precedence. Alexbrn (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your analysis, and so does 107.190.33.254, but I think I have run myself out of comments. I'm off to edit other things. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    File:TomohiroKatoconfrontedbyPolice.jpg

    Hi! I don't know If I'm on the wrong place (my English is not that really good), because the image has not been deleted, but I am asking it to be deleted, as the one who uploaded it since I reformed the fair use rationale template but it seems to not satisfy or be enough for Wikipedia fair use of images. Feel free to delete it. Kindest regards. --LLcentury (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Hi LLcentury. The file has been tagged for speedy deletion which means you can just do nothing and it will probably be deleted in a few days per WP:F7. However, since you uploaded the file, you can also add {{db-g7}} to the top of the file's page and it will be deleted per WP:G7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald Trump page.

    Content matters are not dealt with here at AN/I. If you see something wrong with the page you can follow up at Talk:Donald Trump. — xaosflux Talk 03:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. I don't like Trump. 2. I'm 3rd party. 3. Someone needs to check this page for bias or bigoted material. Trump may be a liar, but so are all politicians. That's what we pay them for. ... an official page on him should not say straight out 'he's a liar'. .. I'm a fact checker myself, and EVERY president I've checked has been caught on something.

    Be professional please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.225.6 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No one is professional here, we are all volunteers! Dumuzid (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Xinjiang Pages and User:Alexkyoung

    I'm not quite sure of the standard procedure here, so I apologize in advance if there are issues with how I've handled this or if this would be more appropriate on a different noticeboard like NPOV or DR. I've begun to become worried about POV-pushing behavior on some of the Xinjiang related articles by user:Alexkyoung. It started for me when I noticed some misused citations and OR on the article History of Xinjiang, which made me feel that it read like propaganda in some places. In the discussion on the talk page that followed (Talk:History of Xinjiang#Citation misuse), user:Tobby72 brought it to my attention that there's apparently been a pattern of biased editing on a number of Xinjiang related pages from Alexkyoung: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff diff.

    I was also worried by ownership-like behavior from Alexkyoung, particularly this post: [179]. I wasn't able to find anything that indicated that consensus had been reached, so I wrote a note saying as much, only for it to be deleted, and (on revert), responded to with the accusation that I was trying to start an edit-war [180]. I initially thought it was just a problem on one article or perhaps an extreme response during an argument; at one point I felt really guilty about having potentially misconstrued Alexkyoung's behavior and apologized to him on his talk page. Since then I have reviewed the edit history and been somewhat disturbed by edits made with edit summaries like this: [181]. I'm not really sure what to do because I hate to write all this negative stuff about an individual editor's behavior, especially as in my view, Alexkyoung has been largely civil with me. However I've become increasingly concerned that there's a greater pattern of POV-pushing and page ownership and was hoping others would be able to look into it. Darthkayak (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ujin-X: NOTHERE?

    I know it is rather early to be bringing a user here, particularly as I have not yet specifically mentioned to them the possibility of a block over this, but I'm looking for admin assistance as this user seems to not get the message, which has been repeated several times, that Wikipedia isn't a forum for original research, and (especially as the mathematics community here has firmly rejected their ideas) they should find somewhere else for "angular vectors" or whatever they want to introduce. Thus, while a block is probably not needed yet, I would like assistance in getting Ujin-X to understand this.

    A year or two ago, the WikiProject discussed this editor's edits and overwhelmingly found them to be problematic. What I believe crosses the line in this situation is that they have ignored everyone's comments and advice since that discussion. They don't seem to be able to drop the stick on this subject in spite of the overwhelming consensus to move on. It's getting to the point where I consider their ideas to be crank mathematics which I seldom use to label anyone's mathematics, with this really putting it into WP:IDHT territory.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Explanation. I stopped creating or changing pages, as required by the mathematical society. But I think that I have the right to contribute to the "talk". I submit my comments exclusively on the topic of the page. This ad appeared because I responded to a comment Jasper Deng on his personal page.--Ujin-X (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Attention needed?

    If possible - may need attention - seems an anonymous "WP:SPA" ip editor may be persisting in vandalism - editor may be originating from the same area, but under somewhat different ips - involves the "Hermitage, Pennsylvania"; "Farrell, Pennsylvania"; "Sharpsville, Pennsylvania"; "Sharon, Pennsylvania"; "Greenville, Pennsylvania" articles (and possibly other related ones?) - any help would be appreciated - Thanking you in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked Special:Contributions/76.188.236.55 and Special:Contributions/2607:FCC8:9D07:EB00::/64. Special:Contributions/2605:A000:122A:AB::/64 may be related, but the sole edit so far does not follow the same pattern. If more vandals show up, it's typically fastest and easiest to follow these instructions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you *very much* for your help with this - and suggestions - they're *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=903104488"