Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

FloridaArmy and AfC woes

The first thing that should be said here is that there is no doubt that FloridaArmy is an net positive for the wiki. No one is questioning that. However, his drafts in the AfC process (which he was previously sanctioned to run all articles through) has become overwhemingly burdensome. There is consensus from the discussion at the AfC project page that something needs to be done (found here). Kylietastic summed it up best in the OP:

For those unaware the reason FloridaArmy spams AfC is due to this ANI issue — offloading the strain on AfD and other areas onto AfC. However their ongoing behaviour does not seem fair to the other submitters or on the reviewers. According to Template:AFC statistics/pending they currently have 68 open submissions (4.6% of all submission), also they just resubmit with little or no changes causing much more load. I just noticed they recently submitted multiple articles with only 1 source such as Draft:James Martin (South Carolina), Draft:Solomon Dill, Draft:Joseph Crews and Draft:Lucius Wimbush which they clearly know is not good enough. Yesterday I rejected Draft:Koninklijke Militaire School with no independent sources, just the single schools own link. In the past they have added non references such just a film name as a ref for the same film and other such things that they clearly know are not valid. They clearly do understand how things work and the guidelines, but persist of submitting the junk with the good and have a more combative than collaborative attitude to editing. They appear to be getting worse (from what I've seen), maybe due to virus lockdown.... is it not time to take some action? They continue to expect others to do work for them, never submitting properly (just with {{submit}} so AFCH does not work until fixed up), rarely formatting references, first submits that have no chance of acceptance without others improving first etc. Their behaviour was not considered good enough for AfD, why should it be OK to continue in AfC? Should this go back to ANI? Should they be restricted to the number of current open submissions, and not allowed to just resubmit? I'm sure if they focused on fewer articles at once, and worked more collaboratively they would be an big positive to the project, but they way they choose to work is not fair on others (submitters and/or reviewers).

TL:DR version, the editor is submitting a myriad of problematic drafts and is not responding or adapting to the countless attempts by reviewers to get them to improve. They expect other's to do their work, which is an unfair burden to put on reviewers, especially if they editor knows how to do it themselves. WP:BUILDER.

The rough consensus seems to be to limit FlordiaArmy's total pending AfC submissions at one time or to limit the rate at which they can submit them. The AfC community desperately needs relief from this situation. I am pinging the AfC reviewers who in the above mentioned discussion showed concern about FlordiaArmy's drafts, most of whom have also said some sort of action needs to be taken. KylieTastic, Chris troutman, Robert McClenon, Nosebagbear, CaptainEek and myself. RoySmith and Scope creep also expressed concern, but did not explicitly state yet whether they believe action should be taken. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• At AfC I suggested a limit to individual submissions to prevent WP:GAMING. I proposed a three strikes system, where each draft of Florida's gets two declines, and is automatically rejected the third time. Drafts which are not improved between submissions should also be auto-rejected. Florida has been at this for years and should know better. Though let me say, I very much want Florida to stick around, they are a valuable contributor, and in no way do I think we should block them. Just...provide some sanctions that will guide them. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I will clarify what I said, and I think this is consistent with what User:CaptainEek has said. I do not think that the community needs to take any further action beyond the action already taken of sending their submissions through AFC. I think that the reviewers, as a subcommunity, can enforce some common-sense rules such as are being mentioned. If the purpose of this thread has been to solicit community discussion of those rules, we welcome that input. (If the purpose is to impose any further community restrictions, I do not think that is necessary.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't mind extending someone 50 strikes as long as they put in good faith efforts on each submission. This is why I think a limit on the amount of pending submissions might be better as it would actively encourage the editor to spend the time to improve each submission. And yes, I echo the sentiment, that bringing this to ANI should in no way be interpreted as an effort to get the user banned in anyway.

  Instead, I think some sort of formal regulation is needed. I don't share in the optimism of Robert that we (as reviewers) can enforce common-sense rules without the support of ANI, because we've tried that and so far it hasn't worked. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I have accepted and rejected several of FloridaArmy's drafts at AfC. Some were decent articles and were acceptable immediately, some were marginally notable but got over the line after I found a couple other sources (some of which weren't easily accessible) and I don't remember any being "not notable," but I do remember a few not being ready for draft space. AfC is perfect for this type of thing. Our goal is to improve the encyclopaedia, and the articles FloridaArmy creates are generally notable. I do echo the concern, but I don't see any need to take action - if anything, a restriction that requires an AfC to be submitted with at least two sources would be the most beneficial to the encyclopaedia. I also think the three-strike rule could be problematic if the topic is indeed notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Question Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, can I respectfully explore what the actual problem is here? AfC reviewing is voluntary, and you can choose which drafts from the queue to review, and which to pass over. If a reviewer doesn't like reviewing FloridaArmy's drafts because they require so much work, they're free to pass over them on move onto a submission from someone else. Is there a major problem in having a large, but not ridiculous, number of old drafts from a single editor hanging around for long periods of time in the AfC system - does that break anything? Perhaps the long wait times might encourage FA to put a bit more work into their drafts, in the hopes of getting them reviewed quicker? I'll add that I agree with SportingFlyer that the three-strike-reject option doesn't seem ideal - perhaps a better approach would be to limit the number of AfC submissions that FA could make - either time-dependent (e.g. no more than one submission per week) or backlog-dependent (e.g. can submit no new drafts if they have >10 in the current queue). GirthSummit _(blether) 07:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  The problem isn't so much that there's a large number of drafts. The problem is the continual re-submission with little to no improvements. Sources are regularly improperly formatted. Constant use of unreliable sources. Constant spelling/grammar mistakes. Constant addition of irrelevant statements. I generally don't have a problem with this if the user is inexperienced/new and I in fact love helping to fix up an article by a new user. However this editor isn't new. They know better. They've been asked a countless amount of times by reviewers to do just a basic bit of cleanup. They've also been asked to properly source articles. They are completely non-response to this, and it seems to be just getting worse.

  Yes AfC is voluntary, so is all of Wikipedia. AfD is voluntary and FA's burden on that was dealt with, not sure why the same can't be done here. Eventually someone has to review these drafts. I don't like filtering what I review, I just go down the list. Asking reviewers to cherry pick what they review to skirt the problem instead of just addressing it seems inefficient. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Pace the obviously triggering effect of backlogs anywhere for us obsessives, I think that creating a couple of badly undersourced drafts every day and having most of them languish indefinitely while a few are fixed up and promoted, is probably a better outcome than creating badly undersourced articles and then bludgeoning AfD, which was what happened previously. This seems to me to be pretty much what Draft space is for. Fromt he popint of view of the admin cabal, the problem at AfD was hectoring. That is a problem wherever it happens - the AfC discussion implies this but is there evidence? Also the number of G13'd drafts that are then REFUNDed and resubmitted with insufficient improvement is a bit of an issue, e.g. Draft:Mbanga soup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Guy (help!) 12:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• (Coming from ping due to WTAFC involvement) - I do not believe in this three strikes bit. It risks various issues, and also goes against the basis on which "rejection" was bought in as an option. I would, however, suggest a rate limit. I don't mind too much if it's per week (1 or 2) or in total (5-10), but something needs to be done. @Girth Summit:, I can't be 100% sure on other reviewers position, but my reasoning on why it impacts us and the queue (rather than just being ignored), is that we can't just ignore tough calls. Unless it's mention in article comments or declines, an FA non-clear draft looks the same as any other editor's, so I can't just ignore his. We can't just ignore non-clear drafts in general that we'd rather not do because that places more and more work on the few willing to tackle them, risking driving them off. FA's large spike clutters up more than is reasonable, whereas a few would be okay. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, hi - can I just ask you to unpack that a bit for me - I don't quite understand what you mean by 'non-clear drafts', or why it's not possible to selectively ignore them. (I'm not sure how other people approach the AfC queue, maybe that makes a difference - I use the New Pages Feed, which present you with the person who created the draft beneath the title.) GirthSummit _(blether) 12:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit:, a "non-clear" draft is my phrasing for a draft where it's not clear whether an "accept" or a "decline/reject" would be suitable, necessitating more and deeper consideration. I find the NPF a little jittery for me (I think it doesn't play well with some of my scripts), but you're right, that would allow avoiding a specific submitter's drafts - I've usually used this list (with its various filters) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, I suggest simply declining as having insufficient sources to establish notability. Most of them are directory entries, after all. Guy (help!) 14:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Commenting only: this may be connected to this thread (permalink) on Jimbo's page, raised in questioning racism in AFC process in the wake of the death of George Floyd. --Masem (t) 12:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's being implied here. AfCs concerns with FA extend back well before this thread. Also, I along with many other reviewers (I think) agree that coverage is lacking on African Americans and are sympathetic to that problem. There is not as much a problem with the subjects as there is the incredibly poor quality of the articles and the habitual re-submission without improvement. The race card is regularly pulled instead of doing just basic cleanup. Accusations of prejudice from page creators in AfC happens a lot. I've personally been accused of being prejudiced towards basically everything (including but not limited to black people, white people, asians, men, women, bagpipe bands and just recently New Zealand). However, this almost exclusively comes from new users that want to cry foul instead of doing even minimal fixes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulfurboy (talk • contribs)

I only brought up that convo as the timing of that discussion with this ANI may suggest a possible issue related to POINT, but I don't have enough insight on past behavior with that editor to know. Was just bringing it up with in case it was relevant. --Masem (t) 15:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So you don't have insight on past behavior, yet you felt the need to imply reviewers are bringing this up as a point of retribution? No matter how implicit the implication, this could broadly be construed as a personal attack. AfC reviewers deal with enough abuse from UPEs, SPAs and other angsty new editors. They don't need to also be leveled without merit by experienced editors. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'll summarize what I already wrote at WT:AFC: FloridaArmy creates a high volume of low quality drafts about interesting and encyclopedic subjects, and stubbornly resists all efforts to help him improve. That's unfortunate, but it's better than most of the crap we see on AfC, which is unabashed spam: people promoting their own (or their paid clients') companies, bands, projects, or selves. That's where we need to be tightening up the rules, Not bashing editors who are clearly and unequivocally WP:HERE, even if they are borderline WP:CIR cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 09:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) GirthSummit makes a valid point about the volunteer nature of AfC but those same volunteers are just working a backlog without filtering FloridaArmy's entries from view. I agree with CaptainEek's suggestion about three strikes but I believe AfC can impose that without needing wider community consensus. I commented on an earlier thread that this issue needs to come to ANI because FloridaArmy's skirting notability to turn out two-sentence drafts violates WP:GAME, in my opinion. I suggest that FloridaArmy needs to be disallowed from creating new drafts, entirely. We have good editors that could build meaningful articles but FloridaArmy undercuts the incentives by robbing our other editors of four awards by persisting in this way. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Chris troutman, We're WP:HERE to write articles, not collect awards. To use my previous example from WT:AFC, Wikipedia existed for 17 years before FloridaArmy started Oberlin Academy. The idea that they somehow robbed somebody of an award by getting there first is hogwash. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I certainly agree that to argue that any negative effects FA is having are due to robbing editors of specific awards, or even of being able to be the first to write on their article, is without merit. I also firmly disagree with FA (a GF actor) from being completely blocked from drafts, especially as it's indicated in the messages here and on the AFC talk page that there are drafts that have gone through AfC without issue. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I see FA as a net positive for the project. Many of the articles they create may be marginal in notability but the overall effect is definitely one of a more complete encyclopedia. On the other hand, the process they use does have its drawbacks. Creating a draft that contains one line and one source transfers the onus of figuring out notability on the AfC reviewer, which does make life harder for them. Perhaps something like banning FA from resubmitting rejected articles may work? If FA believes that the article is notable enough, they would need to involve someone else in the process who can work on and then resubmit it. --regentspark (comment) 15:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  RegentsPark, how about a restriction based on the criteria necessary to reach DYK? 1,500 characters is scarcely War And Peace, I think. Guy (help!) 15:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  My only concern is that that would stop FA from contributing entirely. I don't see them as writing anything more than a few lines in an article. But, AfC is designed for evaluating reasonably coherent articles and not for one or two liners so I'm willing to support if it comes to that. --regentspark (comment) 16:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing this topic up Sulfurboy. This is a frustration that I have felt throughout the time I have been volunteering at AfC. Since Wikipedia is not WP:SRSBSNS, I have tried to address my own frustrations by avoiding FA's low-effort drafts, as Chris troutman has mentioned. Unfortunately, this only continues the backlog of articles at AfC. I think that RoySmith makes an important point. Despite my fustrations, FA is adding entries about notable topics (especially around state-level politicians), but two sentences does not an article make, and the sourcing can be very lacking (that is not solely a FA issue). Additionally, as RoySmith mentioned, after these proto-stubs make it to mainspace, they languish there with no additional work or changes. Should the onus be on AfC to keep these drafts in "development hell" until they are ready for mainspace, on AfD to be more particular about these articles passing the muster, or the original editor to further develop the articles that have already been accepted? Bkissin (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Lobbing (baseless) charges of racism is a personal attack on many of our hard working editors but FA's inability or unwillingness to understand sourcing requirements and doubling down on such personal attacks makes me question their competence here. There's an argument to be made that certain subjects, especially about people of color lack the coverage we require but that is not the responsibility of reviewers to fix. Praxidicae (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think we need to have a broader discussion about FA's problematic and incendiary behavior. Comments like this, YOU ARE RACISTS., are absolutely uncalled for and a blatant personal attack. Perhaps focusing only on his AFC editing isn't the solution here...a clear restriction on commenting on other editors would go far since it seems to be FA's default when things don't go their way. Praxidicae (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. That type of behavior is not acceptable on a collaborative project. Blanket aspersion casting of that nature should be met with a block. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Praxidicae, A lot of this is getting lost in what's turned into a wall of chaos. It might need a separate header or separate ANI all together. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  There's two distinct issues here, although it may be difficult to completely disentangle them. One is the quality of FloridaArmy's drafts. I include in this disruptive behavior such as tendentious resubmissions, and their unwillingness to accept any constructive feedback. I've already covered my stance on that adequately.

  The accusations of racism is another thing entirely. It's fine to make statements such as, discriminating against African American subjects and history is wrong (from Jimbo's talk page). I don't think anybody would argue with that. Digging a little deeper, there's an implication that wikipedia does indeed practice such discrimination. I don't have any issue with that either. I'm not sure it's true, but I certainly have no problem with the accusation as a general statement of project-wide bias.

  Statements such as,"YOU ARE RACISTS" cross the line into inappropriate. That's especially true if it's being used as a excuse for why so many of their drafts get declined. Certainly by the time you get to calling specific people liars and/or racists, you're well into WP:NPA territory. If ANI were to censure FloridaArmy in some way for those personal attacks, I'd have no problem with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• As the OP who kicked this off at AfC I wish I had done more due-diligence prior. Yesterday I worked on a FA submission William Beverly Nash to acceptance and FloridaArmy's reply this was friendly, appreciative and encouraging, a side I had previously not noticed and had been overshadowed by the submissions that have generated the friction. Today I did a qualitative check (not 100% accurate as not all reviewers post the notices, or use AFCH) but this shows why from AfC point of view we all know FA... They have had more reviews than most by a factor or two, but still with a positive acceptance rate. So clearly as I think has universally been expressed FloridaArmy is a definite net positive to the project. From looking at everything said I get the feeling the problem is caused by different POVs. FloridaArmy appears to aim to create notable stubs, in the cases causing issues pushing the line of notability, which I guess is the same behaviour that caused the original issues at AfD. From the AfC side we struggle with the daily influx and the backlog that IMHO is still way too long and a disincentive to new editors. From this you can see over the same month we had 166 reviewers to the 6,313 reviews but heavily weighted to a subset of reviewers. Saying that I do still think having 68 open submissions (currently 54) and resubmission with little change or discussion because they disagree is problematic and is not good for either FloridaArmy or reviewers. I actually believe that the issues need to be addressed globally not just against FA. I don't think having so many open submissions is acceptable with the current number of active AfC reviewers; I don't think re-submitting with little change or discussion is acceptable, and certainly not when more than one reviewer has declined; I personally don't think that a single source is ever enough. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think we're here because regular AfC reviewers have a very different conception of what they should be doing than what the community has asked them to do. I don't blame AfC reviewers (exactly) for this. But I think these differing conceptions, especially with the reason FA was restricted to AfC, are where the problems creep in. The community has asked AfC to screen for articles that are, more likely than not, able to survive AfD and to screen against UPE and other forms of COI editing. AfC see itself as screening for articles that meet a certain basic quality standard and against UPE and other forms of COI editing (COI/UPE is clearly not the case with FA so I will be ignoring that for the remainder of my comments). But AfD participants, on the whole, don't care about malformed citations, bad categories, one sentence stubs and the like that bother some AfC reviewers. And it is clear that like AfD participants, FA doesn't care about those things either.
  In my experience, FA does, on the whole, create encyclopedic value. Let me repeat that in another way because I think it's an important point: English Wikipedia is made better by FA's attempts to cover topics that not been previously written about and which are, in quite a few cases, examples of systemic underrepresentation. I would love if FA were to take more care in their references. And their categories. And the other things that they do which (fairly) aggravate many gnomes and reviewers. I would have hoped after the restriction being in place this long we'd in a place where FA could have shown competency in a way that would be letting us remove or ease it rather than add to it or discuss even more drastic sanctions. But one way for FA to cause less trouble at AfC is for AfC reviewers to not expand the scope of what they screen for and instead to do what the community has asked judge whether an article more likely than not able to survive AfD. If the answer is yes approve the article. If the answer is no reject it. If the answer is yes accept it. I will probably be supporting Guy's proposal below because FA does need to step up their game, but I also felt the need, like Roy, to speak in FA's defense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, if you are suggesting that AfC reviewers act as a rubber-stamp for drafts that aren't blatant COI/UPE and let AfD and Mainspace deal with the rest, then I will gladly be WP:BOLD and take that on to reduce the ongoing backlog. Just don't template me when issues arise. Bkissin (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Bkissin, no I am suggesting if it is likely to survive AfD it be accepted. I intentionally used that phrase because that's what WP:AFCPURPOSE says. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just curious...why can't we just create a program for AfC that automatically rejects submissions that are less than (pick a number) in prose size and/or have no citations? That would send the work back to the article creator where it belongs and eliminate quite a bit of the backlog. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, feel free to propose this. I think the issue will be lack of consensus on the size. Regardless, FA's drafts do have citations. Just not generally good enough ones. Guy (help!) 23:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thx, Guy - I'll start a discussion at NPP and see what happens. In the past, we've managed to get WMF to accommodate some of our needs but not without a good dose of persistence (which is right up my alley 😊). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, Ping me if you want help with any of this. I'd likely be on board and help collaborate with any applicable write-ups. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Atsme, I've seen (and accepted) plenty of legitimately short and unreferenced drafts. Users create WP:DAB pages as drafts. I recently accepted 1710 in India, which, as a navigation tool, would have been just fine without any references at all. I've even see redirects created as drafts (current example: Draft:Monosuit, which I would have just WP:IAR accepted instead of bothering to kick it back with a template). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  RoySmith keep up the good work! What I'm proposing would not have any effect on non-article pages, such as dabs, lists, categories, templates, TP, redirects, etc. - only articles such as Ōizumi Observatory which was created in 2005, and never expanded beyond 69 words. See what I proposed at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Potential proposal for AfC which involves a bit of coding that tells the editor at the point of submission (save) what more is needed before it can be saved. Of course, that is what we're working on now, and how best to approach it but the goal is to design instructional coding that will inspire the stubee creator to actually submit a better stub. We don't need thousands of ideas coming at us in the form of 50 word unsourced stubs when we've got huge backlogs in AfC and NPP. The submission modification can be something as simple as an error message like you get when filling out a form and you forget to include your address or phone number, or you entered an invalid email address, etc. I'm simplifying here but it's along those lines - maybe a JS or Lua script can handle it. I'm not a programmer, but I have summoned a few to review my proposal. We did manage to get curation tools from WMF, so hopefully, we can inspire them to work with us again to help reduce our backlogs so we can actually focus on expanding and improving the thousands of articles that are calling to us for CE and updates. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I don't reply to every proposal below, because there is far too much in this thread to know the best place for this comment. It boils down to AfC reviewers exceeding their authority and declining articles that would almost certainly be kept at AfD. This is all part of a larger problem where people who spend all their time marking other people's work rather than doing any themselves seem to be listened to more on our drama pages than the people who actually create the content that is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger if you believe this is because "AfC reviewers exceeding their authority" you are in a position to solve this whole issue and make everyone happy! Just sign up at WT:AFCP and then go to Template:AFC statistics/pending order by User and accept all of FAs articles, as apparently not doing so is "exceeding their authority". You will make FA very happy, and the AFC reviewers very happy. And BTW we don't "spend all their time marking other people's work" most of us spend a lot of time researching and improving drafts so we can accept them, and also work outside AfC. Many of us have spent many hours improving FAs articles before accepting them. New users are forced to use AfC so we need reviewers to accept these articles that "actually create the content that is the lifeblood". Although I would disagree that just creating new content is "the lifeblood of Wikipedia", now we have 6+Million articles, stopping spam, promotion, dross, unsourced content, vandalism is as equally important as new content. But in all seriousness to you and any other of similar minded editor please please join AfC and accept as much as you can. We desperately need as many good editors as possible to accept as much as possible, and the less the backlog gets the more time we all get to work on submissions. KylieTastic (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

KylieTastic - Further to this, I've noticed that some of FA's accepted drafts only got through after others had done a lot of work on the draft to bring it up to standard. I also wonder if we should analyse the accepted versus the rejected drafts and check what proportion of them are actually biographies of African Americans. I'm not sure quite where to start with this. Deb (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

FloridaArmy is advised that new articles submitted via AfC should aim to meet the minimum length criteria at WP:DYK, i.e. 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc.), and should contain sufficient reliable independent sources to establish notability per the general notability guideline. FloridaArmy is encouraged to work on drafts in his sandbox until they are ready for submission.

• Support as proposer. In short, they should establish the answer to the simple question: why should we care? Guy (help!) 15:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support great idea. I'm all for inclusion but I'm an immediatist, first. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all sanctions at this juncture, as there is clearly more to this than meets the eye: FloridaArmy's claim that Draft:Lee Myxter was erroneously rejected caught my eye, and, indeed, it was wholly inappropriate for User:Ahecht to decline the submission as not meeting WP:NPOL (Draft:Lee Myxter), when that guideline explicitly states that politicians...who have held...state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels are deemed notable. Now, AfC reviewing is a hard, and probably occasionally thankless task, but it literally is not helping itself by refusing notable topics: not only does it foment bad feeling, but it adds to the work of the next reviewer. In short, although clearly FA's articles aren't always 100% up to scratch—whose are at the beginning?—they are not, I suspect, all as poor as it is being suggested. And until we see some pretty black and white data, I feel sanctions would be inappropriate. ——Serial ^# 16:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  In fact, in the spirit of data mining, the history of FA's talk page is revealing: since 10 February this year (the last 1000 edits to the page), they have had 223 articles accepted through AfC and 231 declined. ——Serial ^# 16:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  With respect @Serial Number 54129: you looked at the details, however the top of WP:NPOL clearly indicates A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. something which this stub did not meet when you Promoted it to mainspace. I question your judgement with respect to this draft and suggest that you return it back to Draft space for additional work. Hasteur (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  The article clearly meets NPOL. And, Serial is autopatrolled, anyone who disagrees should try AFD, instead of asking for redraftification. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  So in a completely non-POINTy way, the article is now up for deletion :D ——Serial ^# 17:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe I should've have cited WP:NPOL, but a quick search for significant non-routine coverage showed that this person completely failed to meet WP:BASIC, and per the top of the section that includes NPOL: meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. If we want a general sitewide restriction on articles not meeting these parameters, let's have one, but we should not require one editor to provide more than is required of others for a draft to be moved to mainspace. BD2412 T 17:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Completely reasonable asks that hits all the marks of concern. Neutral, see second proposal. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral As written this is a higher bar than we set for other AFC submissions. The ruberic has always been (at least as far as I know) "Excluding policy reasons why, a draft must have at least a 50% chance of surviving a AFD discussion". Hold FA to that standard. in WP:AFC we have an informal practice of "If the same draft is submitted 3 times without correcting the defects, it may be taken to MFD for failure to support the purpose of Draft Space/AFC while pointing out contributing reasons for why this page wouldn't survive if it were in mainspace". Our standards and practices work, we just have to enforce them. Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The only purpose given to AFC is to make sure the article demonstrates why it is notable and deserves to be on mainspace before it gets to be included. This is helpful for inexperienced users who might be writing about a notable topic but fail to explicitly establish exactly why the topic is Wikipedia notable such as is convention here. For editors familiar with SNGs and AFDs, the AFC minimum should be no more than one sentence stub establishinng which SNG is met, and one source verifying the claim. Draftspace articles aren't automatically submitted by virtue of residing in that namespace, so the point about the sandbox makes no sense. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There are no minimum length criteria requirements for any editor to create any content, so imposing an arbitrary length for one editor is overkill. There are plenty of worse articles being saved into the main article space every single hour. Examples include this and this. The latter being created by an editor who has been here for 15 years! Topic ban from AfC might be an option, but a better one would be for someone to mentor FA. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral as I think such a requirement is really only fair if applied to all, and clearly many articles are created in main-space that do not meet this reasonable condition. Make this a requirement for all and I 100% support KylieTastic (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - this would be significantly more onerous than required. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Any reviewer who doesn't want to deal with these sub-stubs can decline them or ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - someone starting articles is a good thing, perhaps we should suggest that they request articles? I'm sure WiR would welcome any list of suggested articles of women. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 07:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC).
  
• Support - Since I was involved in the original problems that obliged FA to go through AfC for everything, I sympathise with those who have had to give attention to his sloppy submissions. It may seem like "starting articles is a good thing", but I don't think Rich can have had much to do with this user before if he feels it's good to encourage him to carry on in this vein. I feel like something needs to be done, and if it's not making him submit stubs of a reasonable standard (God knows he's had enough practice by now), then it's limiting the number of times he can submit and the number of AfCs he can open simultaneously. Any of these would help. Deb (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Given the circumstances, these are not onerous conditions to impose on FloridaArmy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of lengthy articles. Nearly all articles in traditional print encyclopedias are shorter than 1500 characters, so why should Wikipedia be any different? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Because we don't use printing on paper bound between cardboard covers, and are therefore not bound by physical limitations, except the amount of data our servers can hold, which is, for all practical purposes, infinite. Why would you want to be held back by a physical limitation which no longer applies to this format? I do note that a number of the articles you created came in over 1500 characters (one is over twice as large, and another more than 3 times 1500 characters), [1] so if you need help in reducing them to the ideal 1500 character limit, let me know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• That is a reason why articles can be longer, not why they must be longer. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolution

Here's a small sampling of articles created by User:Lugnuts today.

• Werner von Foerster
• Horacio Monti
• Lars Lundström
• François Chapot
• Martin Sharp (sailor)
• Frank Murdoch
• Franklin Woodroffe

Contrast these with the articles I'm having rejected:

• Draft:Frank Opperman (actor)
• Draft:Fred Hornby
• Draft:Jana Lund
• Draft:Lee Myxter, erroneously rejected today for not meeting Politician inclusion criteria.

There is a problem. Notable artice subjects I start are being blocked by editors not respecting our inclusion criteria in an improper amd abusive fashion.

All of these would survive as Snow Keeps at AfD. The solution is to remove the requirement I use AfC and to restore my ability to participate at AfD. The entries I create are better sourced and more notable than the vast majority of what's being added to Wikipedia. I comply with all of our editing rules. And the abusive obstruction, harassment, and interference with my good editing work needs to stop.

Every single entry discussed in this convo is notable and belongs in mainspace. It's a travesty that several editors want to obstuct the inclusion of additions on underrepresented subjects such as a traditional dish of Cameroonian cuisine or the military school that the long serving president of Suriname went to in the Netherlands, but improperly and unevenly applied rules should no longer be used to create problems for me or the AfC reviewers who should be able to return their focus to the spam and advertising that proliferate in their area of wikispace. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, Some people seem to think that Wikipedia is a directory of Olympians and that competing in the Olympics confers automatic notability. They have chosen not to change WP:NOT to support this but that's what they think. Guy (help!) 16:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"but that's what they think" - Sounds very much like a threat/personal attack. Maybe you'd care to elaborate? Please be WP:CIVIL. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

How does that sound like a threat? A mild personal attack maybe, but there's no threat there at all. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to reiterate my comment on the AFC page applauding FloridaArmy's good work on pages on our long list of drafts for missing state supreme court justices. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• @FloridaArmy: Please refer to "What about...." and WP:NOTTHEM. Your actions and behavior are at discussion here. Hasteur (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Although, of course, pointing out inconsistency of application is perfectly accepatble. ——Serial ^# 17:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Purely as an example, I can't see much wrong with the decision to turn down the draft at Frank Opperman (actor). This was a straightforward WP:GNG issue as articles have to be properly sourced.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As is noted right at the top of that entry he clearly meets criteria 1 and 3 of WP:NACTOR. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If I looked just at the article, how would I know that? NACTOR #1 - significant roles in multiple notable films. The second part, that's covered but the second part? It's not. If he was a co-star on any of those film, adding a text blurb would EASILY have helped demonstrate that. A list of films and roles doesn't help with that first part, a blurb that mentions those significant roles would make that check easy. NACTOR #3 is unique, prolific or innovative contributions - I'm guessing you're saying the length of his career covers prolific. Probably, but without any context on the roles they played, if they had lots of bit parts / background roles, I'd really question if that meets #3. Ravensfire (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You would know because the article states per Motography that he "had a 29 year career on stage and a 7 year film career" as of 1916, lists 54 films he was in including his credited roles in most of them, and links to the existing Wikipedia articles for the vast majority of the films. FloridaArmy (talk)`

You do realize uncredited roles don't count toward notability, right? As an example, more than half of the films you claim make him notable are uncredited. The Unchanging Sea uncredited, The Hero of Little Italy uncredited, Fatty's New Role uncredited, The House of Darknessuncredited and the list goes on. Unless there is some special N criteria for actors pre-1950, I fail to see how this fulfills at least "significant roles" Praxidicae (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I said "including his credited roles". So yes, I understand that credited roles matter. Of coutse we don't yet have article for most early silent films, so having credited roles in at least a couple dozen and uncredited roles in dozens more stil qualifies per our notability guidelines. The article would be a slam dunk keep at AFD. If you disagree try taking it there and prove me wrong. Good luck. You'll need it. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Good luck. You'll need it. incendiary comments like this are unnecessary. Might I suggest you start actually reflecting on criticism instead of just being combative? Praxidicae (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Frank Opperman looks like he would be suitable for an IMDb entry or similar, but the bar is set higher for biographies on Wikipedia. We don't get to know much about him beyond listing the films that he appeared in.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wanted a preview of the hostility that AfC reviewers are regularly met with by FlordiaArmy here you go. This is actually pretty tame compared to some instances. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"incendiary", "combative", "hostility"? Sorry, I'm not seeing it in the words that are there on the screen. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Andreas Philopater, according to FloridaArmy, those who do not accept his drafts are "bigots" and those who describe them as less than blindingly obviously notable are "liars". Guy (help!) 14:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Limit the number of pending drafts by FA in AfC to 20.

Looks like there's some kickback from the suggestion of length requirements which I will be switching my vote to neutral to in light of this alternate proposal I'm going to suggest. To me, the simplest solution is to limit the amount of pending drafts FA can have in the AfC process. Pending defined as actively waiting for review, this would not include declined drafts that haven't been resubmitted.

The purpose is two fold: 1) To help lessen the strain on AfC reviewers. 2) To encourage FA to put additional work into the currently pending drafts. As a note, while the backlog says 5+ weeks, the vast majority of articles are reviewed in a matter of days, so it's not as if those 20 would languish for weeks. The ones that make it to the back are typically ones that would require insight from an SME or native language speaker, neither of which would apply to any FA articles that I've seen.

1. Support As proposer. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   While this might help them from overwhelming the queue it won't solve any underlying issues with FA's articles that causes them to get declined in the first place. I am sympathetic to the idea of not overwhelming AfC but I would much rather try to nudge FA towards having a higher success rater than just limiting them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   I would absolutely endorse that approach. I would hope that persuading FlordiaArmy to move in the direction of writing longer, more detailed articles with more comprehensive sourcing would genuinely be positive for them and for us all. FloridaArmy would certainly see their article rejection rate decline dramatically and I would suspect they would also find their articles would be reviewed more quickly and with more enthusiasm by the AFC volunteers. We need to look after not only our content creators like FloridaArmy, but equally, we need to look after our AFC reviewers and frequent AfC users like FloridaArmy have an important role to play in that. Nick (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

   Thanks Nick for saying we need to look after our AFC reviewers and frequent AfC users like FloridaArmy have an important role to play in that. That is absolutely true and not a sentiment I adequately have expressed in this thread yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

2. Weak Oppose - The reviewers can deal with a backlog by ignoring it. Too many drafts do not do any harm if ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   Sorry Robert McClenon I think there is harm - letting the backlog grow and ignoring issues means new editors can have acceptable articles not get reviewed till they hit the end of the queue in weeks or months. Yes we catch most in the first couple of days, but if missed you wait and it's a huge discouragement too those editors. KylieTastic (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

3. I think this just moves the queue. Each time a draft is rejected or accepted, FA will simply move the next in. Now there's 20 articles in AFC and another 40 or 50 or whatever waiting to be in AFC. It also seems like it would be difficult to track, so you would need to get buyin from FA. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

   That's the point Izno is every time a slot gets freed up and they have 40 waiting a submitter will pick the most likely to be accepted, not just resubmit one that's been declined with not much change. KylieTastic (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

   That doesn't follow. I expect the user won't care. If he does, it will simply end up the case that he cycles through his whole queue on his side until all he's got in the AFC queue are the "bad" ones. Then AFC still has 20 "bad" articles to deal with. It you want to make this rule and have it be effective, you limit him to one draft in AFC at any time. I'm still skeptical as to the utility. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

4. Support but only if it applies to all submitters. It stops overwhelming AfC; It encourages submitters to put their best article through first; It encourages submitters to try to improve (better sources; clearer indication of the content that supports notability) before resubmitting a declined article. KylieTastic (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support as general restriction only. Everything more is just disruptive spam.Lurking shadow (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support Clearly, FloridaArmy can write decent articles; let him decide to focus his efforts on the twenty that might get accepted. There's no reason AfC's queue should be burdened. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Support, but I'd prefer a lower limit - say 5-10. Deb (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Support in conjunction with Proposal #1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Oppose Even with this AfC restriction it appears as though half his drafts are making it through AfC. And the numbers are large. AfC reviewers that don't want to review his work can, well, just not. Yes, a lot of his drafts could be better. And they probably should be, but I don't see what this limit gains anyone. I do see how it hurts Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Support I was about to suggest 5-10, but 20 is also fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Support If just because every time FloridaArmy has a draft rejected he posts about it on several WikiProject pages imploring someone fix it for him, and it would cut down on that junk, too. We like to help, and I have, but at this point it's pure spam. Kingsif (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #3

Accept that FloridaArmy is what he is and move on.

1. Support as proposer. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
2. oppose ,m because it's pissing people off. Wikipedia is not therapy, and obsessives doing the right thing in the wrong way cause drama. Guy (help!) 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Oppose because blanket accusations of racism are not okay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Oppose FloridaArmy needs to accept two things here. Firstly, some of the articles for creation were turned down because of good faith WP:GNG decisions. They just weren't sourced properly and did not establish the subject's notability, which is a key requirement of GNG. Secondly, repeated accusations of racism amount to a failure to assume good faith. The users doing the articles for creation reviews are trying their best, and should not be accused of acting in bad faith without very clear evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support I would rather have FloridaArmy contributing stubs than not contributing stubs. They are a net positive even if annoying. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support They did have a draft incorrectly declined immediately before this occurred, so I'm willing to WP:AGF. SportingFlyer T·C 07:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Oppose because the current way of running is clearly causing FA as much stress/negativity as it is to the AfC reviewers. KylieTastic (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Support as he is a net positive, but needs to avoid casting aspersions, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Support Agree he is a net positive. I would also remove his AFC restriction because the problems with his articles aren't usually ones that AFC is well suited to deal with. (Bad formatting etc. should not be an AFC concern, and nuanced notability issues are better suited for AFD rather than a single AFC reviewer.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Oppose per KylieTastic. I don't think AfC volunteers have to let FloridaArmy be a pain in the ass. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I don't agree that he's a net positive. Deb (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Oppose There's enough of a issue here that closing our eyes and walking away is not useful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
13. Eh We should all try to improve ourselves and that includes communication on Wikipedia. FA needs to not throw around accusations of bias. That is something that really can't be put up with in the long term. And it would be nice if the shorter articles were better sourced. But it does feel like folks are a lot more upset about the AfC submissions than seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal #4

Recognize that User:FloridaArmy presents two overlapping issues that should be dealt with separately. The first is the submission of low-quality stubs, a content issue. The second is civility violations and failures to assume good faith by reviewers, a conduct issue. Accept that sanctions will not deal with the content issue and move on. Issue a formal warning that conduct will require escalating blocks, 1 day, 2 days, 4 days, 1 week.

1. Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Request Please provide examples of these supposed low quality stubs. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal is flawed. Guy has repeatedly lied about my conduct and comments, and I see he recently did so again. I do not create single sentence stubs and I absolutely continue improving LOTS of articles that are in mainspace, mine and others. Lying about my work is a civility violation and he's done so repeatedly. [User:JzG]]'s conduct should result in his being blocked.
• That there is bigotry on Wikipedia is obvious from the resistance to including subjects on African Americans, the African diaspora, and African American history. These are the EXACT article subjects identified as problematic. user:sulfurboy hates these subjects so much is so opposed to including these subjects he dragged one of them to AfD after another editor approved it. Oberlin Seminary was also high drama. What do all these subjects have in common? They involve African Americans. I know it's upsetting to have Wikipedia's bigotry and editor bias pointed out, but we must do better. Sanctioning those trying to address the situation is a step in the wrong direction and only proves to illustrate Wikipedia's hateful intolerance that excludes these subjects. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  @FloridaArmy: This would be a shame, but I'm going to short circuit this discussion by blocking you indefinitely if you say something along the lines of "user:sulfurboy hates these subjects so much he dragged one of them to AfD after another editor approved it. Oberlin Seminary was also high drama. What do all these subjects have in common? They involve Africam Americans" again. If you're making general comments that Wikipedia has a bigotry and institutional racism problem, I'd probably use different words, but would generally agree. If you're repeatedly singling out specific editors as racists with insufficient evidence (hint: no one is agreeing with you that they are racists) then you're going to be removed from the site. That would be a crazy result, but it's in your hands not mine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You're absolutely right User:Floquenbeam, no one acknowledges racism. They just can't stand including subjects related to African Americans, the African American disapora, and Africa. I am clearly at fault for daring to create articles on these notable subjects and then objecting when they are excluded. I should just go along with excluding anything to do with Black people. My life would be so much easier on Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth, and this kind of passive aggressive statement is not going to be helpful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, Again? How many times do we have to be openly accused of racism and bigotry without a single shred of evidence? Everyone seems to be so hesitant about doing something that would discourage FA from editing further that direct personal attacks in an ANI are just getting a stern warning?

  If this was a new user they would have been immediately banned and this comment would have been removed. I shouldn't have my reputation dragged through the mud for zero reason.

  I challenge any person to show any instance that I've ever, in 60k some odd edits, ever, EVER showed even an inkling of prejudice or racism.

  I challenge you to find another editor that even remotely feels this way about me. I completely and 100% open myself up to WP:BOOMERANG, because I'm 100% positive you won't find anyone that agrees with Florida army that I'm a bigot or racist.

  Why does no one seem to be worried about the chilling effect this will have on the AfC process and how much it might turn off people from wanting to participate in it? I shouldn't have to worry about wanton personal attacks at every turn. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  While you may think that a final warning is too lenient, I don't understand why you think a final warning shows I'm not worried about this. If they've been given a final warning previously, talk to the admin who gave it and ask them to act. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Floquenbeam, You're right, and I apologize for letting my frustration get the best of me. My intent wasn't to attack your decision process. Just understand that it's incredibly frustrating to have my reputation sullied without merit. I think I'm just going to take a backseat to this whole thing since it's got me pretty clearly riled up. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  and you are 2% short of 60K edits. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 13:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion - I suggest that an uninvolved administrator give User:FloridaArmy a one-week block so that other editors can address serious content and conduct issues without being distracted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would oppose such a block. It would play into the narrative of persecution, and I think we can get where we need to go without it. BD2412 T 19:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would also oppose such a block, along with this proposal. SportingFlyer T·C 07:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Support. I don't see why FA should be treated with kid gloves and allowed to get away with making personal attacks on other editors. Deb (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not think a cooling off block will be effective in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• (non Admin comment) Florida Army needs to stop treating themselves like a martyr for some holy cause. I've created dozens of articles on African subjects and a small handful on African American ones. I've never faced the issues they are experiencing, because I actually bother to source my contributions and can at least manage to spell things correctly. FA, stop chalking this up to people being racist. I'd much rather see you banned for such ill-advised comments than put up with that so we can get a few more African/African diaspora articles out of you. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A Policy Issue

There is a policy issue that needs to be discussed, possibly at the Village Pump, having to do with people who pass a test for ipso facto notability, but about whom there is not enough information for a good stub. Most of the special notability guidelines for people are weasel-worded to say that people meeting the test are presumed notable. Both the political notability guidelines and the lengthy sports notability guidelines are worded in such a fashion. This ambiguity is sometimes hashed out twice for association football players, once at AFD and then again at Deletion Review. The stubs submitted by User:FloridaArmy are about people who are presumed notable. Some editors, including myself, prefer almost always to have the clarity of saying that a person who passes the threshold is notable. Other editors say that the presumption of notability only means that one should try to find the sources.

So there definitely is a policy reason for declining the stubs in question, some of which are corner cases. The fact that there is a policy issue is yet another reason why it is irresponsible to cast aspersions about racism.

Perhaps there should be a discussion at VPP. That would certainly be more useful than just yelling racism. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, There's another issue. For somebody alive today, especially somebody with a paid PR agent, there's going to be tons of information available about them. Most of it will be crap, but there will usually be enough to get you past some silly SNG. Somebody who was, say, a struggling two-bit silent actor getting uncredited movie roles, isn't going to have the same collection of blog posts, on-line movie reviews, web sites, and all the other gigbytes of google-indexed ephemera they would have today. So, holding the two of them to the same standard is just absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, User:RoySmith. I have more thoughts on the policy issue, but this is a conduct forum. (Meaning we can discuss at VPP or a WT page.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There need to be fresh guidelines in this area, although the existing ones are already clear. The guidelines should make clear that sometimes African Americans or important academics may not have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, but that does not means that they are non-notable or that Wikipedia does not care about them. The mainstream media has also repeated this myth. Also, anyone who takes part in the AfC process should be told that if a request is turned down, WP:ASPERSIONS are unacceptable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ianmacm, RoySmith, and Robert McClenon: I have started a discussion at VPP related to the comments in this section. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no admin issue here

Nobody is asking for a block. This is about how the AfC community wants to deal with a burdensome but valued editor. Why is it not being discussed there instead of at AN/I? Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is an admin issue, it's a million characters ↑ thataway. I've lost track but it's more about stubs/article creation. I opened a discussion suggesting a potential workaround at Wikipedia_talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Potential proposal for AfC if anyone is interested. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Another idea

FloridaArmy, you are advised and directed as follows.

Your behavior has been determined to be problematic, and you are directed as follows. An editor who has developed to the point of creating or submitting large amounts of articles should have learned certain things more than newbies on their first article. For newbies, other folks (such as those at AFC, NPP or AFD) don't mind doing some of their work for them such as seeing if the required coverage in sources exists. They also generally don't mind doing this if they see that the creator has invested substantial work in the article. Prior to creating or submitting any more articles, you are directed to read and learn wp:notability, understand that fulfilling wp:notability is a requirement for existence of a separate article, and also read and learn any listed special notability guideline that applies to an article that you are submitting or creating. As an editor who has reached the point of starting or submitting larger amounts of articles, you are directed to, prior to submitting or creating an article, establish for yourself which specific provision of the notability guidelines your article passes and the details of how it does so, and at least briefly describe this rationale in the talk page of the article. In general this will be either establishing that it has the required type and amount of coverage specified in wp:GNG or that it meets specific criteria in an applicable special notability guideline. If your article is rejected, held or challenged on wp:notability grounds and you wish to argue for passing or keeping it, the very first part of your argument is to specify which wp:notability provision you determined passed your article, and provide details which led you to that conclusion. Your argument for the existence of the article should NOT include making accusations against other editors or groups of editors such as being racists, having racial bias etc. Any other provisions remain in place.

North8000 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible chronic and intractable behavioral problem

• KhanQadriRazvi (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

KhanQadriRazvi is seemingly attempting to impose their point of view on Wikipedia without success. Their behaviour is now resulting in continuous disruptive activity (whether deliberate or through frustration or through a lack of competency I cannot be sure). Their talk page show an almost daily set of problems at present. The disruption to Talk:Grand Mufti of India [2] in a poorly formed edit request disrupting main space. The sheer quality of a newly created article this morning also is very inconsistent with linguistic use on e.g. Old revision of File talk:AkhtarRazaKhan(Image).jpg is also a concern. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi: Please explain about why the article you created today seemingly met WP:CSD for a copyright violation? This seems yet more disruption and I am minded you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Do you have any response or explanation? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Respond or Explanation

I,have said repeatedly that the tone of my article may not be neutral. If copyright matter, I will look into it, and I, will try to write in my words, So that Wikipedia does not have any copyright problem. It's your misunderstanding that I'm imposing my point of view on Wikipedia, and came here with different purpose. Whoever comes here, they come here to contribute to the encyclopaedia, I, also came here with the same thought that whatever I, know or read it somewhere, I, will share those things with everyone.Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Previous ANI thread about ongoing problems at Grand Mufti of India is here. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I, just don't get it this thing, when newspapers has written about both person, then how can you choose the one person, so I, have suggested of this article, in which both are treated equally.

"Chop off the Snake’s Head" Delete the page, It may be best solution for this problem. Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi If by "Chop off the Snake’s Head" you mean censor and delete the article Grand Mufti of India because it claims Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad is the current incumbent then I am very concerned, and could might even taken you intended to slur Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad, though I WP:AGP that was not your intent. Your edit suggestion at [3] "This is 'Y'" has have appeared to remove sources supporting the claim of Grand Mufti as Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad with promotion of a claim for Asjad Raza Khan as Grand Mufti. My reading of the key sources for Asjad Raza Khan are [4] (Sri Lanka newspaper report with unattributed reporter and arguably vaguewave newsflash) and [5] (fails to mention "Grand Mufti" and also indicates "decision" made at the Annual Fiqhi Seminar, not by electoral college as claimed in the table, according to Salman Hasan Khan, vice-president, Jamat Raza-e-Mustafa and only applying to Sunni Barelvi clerics). I may expand this on the article talk page if I have the energy, but given this weakness I am currently opined equal weight of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad and Asjad Raza Khan in the article gives WP:UNDUE to the latter. I remain possibly open to small section detailing Asjad Raza Khan's claim may however by appropriate, however even that may be WP:UNDUE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC) I am however re-looking at Grand Mufti of India and talk to see some useful comments having been somewhat distracted by your intervention. Every source and its use needs to be considered on merits .... and these sources are very difficult to use. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Response or Explain

@Djm-leighpark You can delete my account instead of ban. It does not matter to me, If I, talk about my point of view then it will not be right, because there are many things that you will not be able to understand, when you not understand, then it will not be beneficial to speak because you do not belong to this field. According to me that if you do not know about the field /subject then it is good not to say anything on this,

Now let's talk "Grand Mufti" ie "Qadi al-Qudat" (Chief Justice), Qadi al-Qudat would have been the one who would be above all as I have said, That Hanafi cannot follow other Imam jurisprudence, however, other Imams may follow Hanafi Jurisprudence, as Imam E Azam is the greatest Imam among all the four Imams. I am not saying this, but it is Islamic Shariah.

Now let's talk "Electoral College" India is a secular country, so where did "Electoral College" come from? Where is the Electoral College office, it conducts elections under the supervision "Election Commission of India", to explain a little more about "Electoral College".

Now let's talk on the list of Grand Mufti.

1) Abdul Qadir Badayuni, appointed by Akbar, was not an "electoral college" at that time.

2, 3 and 4, do not know any information about it.

5) Shah Fazle Rasul Badayuni appointed by the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, even at that time there was no "Electoral College".

6) Who appointed Kiphayatullah Dehalvi does not know yes but "Electoral College" did not appointed him.

7) Mufti Muhammad Amjad Ali Azmi (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ala Hazrat, not by "Electoral College".

8) Mustafa Raza Khan Qadri Noori (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ulama E Ahle Sunnah and Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa (Note: The name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was never written for some reason) not by any "Electoral College".

9) Taj Sharia Akhtar Raza Khan (Alhe Rahma) was appointed by Ulama E Ahle Sunnah from the stage of Urs E Razvi and Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa (Note: The name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was not written this time also for some reason) He was not appointed by any "Electoral College".

10) Abu Bakr, Talking about Abu Bakr, who has appointed him (let's see elected and appointed by All India Tanzeem Ulama e Islam and All India Sunni Jamiyathul Ulama{mentioned in article}) this is what “Electoral College”? Are you talking about? According to you ‘’All India Tanzeem Ulama e Islam and All India Sunni Jamiyyathul Ulama’’ is “Electoral College"? Which appoints Grand Mufti of India in India?

Is Wikipedia (Grand Mufti of India’s Article) propagating false information to the people?

Same process was adopted for Mufti Asjad Raza Khan also which was adopted earlier for adopting Grand Mufti of India.

Mufti Asjad Raza Khan was appointed by 67 Scholars and Jurists at the 16th Annual Fiqhi Seminar (Note: Even this time also the name of Jamat Raza -E- Mustafa was not mentioned for some reasons).

When, I saw the table of Grand Mufti of India. I, found many mistake, but you guys are masters in this field (done PhD in Grand Mufti of India), so, how can all of you agree with me?

I, don't know when “National Assembly of Islamic Community of India"(mentioned in article) founded? And when started Nominating Mufti for the Post of Grand Mufti of India. Which Electoral College (mentioned in article) is appointing Grand Mufti of India. When was the last date of nomination? Where is advertisement for nomination? Where was voting details? Where is official website? List of nominated Candidate? Where is result?

I, asked this questions on the basis of Article of Grand Mufti of India and replies. If you want I can ask more questions on Grand Mufti of India’s Article.

Now you (@Djm-leighpark) tell me when you (@Djm-leighpark) are answering me. And one thing, don't blame me without proof. I have no problem with Abu Bakr.

Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi: I am answering you now with at the timestamp of this post. The primary thing is I am pleased to hear you have no issue with Abu Bakr, as your phrasing above was in my view unfortunate and possibly could be misinterpreted. And to be clear it is not within my power to block you let alone delete you account, I am not an admin. It is my concern your actions have hindered rather than assisted any ability to deal with in my view possible WP:BIAS in the Grand Mufti of India article by distracting from valid points previously made at the article talk. You raise many points at me, and I am but simples, and unfortunately we seem not to have a published independent PhD thesis to work from. Per your last refused edit request changes are best done in smaller, clearer pieces. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You (@Djm-leighpark) can do, because you are master brother. Or else find some way so Admin can delete my account immediately.

If someone does not agree with you (@Djm-leighpark), then he does not know anything, he is hindering my work, etc. Brother (@Djm-leighpark) don't talk this things please.

I, used that phrase for the Article Page of Grand Mufti of India only.not for a person. Do not talk here and there thing Brother (@Djm-leighpark), answer the questions which I, asked you (@Djm-leighpark). so far didn't receive the answer of my questions from your (@Djm-leighpark) side.

Was there any mistake in that article Which I, suggested? Just added a name to the list and removed the infobox official post,and written both names as a Grand Mufti of India. As far as I remember I, did that only. I'm waiting for your (@Djm-leighpark) answer Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@KhanQadriRazvi: You are both asking me to respond and asking me not to talk. As far as I am aware account deletion is not possible though account anonymisation and/or article deletion revision are possible in extreme circumstances, ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE if necessary. I have no power over admins, though if you nom. me at WP:RFA I might accept to prove the level of support I would have for suitability for the role. I have in general no answers to your specific questions, I have been mentored there is no such thing as a stupid question; though I have sometimes mentored managers on the questioned that needed to be asked to get the useful and usable answer rather than the question that only yields an inappropriate answer. I do feel you have hindered my consideration in placing a Template:POV on the Grand Mufti of India article which was previously removed (or perhaps a Template:Systemic bias tag) ... I feel I need to have solid confidence to defend any tagging if I were to do that ... and prepared to follow through on any inappropriate removal. Per your last edit request which was refused as "A full rehash and replace of the article cannot be readily evaluated. You need to propose changes in smaller, clearer pieces" ... I did attempt to place my concerns on your suggestion on my edit at "21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)" above where you made significant claims. My next post here indicated I intended to review sources for the Article .... though such a review is complex and I give no commitment to any actions I might take or what the timescales are. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I, told don't talk this thingshe does not know anything, he is hindering my work, etc. and asked to response my question which I, asked to you (@Djm-leighpark).

Just tell me one thing that Article "Grand Mufti of India" needs correction or not? after seeing my question?

You (@Djm-leighpark) are telling that entire article can't be changed at once, so you should change it in small - small part?. Am I getting it right? Do you want to say this? Thanks KhanQadriRazvi (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In general I would suggest when new or encountering problems doing smaller pieces slowly are with attention to detail will often be more successful than larger changes. THankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (Islam in the Indian subcontinent)

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to Islam in the Indian subcontinent. Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to the topic area.

Support as proposer; this has gone on for far too long. The drama between Barelvis, Deobandis, Salafis, and countless other sects present in the region really doesn't need to be making its way onto Wikipedia. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but wonder if the drama would be eased if admins used discretionary sanction powers to issue final warnings to problematic editors insisting on operating in the ipa topic area. Removal of autoconfirmed user permission (if possible) would in my opinion be sensible, but I am unsure if admins can specifically do this. Semi-protection has helped in Grand Mufti but it has moved the problem to the talk page with disruptive edit requests.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment Admin should understand that editors at Islamic pages are generally belonging to one school or other. Some may be good in editing some may not. Taking strict action should be avoided. Semi-page protection in case of page disruption is suggested. In case of user KhanQadriRazvi it is suggested he may be warned only. I found some of his contributions really helpful though he found it difficult to add reliable sources to Sufi Sunni Barelvi related articles. The reason is very clear most of Sufi Sunni or Barelvi or Deobandi scholars are rarely covered in mainstream media or reliable sources. The scholars who have millions of followers and number of books to their account get little or no space in English sources specially in India and up-to some extent in south Asia. Most of the Urdu/Bengali/Hindi sources are not online. These are some of specific reasons that many times articles are even deleted due to lack of notability and users/editors are at receiving end. ScholarM (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The warning needs to occur. Perhaps early intervention with advice like JBW gave recently: "I see that you have made a number of attempts to create articles, either directly or via drafts, but that again and again you have met with problems, with the pages being deleted or nominated for deletion. I am sure that must be frustrating, so I thought it might be helpful to offer you some advice on how to get established as an editor. ..... My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start." might have helped, but KhanQadriRazvi typically seems to adapt advice given and cause pain ... the example I typically think of is the copyvio deleted article which was up for WP:AFD and I said give me precisely your THREE best sources (or WP:RS) to analyse as I was only prepared to look at the top three. They provided eight bare URLs. Maybe one of the first three might have stood WP:RS scrutiny; though a couple of those towards the end of the list looked possible. In the end a copyvio copy/paste blew the whole thing away on a CSD (though because of the knowledge level of licensing/attribution needed to spot/analyze the problem it could be argued reasonably this was a good faith copyvio, but if you copy/paste stuff in you really needs to know this). Some admins have actually been giving advice but it probably has reach the point where an independent admin needs to get an agreement with KhanQadriRazvi to stop attaining WP:XC through problematic editing; possibly via a voluntary WP:TBAN.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Too unilateral and unproductive. If you want such imposition then list all the pages where disruption is being caused by non ECP users. But remember that there are thousands or millions of pages related to this subject and disruption on several pages won't justify the proposal. Azuredivay (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Azuredivay, but understand the reasoning. Unfortunately preparing good edit requests is actually for a semi-protected pages is a very skilled art and the risks of unpracticed failing and falling into frustration are very high; its also expensive in terms of talk page area, pending changes sometimes works better unless the summaries are being abused, in both cases its unwise if one person handles all edit rejections as disastrously happened in a case earlier this year.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't believe that the extent of the problem as presented is such as to justify this rather onerous sanction, which should be held in reserve for the very worst problems on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing Problems

This edit [6], on a talk page of a claimant to the Grand Mufti of India title and within the scope of discretionary sanctions, this morning perhaps could have raised a reasonable associated point but seemed more framed, including the summary, as inflamatory and not in the spirit of WP:Wikipedia:No personal attacks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Further repeat attempt on 8 June 2020 to overturn lede of Grand Mufti of India against "reliable sources".[7], (I would note I am possibly minded the "reliable sources" just might be challenged at WP:RSN under very close scrutiny), but this sort of request is repeatedly naive and continually disruptive and wasting everyone's time.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent WP:BATTLEGROUND spat with @GorgeCustersSabre at [8]. Both have been advised of discretionary sanctions for ipa withn the last year.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Djm-leighpark, thanks for commenting on this. I’m very happy to back off permanently from the Grand Mufti of India title thing if it will help to de-escalate. I’ll leave it alone altogether. I try hard not to push too far. Sometimes it’s hard to get the balance right. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorgeCustersSabre: Whatever happens do not back off Grand Mufti of India title thing permanently. It needs utmost scrutiny to see sources are being used correctly, sometimes difficult when five are thrown together. I have little doubt team AP has won the title, possibly by superb manoeuvrings and marketing, and furthermore they have the website. The counter-response by team EK was not persuasive to me. But these are things that should probably be mentioned on the article for balance. (and some of KhanQadriRazvi's points are likely not invalid, it is not the points that have been made, it is the way they are being made which is my concern). Oh for good, neutral, and in-depth investigative journalism. Obviously I am around GMoI related myself hopefully improving things, which is piece of cake compared to UK railways L&MR inter-city and Mole Valley and Sutton Lines issues. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Attitude towards a coi issue on talk page [9] Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Netholic and haunting-related disruption

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

---

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is behaving disruptively with regards to Talk:List of reportedly haunted locations#Requested move 1 June 2020, both bludgeoning the RM proposal with tendentious, circular argumentation (mostly focused on wikilawyering about Netoholic's idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:FRINGE and MOS:WTW and WP:NDESC), and attempting to censor posts on other talk pages. The gist is that Netoholic is convinced that the article must be moved to "List of haunted places" (or something very close to that), with a claim in Wikipedia's own voice that they are haunted. The RM clearly already WP:SNOWBALLed against that idea before I even arrived to comment there (though exactly what the title should be is still open to some question - "reported", "purported", "alleged", etc.).

• See this firehose of "proof by verbosity" posts to the RM, arguing with everyone Netoholic can (though singling me out in particular even after I raised WP:BLUDGEON and tried to disengage from Netoholic): [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] (minor edits elided).
• Netoholic is not making a consistent, cogent argument throughout, but veers between various policy/guideline principles depending on who N. is arguing with. The goal appears to be shotgunning every argument that comes to mind as long as N. gets what N. wants.
• WP:ICANTHEARYOU: Multiple editors have clearly objected about how off-base the personal reinterpretation of WP:FRINGE and MOS:WTW by Netoholic are (LuckyLouie: [23]; me: [24], [25]). Yet Netoholic keeps citing the loose WTW guideline (sometimes at different shortcuts) [26] as if it is an ironclad policy, e.g.: "Still standing by FRINGE as an argument to violate MOS:WTW#Expressions of doubt?" [27] We all know that WTW is words to watch (i.e., to rarely use, only carefully and sparingly, for good reason), not "words that are banned from Wikipedia". Netoholic posted this after this was explained to them [28]. If it's not what N. wants to hear, it just doesn't sink in.
• I repeatedly warned of WP:BLUDGEON, and attempted explicitly to exit the discussion [29],[30], but Netoholic engaged in WP:WINNING-flavored baiting [31], and then pursued me to my talk page [32], [33], [34], where Netoholic seems unwilling to take no for an answer and has been making repeated demands for the same thing over and over.
• When Netoholic didn't get the demanded action from me (for me to self-revert my proposal [35] at WT:MOSWTW to revise the relevant section of the guideline to be clearer, in direct response to the FUD being sown in this RM), N. decided to just go censor me, and to try to dictate how and where I may post [36]. N.'s rationale for this nonsense is that I "poisoned the well" of the RM or of N.'s notice about it. But the RM was already clearly not going to proceed in the direction N. wants, and I entirely accurately described it in my preamble to the revision proposal: "this discussion is relying on MOS:ALLEGED to suggest that WP cannot cast doubt on WP:FRINGE topics with terms like "reportedly" or "purportedly", and that is obviously not the intent of this guideline." And I explained this all to N. very clearly [37].
• I restored my post [38], and warned Netoholic not censor it again [39] or I would ask ANI for a topic ban. N. did it again anyway (even with a repeated edit summary, as if talking to a child or an idiot) [40]. So here we are. Netoholic did not respond at N.'s talk page or mine, just decided to editwar against WP:TPO in pursuit of whatever weird WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:BATTLEGROUND thing this is for N.
• Before this escalated to this point, I also notified WT:FRINGE and WT:MOS of the RM (in just "please see this relevant discussion" terms), and also raised the BLUDGEON and FRINGE-PoV problem at WP:FTN, in a pre-existing thread (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#List of reportedly haunted locations) but at this point ANI seems more appropriate, and I'll direct the FTN thread to this one. NB: Another editor there, Roxy the dog, appears to indicate the bludgeoning effect was strong enough for that editor to just abandon the discussion without commenting.

I think a topic ban, from something like "hauntings and ghosts" and from MOS:WTW is appropriate for some meaningful span of time. I have no idea whether this behavior is motivated out of a sincere belief in ghosts and in a "duty" of WP to treat them as real, or some kind of obsessive wikilawyering and argument-for-sport habit, or what. I just know that it's disruptive and that it appears to be confined to this particular topic (that said, I have not gone diff-digging for broader behavior patterns).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the removing of the word reportedly when we have WP:RS showing the existance of ghosts at that location, or those locations. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see healthy debate on a talk page involving an open discussion about page moves. Just because you can't get the last overly verbose word in for once doesn't make his behavior disruptive. You've had your input, now walk away and let a closer determine consensus. oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about the content decision being discussed in the RM, it's about edit-warring to delete other people's posts, and bludgeoning a discussion with WP:IDHT, then pushing the matter to the user-talk page of an "opponent" after that party already did walk away, and badgering them there with three posts of the same demand (two after an answer was already given).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• The pot is really calling the kettle black here. Calidum 16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

This got very heated and whilst no one should edit war to remove another users comments there were also counter accusations of canvasing. I am not going to judge the rights and wrongs just to say this should be closed and maybe a few quite words had.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite a few words, a few quiet words, or quite a few quiet words? Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Quiet Words.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Which ones? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be up to the admin who utters them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The heat is on one side though. I was deliberative, factual, avoidant of escalation or circularity, trusting that neutral notices to relevant pages like WT:MOS and WT:FRINGE will draw any necessary attention to the RM content matter, proposing guideline clarification on the guideline's talk page (the proper venue for that), and drawing WP:FTN noticeboard attention to the disruptive aspects of what's been going on at the RM discussion (without even naming a name, just pointing to a circumstance that needed some intervention). Netoholic, by contrast, has been posting sarky baiting messages after I've made it clear I don't want to continue the discussion, has IDHT-style browbeaten people at the RM who have a different viewpoint, then badgered me in repetitive fashion on my talk page, tried to censor my guideline clarification proposal, and done it again after a warning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• "See this firehose of "proof by verbosity" posts to the RM, arguing with everyone Netoholic can" (SMcCandlish, above). Well, I looked at the RM expecting to see an editor arguing with everyone in sight, and it has 18 !votes or comments by other editors - of with Netoholic has replied directly to four, and become involved in a discussion on a fifth. Apart from the nom, Netoholic has made eleven comments in that section. And the filer of this report, SMcCandlish, has made ... eleven as well. So IMO if Netoholic is "bludgeoning the discussion", then so is SMcCandlish. The spat at WTW was just that - a silly spat which wasn't needed. But the majority of this report involving the RM is spurious and can be closed with no action. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nah. Netoholic has been serially challenging everyone who disagrees with him; that he hadn't yet gotten to all of them by the time we ended up here is a good thing, not evidence in support of his behavior. (And of course N. won't pick arguments with those who agree with him; your counting up of stuff isn't on-point). By contrast, I have mostly been responding to pings to bring me back to the thread, and to direct questions asked of me, and also chatted in a jokey subthread about ghosts of reporters. That's not WP:BLUDGEON or anything like it. You actually have to look at the posts and their context and content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • It's obvious that both this discussion and the RM are haunted and thus outside the scope of Wikipedia, please stop before it spreads to the general text, Commons, and who the hell knows from there. Poking at and playing with the forces of non-nature seldom works out (although Mrs. Muir didn't do too bad). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

    Aaaiiieee! a wikigeist!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• There was no good reason to edit war to remove SMcC's comment. If it was inappropriate, go to the appropriate venue and leave a note in the discussion it concerns. That said, the rest of this is a content dispute. The only thing actually concerning here is the idea that anyone thinks it's ok to use Wikipedia's voice to say that a place is haunted. Seriously? But I'll go and make that case elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• The firehose of "proof by verbosity" are mostly valid points that a reasonable editor would take on board and discuss. Do we really need to assume the readers are so stupid it is necessary to say "reportedly haunted". I don't know the answer but it's worth talking about. The inability of the group wielding the WP:FRINGE hammer to see any other perspective can be trying at times. fiveby(zero) 20:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • engaging with "the group wielding following the most fundamental aspects of the WP:FRINGE hammer content guideline" can indeed be trying when arguing to use Wikipedia's voice to legitimate fringe theories contrary to that guideline. It's uncontroversial that there are people who believe haunting is Real and True, and countless TV shows, etc. dedicated to promoting that perspective. So we don't need to assume anything to understand that it's WP:FRINGE 101 stuff. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

    Indeed. At least two cable TV networks that used to mostly produce educational and fact-based material have for about 15 years or so been engaging in almost propagandistic levels of programming devoted to fringe nonsense, especially ghosts and "ancient aliens". And it works. I know an otherwise scientifically minded elementary-school teacher who has become convinced by them that ghosts are real and common. It reminds me of actual belief in the kayfabe roleplay of professional wrestling; of the "alternative facts" echo chambers of far-right media; of anti-vaxers and other conspiracy theorists; and of the self-evident nonsense that people buy in supermarket tabloids like Weekly World News and National Enquirer. The less reasonable it is, the more it appeals to a certain subset of people who kind of revel in wallowing in entertaining falsehoods that allow them to identify with and feel they're part of a special group.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Like BlackKite, I was expecting to open that page and see the types of walls of text the complainant is renowned for. What I saw in reality was a fairly normal RM where the proposer challenges a few opponents. As a semi-regular RM closer, it wasn't anything out of the ordinary, and I'm pretty sure I've made more challenges than that during RMs. I honestly don't know what action is expected here, so I would suggest this is hatted and we all move on to more important things. Number 57 21:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's fine. It's been my experience that virtually every time I raise concerns about an editor's behavior for the first time at ANI, no action is taken (unless it's a recent account that is an obvious troll or PoV-pushing SPA). What happens after that: either the behavior in question quietly changes so that the problem goes away (the best outcome), or the editor in question feels immune to consequences, so doubles-down and escalates the behavior, then community action is later taken when someone else reports the continued behavior pattern to ANI, another noticeboard, AE, or ArbCom, with my earlier ANI used as evidence. Either way, it gets resolved in the long run.

  To be clear, I said nothing about the length of Netoholic's posts; the concern was the "Bible-thumping" and WP:IDHT style of them, browbeating other editors with a personal reinterpretation of WTW, a guideline which does not (and could not possibly) mean what N. thinks it means, treating that personal vision of WTW like an inviolable policy, plus snide baiting to escalate when people try to disengage.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute, and it should be kept that way. MiasmaEternal^TALK 23:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I just looked at the block log of User:Netoholic. Sometimes one should learn from fifteen years ago. There may be a longer block log, but I haven't seen it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I can only dream of having a block log like that. EEng 04:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yeah, I wasn't going to raise that, since none of the blocks are within the last year.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  The great majority of those were a very long time ago, and a number of the early ones were quickly contested and overturned. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Am I the only one that sees the irony here? Want a solution to problems with how we cover places that are haunted? Well, since haunting is not real, how about we just not cover it at all? John from Idegon (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Surely you know by now that's now how WP works. We cover all kinds of fictional, imaginary, legendary, fringe, false, and impossible things, because they have non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. And its good that we do. In this case, if you wanted to do a bunch of research toward debunking ghost stories, what better place to start than an encyclopedically curated list of purported hauntings?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Harassment, on and off Wikipedia, by User:89.159.44.130

Can someone please have a word with User:89.159.44.130? He or she is posting harassing messages on my User Talk page. This morning, I also received a harassing e-mail message - sent to my work account, sent to one of my personal accounts, and copied to others at my employer and Wikimedia staff - presumably from the same person. He or she is also using 37.165.33.241 so a CU may be illuminating although the harassment is not (yet) so widespread and persistent that I suspect a sophisticated operation. This same editor also posted similar harassment on Dawnseeker2000's User Talk page, too. ElKevbo (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ ElKevbo Please stop to lie and stop to abuse your moderator power on Wikipedia. What you are saying is UNTRUE. You are removing content unfairly while keeping similar pages and content. Can you post the email you talk about here so that everyone can read? It is simply a complaint against your autocratic behaviors on Wikipedia, no more no less. You are damaging the popularity of Wikipedia by your autocratic behavior. Wikipedia is popular because it is open and transparent. Do not damage it with your personal ego. If you continue to remove contents, I will stop to use Wikipedia and to promote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.159.44.130 (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: - this not not "harassment". Do you have any other diffs which show behaviour from the IP what requires administrator intervention? Please also note that CUs will not link IP addresses. GiantSnowman 14:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Are you seriously saying that multiple messages posted to my User Talk page accusing me of lying and abusing my "moderator power" - posted using multiple IP addresses including one message posted after I deleted the previous one - is not harassment? Are you really telling all of us that an editor looking up another editor's personal and work e-mail addresses - not using Wikipedia's built-in e-mail function - and sending that editor, his employer, and Wikimedia staff the same kind of message as he or she wrote above is not harassment? If that is your stance then you need to resign your admin bit; harassment of Wikipedia editors is a serious problem and if you can't help address the problem then you can at least not dissuade others from trying to address and stop gaslighting editors who are being harassed. ElKevbo (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: The opening remark from the IP was "Why are you removing referenced contents from Wikipedia?" - the dispute then escalated because you did not respond to that reasonable comment, but stuck your fingers in your ears, getting them annoyed. Can you provide me with a diff of the dispute so I can understand what's going on? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, sorry but I don't see any point here where the IP first made a "reasonable comment" and then ElKevbo failed to respond. I'm also not seeing any "escalation" afterwards. The only thing I'm seeing is the IP – evidently some kind of COI/fringe-pusher – coming to ElKevbo straight away with guns blazing, with a stream of wild, personalizing accusations. And whether or not you find that first message over the top enough to count as harassment, the mails to off-wiki third parties are clearly far beyond the pale. This needs an immediate block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know; they haven't provided any specific details and the messages to my User Talk page and the e-mail message was the first time that I heard from him or her. Maybe it's related to this article but I don't know. He or she does appear to be editing solely to promote one specific author/researcher and many of those edits have been removed by multiple editors so I have no idea why he or she has decided to target me with wild, vague accusations. I did specifically ask if he or she is connected to that author/researcher but he or she has not responded to that question. ElKevbo (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: You posted one diff - now you complain about multiple messages. Like Ritchie asks for, we need evidence. GiantSnowman 15:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are two links in my original message and you also have ready access to the contribution history of both IP addresses which are rather short. And if you don't see the messages I've shared - they're similar in tone and comment to the ridiculous message posted above by this editor - as harassing then you need to reevaluate your standards about what you think is acceptable for Wikipedia editors to write about and accuse one another of doing and being. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment, for those with OTRS access, please see ticket:2020060410005699. This appears to be relevant. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 15:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm disengaging from this thread and removing ANI from my watchlist; please post a message at my User Talk page if you need anything else from me. If the information that has already been shared doesn't convince you that there is a problem here then I can't convince you. It shouldn't be acceptable for editors to make the accusations that have been made, post multiple messages to User Talk pages making these accusations, and e-mail editors and their employer to repeat the same accusations; if administrators can't understand that then I'm afraid that this volunteer-run project is in deep trouble. ElKevbo (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• For Christ's sake, ElKevbo is a long-established and respected editor. If he says emails were sent to his employer, we can believe him, and that's harassment for sure. If he needs to submit evidence to OTRS or whatever, I guess so, but this committed skepticism is uncalled for. EEng 15:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, yes, we should take claims like that at face value from established editors. The lack of any actual detail of what the dispute might be doesn't obscure that fact. On the face of it, this is a disgruntled refspammer. I am minded to prevent this bullshit wiuth an edit filter for now. What do others think? Guy (help!) 15:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'd like to add my little voice to EENg and JzG. astonishing. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Especially since the IP admitted the emails were sent... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) If people want to check on the original editorial dispute, see the last two dozen article edits by 89.159.44.130. The IP keeps on posting mentions of a scholar named Khaled Moustafa to a variety of different articles. He also wants to promote a new Arabic-language preprint server called arabixiv.org, created by Khaled Moustafa. The IP user has protested indignantly against recent admin actions at User talk:89.159.44.130, in threads like 'Stop to abuse of your moderator position'. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked the IP in question, and I agree with this action. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

<hat type="OTRS">

Per Alex Noble's link above, I confirm ElKevbo's story: there was an email sent to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], email addresses that appear to be ElKevbo's personal and work emails, and an email address that appears to belong to his employer. The email complained about ElKevbo's "autocratic" actions, stated that "a lot of people are complaining about [it]," and threatened to stop donating to Wikipedia, among other statements, and was generally similar in tone and content to the IP's post here and on ElKevbo's talk page. No further confirmation from ElKevbo should be necessary.

</hat> creffett (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, I think there's a "FOAD" template for that on OTRS. Guy (help!) 22:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Khaled Moustafa

The IP in question is essentially a WP:SPA devoted to adding articles and content related to Khaled Moustafa. This appears to have been going on sporadically since 2014, all from IPs allocated to SFR (mainly through its Numericable / Gaoland acquisition).

• 89.159.44.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.170.247.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 93.21.220.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.165.33.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Not cool. Guy (help!) 16:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not cool indeed. An edit filter like you suggested above would be cool though. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

In Impact factor the reference removed as "spam"[41] was added as one of two sources for the sentence before it; it was not just added as a reference with no content - both were published in Science and Engineering Ethics. Based on Special:Contributions/Corio, if one of the references is spam it's more likely the one that's still in the article. Peter James (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Peter James, that journal rings a bell. It's also where Brian Martin (social scientist) published his diatribe about how biased Wikipedia is because it is less glowing about him than about all the other social scientists who don't have a history of publishing or enabling anti-vaccine conspiracist bullshit.

I am beginning to wonder whether it functions as the axe-grinders' journal of choice? Guy (help!) 21:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support sanction. Posting confrontational notices on El Kevbo's talk page is one thing. Reseaching their real-life identity and sending a message to their employer is altogether different and totally, totally unacceptable. The subject user has admitted sending such a message. This kind of conduct is chilling and needs to be met with a strong sanction, preferably a block, IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think a block would be lenient. Off-wiki harassment that includes emailing an editor's employer (potentially compromising their job) should result in a community ban IMO. Number 57 22:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Cbl62, sod blocks, that's siteban material. Guy (help!) 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Site ban sounds good. My message was meant to express outrage at the extraordinary off wiki harassment presented here. Cbl62 (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The obvious...

The anonymous SFR user promoting Khaled Moustafa is indefinitely banned for harassment.

1. Support. Guy (help!) 22:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Hear, hear –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
3. Support. Cbl62 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
4. Support. Anyone who does this should be shown the door. —{ CrypticCanadian } 00:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
5. Support per Cbl and N57 above. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
6. Support. I haven't looked at the on-wiki stuff, but contacting someone's employer about a content dispute on Wikipedia is clear cut harassment and must not be tolerated. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
7. Support. Completely unacceptable behaviour. Number 57 12:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
8. Support. Door. Backside. Don't let it hit on the way out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
9. Support. "You won't be seeing that guy again". ——Serial ^# 13:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
10. Support Unacceptable behaviour.Lurking shadow (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
11. Support. And if they're laughing at this, bans will also apply to every other IP they use and whatever named accounts they may create in future, so a ban is more than just 86'ing their IPs. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 04:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
12. Support. Contacting someone's employer? Harassment. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
13. Support indef ban as well as an indef block for all listed IPs - These levels of WP:NOTHERE are feared by even the gods. --letcreate123 (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
14. Strong support and indef block for these IPs. Harassment is not excusable at that scale. I would like to give IPs chances normally, but this time i am not. SMB​99​thx_{this might be ugly} 07:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
15. Support Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
16. Support promotion? definitely not. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 20:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
17. Support per WP:NOTHERE. JavaHurricane 03:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Arsi786

I have been watching editing of Arsi786 for sometime and there are issues that should be addressed because warnings have certainly not worked.

Problems include misrepresentation of sources,[42] edit warring,[43][44] removal of sourced content without providing edit summaries,[45] unexplained POV changes,[46] and extraordinarily outrageous edits like this.

Shashank5988 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have suppressed the last of those, as it accused the subject of a serious crime without evidence; adding that is almost sanction-worthy in and of itself. I do not have the time to investigate the other issues. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The edits warring have been dealt with and the madudi one was not a edit warring as I stopped. Arsi786 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I have been also watching the editing of Arsi786 and have observed that his editing is problematic in that it includes POV pushing, blanking any mention of minorities among predominantly Muslim nations or ethnic groups, reducing figures of Muslim apostates or Cultural Muslims, misrepresenting sources and edit warring. I will try to explain all these in the next paragraph:

1. In this edit [47] and here again [48], he reduces the percentage of those raised Muslim who no longer embrace Islam in adulthood to from 32 to 22, even though the source clearly cited data from the General Social Survey in the United States which shows that 32 percent of those raised Muslim no longer embrace Islam in adulthood, and 18 percent hold no religious identification.
2. Another example of misrepresentation of sources is here [49], where the Pew source cited that the percentage Sunni Muslims in Morocco is 67% not 70% [50].
3. Another example is here [51], where he changes the percentage of Muslims form 89.1% to 90.39%, when the given source mentions that the percentage is 89.1%. Instead of changing the source to reflect his new edit or going to the talk page, he just started edit warring.
4. Another example is here [52], where he changed the information claiming that "the changes he made reflect the source" page 59, even though his new edit reflects page 58, but instead of keeping both statistics, he removed the first one.
5. Another example is here [53], where Arsi786 claims that his edit reflects the source and that "97% Javanese follow orthodox Islamic traditions", and it's not true; the source mentions that "97.3 per cent of these are officially Muslim", but "Only 5-10 per cent follow Agami Islam Santri". The Agami Islam Santri category is what is considered to be the "Orthodox Islam", while the other practices are syncretism with local beliefs along with Islam.
6. Another example is here [54], in which Arsi786 reduces the Iranian diaspora from 1 to 2 million, though the tree estimates them as 2 to 4 million; check here for example, so Arsi786 made the change based on what?
7. In this edit [55], he removed the Roman Catholic minority from ethnic group's box, claiming that "Roman catholic faith is not in the references given", even though the two references given (here and here) clearly mention the Roman Catholic minority. The same problems can be found here [56], where he removed mention of Hindus and Sikhs in the infobox without providing edit summaries. Another example is here [57], where he remove Christianity from the infobox even though, inside the article it is mentioned that "Most Gambians living in the United States are Muslim or Christian".
8. His removal of sourced content without providing edit summaries can be found in several places: [58], [59], [60], [61]. Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
9. And these are just few examples of his problematic edits. I'm not going even to start discussing his edit warring behaviour. Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

1.The reference given can't even be seen you have to pay to go to the article while pew did a study saying its 22% https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/26/the-share-of-americans-who-leave-islam-is-offset-by-those-who-become-muslim/

2. This is sectarian division among moroccan muslims those 30% said they are just muslim 67% identified as sunni muslim while 3% didn't leave a reply according to pew so what's the problem here exactly I combined both of them together.

3. The official bangladesh census wrote it was 90% but you chose to replace those figures from a usa cia estimation factbook site.

4. Funny the original one was false which I corrected but I agree I should of read it more correctly.

5. You're just bring nickpicky.

6. Did you even bother to check the source it doesnt give the figure of 3 or 4 million but between 1 to 2 million mainly in the usa.

7.My bad I agree I didnt read the sources given at first I assumed you were lying its true 1% of iraqi turkmen Identify as christians. The pashtun one was already dealt with in the talk page the issue always comes back up they aren't considered as ethnic pashtuns. Gambia is a muslim dominated country there was no references given pf its diaspora in america having christians now.

8. Edit 127 was fixing the spelling mistakes so I just left it.

Edit 128 was the same to fix spelling mistakes while the inheritance part in the quran is only half of her brothers not all men quran.com/4/11 which I corrected. The hanafi part was not true as many hanafi dominated countries allow women to divorce for other reasons not just for those reasons given.

Edit 129 was from a biased source it was not a credible study.

Edit 130 if you bothered to look at futher edits made afterwards we discussed it and he brought actual relevent information in which I left.

Just because I didnt leave edit summaries doesnt mean I deserve to get banned.

Arsi786 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020

Topic Ban for Arsi 786 on India-Pakistan and Religion-Atheism articles

• Support. Arsi786 has misrepresented sources to push a POV across ethnic groups, especially in relation to India-Pakistan articles and religious statistics regarding ethnic groups. If there is no objection to a community ban for his vandalism of the project (for example, replacing "jurist" with "pedophile" [62]), I would support that too.Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree its a extreme to do a total ban and if you have read the works of madudi he allows and advocates for men to be allowed to marry and consummate the marriage with girls who haven't reached puberty in his exegesis of the quran while traditional scholars were against sleeping with girls that haven't reached puberty so his basic pedophile

Madudi exegesis https://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/tafsir.php?chapter=65.

View of traditional scholars https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/84343/the-prophets-sallallaahu-alayhi-wa-sallam-marriage-to-aaishah-may-allaah-be-pleased-with-her

Arsi786 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2020

I am confident that you still don't understand WP:OR. Your explanations to above diffs are not convincing. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The example above display how perverted and pedophilic he was it was unsourced and it was original research.Arsi786 (talk) 9:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The above comments just show Arsi is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, regardless of what it takes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I can stop if that's a option I don't think I deserved to be banned.Arsi786 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2020

• Question for @Arsi786: is the above an offer to voluntarily stop editing articles related to India-Pakistan and Religion-Atheism and move on to editing in other areas? If this is the case I believe this would resolve the issue and give the editor a chance to contribute constructively without the blemish of a topic ban.   // Timothy :: talk  00:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No sorry I meant If you gave me another chance I won't do things like this I don't think I deserve to get a topic ban.Arsi786 (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2020

Smallpox

Hi, I would appreciate an uninvolved admin to intervene here please. Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do you need an admin? I don't see behavioral problems, I see editors disagreeing with each other, which happens now and again on Wikipedia. Why not start an RfC about the lede image? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Umm, it's a never-ending "discussion" (starting in April 2017) about something that will never happen (smallpox is never going to be illustrated with a bowl of flowers). The who-cares response to a situation like that is to say that an RfC should be held, but there is no clear proposal other than that a small number of people do not want to see a picture of smallpox in the smallpox article (or perhaps not in the lead?). They should be told to make a firm proposal in an RfC. The problem is what to do if they don't follow that advice, but continue complaining. The matter would need ANI attention then. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the "bowl of flowers" folks have a point, I'm just saying that if you hold an RfC, it attracts other (presumably reasonable) editors who drive the consensus towards the common sense outcome, and the question is settled. Then disruptive editing can be dealt with, and an AN/I report is not necessary to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So, basically, force bureaucracy rather than just fixing the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope, use available processes to fix the problem instead of asking for authoritarian intervention to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Good, but who should create what RfC? Rather than an admin telling the newbies to make a proposal or keep quiet, the squash-newbies approach would be to hold an RfC on whether the current image should be endorsed. However, such an RfC is problematic because inevitably people faced with such a question would have a variety of opinions with some thinking another smallpox image would be better etc. IMHO it's really up to anyone wanting a change to make a proposal, then accept the consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

So, yeah, just go through the WP:BURO motions until we arrive at the obvious result. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan and Smith0124

Smith0124 has been repeatedly removing candidates from the sub-pages of 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries contrary to consensus that all candidates that receive over 5% are to be included in the infobox. As many of you know, there is a long standing guideline to include candidates that receive over 5%, which has been stated in this 2017 RfC, among other places. Most recently, there was a RfC on the main page which determined consensus for part B with the addition of candidates that receive 5% of the vote. Notwithstanding this Smith0124 has been removing Sanders, Warren and Bloomberg from infoboxes, suggesting that only two people can be in them. He has removed them from Washington, Arizona, Florida, District of Columbia, Minnesota among others. He has been notified about this on his talk page, the DC talk page and the main page. Unfortunately, he refuses to respect RfC consensus and has attempted to come up with various reasons to take matters into his own hands and simply disregard that consensus. He refuses to reconsider his behaviour.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Darryl refuses to listen here. For months, the standard was that only the top two candidates went in the infobox because everyone except Biden had withdrawn. There was no pushback and I didn’t even think twice about it. The second place candidate, usually Sanders, went up because of a 2017 Rfc stating that there always had to be at least two candidates. There is an Rfc that I participated in and strongly agree with stating that candidates should go in the infobox if they get more than 5% of the vote, but nowhere in this Rfc does it say that this includes candidates that have withdrawn, and clearly that’s how everyone except Darryl interpreted it because that’s how it’s been for months. The only reason other candidates are included in 2020 Democratic presidential primaries is because they won a contest. Darryl clearly has no consensus for the changes since it’s been like this for months, there is no reason to accuse me of going against the 5% rule. It makes no sense to include candidates that have withdrawn inside the infobox, which is supposed to be a summary. They belong in the results table. If Darryl wants to change what’s been the standard for months with no pushback until now, a consensus is needed. My behavior has not been disruptive in the slightest, I am simply protecting the standard. Smith0124 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As you have been told, the recent RfC considered removing withdrawn candidates. There was no consensus to do so. It was also considered in the context of the main page, again no consensus to remove. The consensus reached was to include all candidates which receive 5% of the vote. As you have been told before, if you don't like it start another RfC, but you don't just get to disregard the consensus reached.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No consensus means no consensus. Not that they should be included. Clearly that's how everyone else saw it. Smith0124 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the closing comment is that there is consensus to include candidates which receive delegates or 5% of the vote. That is a positive consensus. And in considering withdrawn candidates the closing comment is that there is consensus against Option B (removing withdrawn candidates). You do not get to disregard the positive consensus to include candidates that receive 5% of the vote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This is what I mean when I say Darryl doesn't listen. The consensus is for candidates still running, that's how it's been interpreted on all these pages for months, with no pushback. No consensus was reached on withdrawn candidates, and the standard has been to not include them. I hate repeating the same thing over and over. Smith0124 (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not how it was uniformly applied, and that was while the RfC was underway. We now have a positive consensus from the RfC. You are also disregarding the fact that, many articles had a de facto loose polling consensus for before the contest actually happened. That meant that only Sanders and Biden were in the infobox for most articles before the election occurred. After the contest (when we have reliable data/votes) we have a consensus that ALL CANDIDATES THAT RECEIVE 5% ARE INCLUDED IN THE INFOBOX. What part of the RfC consensus do you not understand? I can only explain it so many times.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You admitted that no consensus was reached on withdrawn candidates. No consensus. I agree with you that there is a consensus to put candidates who have more than 5% of the vote, but by saying there is no consensus for withdrawn candidates they are clearly separating candidates who are running and candidates who are withdrawn. They are clearly separated in this consensus and that's how it's been on the state by state pages for months. If you want to get a consensus to change that, go ahead, but there is no consensus for withdrawn candidates. Smith0124 (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

There IS A CONSENSUS to include all candidates that receive 5%. If you don't want to follow that consensus, start a RfC to reconsider it. The current consensus is to include them. Simply asserting a new criteria to ignore that consensus is disruptive and not appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"The recent RfC considered removing withdrawn candidates. There was no consensus to do so" in your own words. No consensus means you shouldn't break the standard. If there had been a consensus not to remove withdrawn candidates I would agree with you. The standard for months has been to not include the withdrawn candidates, and as you said there's no consensus, so if you want to change the standard for the state by state pages that have not included them for months I encourage you to get a consensus. Your words prove my point, I'm sick of arguing and I've presented my argument which I believe settles this. If you want to keep ranting in all caps go ahead. This is my last response until we get a third person involved because this is getting us nowhere. Smith0124 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What part of this do you not understand? There was no consensus to remove withdrawn candidates (you insist on doing so anyway). There is consensus to include all candidates that receive 5% of the vote after a contest (you refuse to do so). You are disrupting the application of the consensus that was reached. STOP.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I have to respond to this I'm sorry. It wasn't just me, it was basically everyone else. These are commonly edited pages that are edited by a lot of different people, plenty of these people could've objected in April or May but not a single person did until now. That is because everyone else that has edited these pages in the past few months realizes that the consensus on the Rfc didn't apply to withdrawn candidates, that by saying there was no consensus on withdrawn candidates the Rfc was separating candidates who are running and candidates who are withdrawn. I could just as easily say that there was no consensus not to remove withdrawn candidates because it means the same thing. It is not just me. That's why I say it's the standard, because everyone else who has made these infoboxes has done the exact same thing as me. The only way to prove me wrong on that is to start an Rfc yourself on withdrawn candidates specifically and get a consensus. Smith0124 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The recent RfC was closed on May 22. Before that, we didn't know for sure what the consensus was. But you had agreed in this participant discussion, meant to narrow the issues, that the consensus was "After a caucus or primary, candidates should only be included in result infoboxes if they have earned a delegate OR 5% Popular Vote in that race." Many of the sub-articles edited in April and May concerned contests that had not closed, so as I said only Sanders and Biden were included before the election (on the view that others were not polling above 5%). In other sub-articles, only Biden or Sanders received over 5%, so after the primary only they were included in the infobox. But none of that matters, because when the RfC closed on May 22 the consensus was to include all candidates who received over 5%. I have spent far too much time trying to explain things to you, which you are either unable or unwilling to understand. I will try not to respond further and instead try to let others explain why you can't just disregard consensus you don't like.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I will also wait for a third person. But I will say that the close was on March 10, it was archived on May 22. The most recent message from anyone on that section that I could find was on April 9th, though substantial discussion about the consensus largely ended on March 22. Smith0124 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, what are you talking about? The RfC was closed by SpinningSpark on May 22, 2020. They added closing comments then... you know... when it closed. It remains un-archived on the regular talk page, not in archives.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That was just a brief statement. Davemoth wrote up the consensus on March 10. Nobody objected to part B. The consensus was effectively reached then and it was used from then on, the May 22 statement came months after and was only done so it could be archived. Users were well aware of the consensus months before May 22. To this day there is still no consensus on withdrawn candidates as stated in that Rfc. Smith0124 (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That was a participant discussion meant to narrow the issues and make a formal close easier for the impartial closer. Davemoth (an involved party) never purported to close the RfC and it continued until it was formally closed by SpinningSpark on May 22.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Davemoth had every intention of establishing a consensus, as that's exactly what he/she did. Substantial discussion largely ended on March 22. By then everyone probably read Davemoth's consensus and that was what was used from then on. Smith0124 (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124, I am not sure which part of "After a caucus or primary, candidates should only be included in the infoboxes of primary and caucus articles if they have won delegates in that contest or received 5% of the vote" is confusing. Consensus seems pretty clear there, and the consensus for withdrawn candidates was not determined for the main article. Why don't you just open up another RfC that simply asks "Should withdrawn candidates be removed from the infoboxes of the individual primary articles?"? A. Yes, if they did not receive a delegate or received less than 5% of the vote. B. Yes, all withdrawn candidates should be removed. C. No, they should not be removed under any circumstances. You have to be specific with your RfCs otherwise you end up with unfocused discussion and impossible to evaluate consensus. Nihlus 23:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

If the consensus was clear on withdrawn candidates, it wouldn't have taken all the way from March 10 to early June for someone to pushback on the notion that no consensus was reached on withdrawn candidates, as said in the Rfc. The May 22nd closer did mention that he/she thought the Rfc was unclear. I fully agree that a new Rfc is the best solution, but until then the months old standard of removing the withdrawn candidates unless we need a second face in the infobox should stay. That's the rules I believe, the standard sticks until there is consensus to change it. Smith0124 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This RfC was for the main page. I don't see a consensus to remove or keep withdrawn candidates from the individual primary pages on that page, however. I think the best thing would be to keep whatever was in the articles prior to today and to start a new RfC as mentioned above. There is no sense in edit warring over that while the discussion is taking place. Nihlus 23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

My way is the initial way. I can make an Rfc, I assume it should go on 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Smith0124 (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not familiar with where most discussion for those pages takes place, but given that the talk page has been used before, I imagine that would be fine. Nihlus 00:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s where the initial Rfc was. Thank you so much for helping us sort this out! I very much appreciate it. Smith0124 (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This RfC was for the sub-pages. It says we include them. If Smith wants to do a new RfC he can have at it, but the existing consensus is to include them. We are not going to erase candidates who have received significant support from the infoboxes pending the two months it will take for that RfC to run its course, after we just did that. How many RfC's do we need to hold for participants to respect the consensus that is reached in them? Another editor went through and removed them saying only candidates that received delegates should be included, though they accepted the consensus when pointed to the RfC. Smith hasn't even articulated a clear standard here. He has removed some candidates that have withdrawn, and not others. He thinks only one withdrawn candidate can be included, because apparently there is some unwritten rule of two. Otherwise, only Joe Biden would be in any of the infoboxes. He has removed Bloomberg from the Minnesota despite the fact that he withdrew the day after, and left in a Warren as a third candidate for some unknown reason. He has removed Warren from Washington despite the fact that she had not withdrawn when voting began. Are we really going to refuse to implement the RfC consensus and instead just use the Smith says so (based on nothing) standard? I do not accept, that we ignore the RfC consensus until a new RfC is done. Withdrawn candidates were considered in that RfC and consensus was all candidates who receive 5% are included, not all but those who have withdrawn.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, I do not see any discussion in that RfC that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the consensus is what you say it is. There are at best a few comments that mention it. Perhaps it would be best if both of you just avoided changing them and avoid each other until a new consensus is reached. There is WP:NORUSH to get this resolved and fixed immediately. Nihlus 05:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The consensus in that RfC clearly states that all candidates that received delegates or over 5% are included. There was not a significant debate in that RfC about withdrawn candidates, but it was considered and discussed in passing and nonetheless the consensus formed was that all candidates that received delegates or over 5% are included. Now one editor is trying to claim that it was always accepted that withdrawn candidates had to be excluded. He has not even been applying that standard uniformity. I am sure there is no rush for Smith0124 now that he has imposed his own views on the articles without any care for the RfC consensus. Editors have already waited months while the last RfC was underway and we were waiting for a close. I see no reason to wait another two months for this RfC to close when we already have a consensus to include them. I also have no trust for Smith0124 now. They have not been straight with me on their talk page, claiming that there was a consensus somewhere that specifically supported removal of withdrawn candidates. Their responses to me on the main page talk, also do not make sense and appear to me to be attempts to revise what they actually said. There is no consensus to remove withdrawn candidates, so I see no reason I should accept Smith0124 going against the RfC consensus or the other editors that have now commented in the RfC he has now started. Several have suggested he put down the stick. Sure we could wait forever, but why should we?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, at the end of the day, this RfC will end up resolving these issues so that you can move on to other things. Also, the RfC has no set amount of time that it needs to be kept open. Per WP:RFCEND, it can be closed early for many reasons. With the way the votes are going now, it appears a consensus will be formed sooner rather than later. I understand things are a bit heated, and it probably seems overly bureaucratic, but you'll be in a better position to handle future conflicts going down this route. Nihlus 06:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, RfCs can in theory be closed after less than a month, and a close can come earlier, but in my experience they tend to take two months or longer from open to close. I invited Smith to start one early on to alter the consensus as he is proposing, but he decided instead to make edits contrary to the existing consensus, then start this RfC and demand the "status quo" (that he unilaterally created) be maintained. What is to stop him from finding a new reason to refuse to follow the next RfC consensus? Nothing apparently.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

This Rfc is very specific and straightforward. I promise to follow it. You can take my word on it. Smith0124 (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• This user has also been removing polls that they deem unimportant based on their own personal criteria, for which they do not have a consensus for. I noticed this at 2020 United States Senate election in Maine but they have done this elsewhere. I've asked them to gain consensus for their criteria and self-revert but they have declined. (the polling was restored first by me and then by someone else) 331dot (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That polling is junk. It assumes that the primary elections won’t happen and pits either a bunch of Republicans against one Democrat in the same poll or vise versa. That’s not how an election works, that’s why primaries exist. We need to not include them because they are deeply misleading and don’t represent the actual election. It’s something that would never happen. Smith0124 (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124, that should be discussed in greater detail elsewhere and determined prior to removing them (or whatever the status quo was prior) per WP:BRD. I think WP:BRDDISCUSS specifically would be helpful for you as well. If your edit is challenged, it's best to discuss it rather than edit war about it. Nihlus 20:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Smith0124 That's your opinion, which you are entitled to have, but you cannot impose it by fiat. This is a community and you need consensus for your change, especially since you seem to have some sort of personal criteria as to what you deem to be a 'junk' poll and what you don't. All I am asking is that you be more collaborative and seek a consensus for what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

PutItOnAMap had a good solution which was to combine all the Democratic and Republican candidates and put a note about how much each candidate got on their own. You can see what I mean on 2020 Montana gubernatorial election. We are in agreement so let's just leave it at that. Smith0124 (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think all polls matter to provide a full picture of how the election developed, so I see nothing wrong with the way things were prior to your edits. I await any consensus you develop. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Easy solution: Have different inclusion criteria for infoboxes of elections & infoboxes of primaries/caucuses. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Interaction Ban

I would like an indefinite interaction ban for me and Darryl Kerrigan. Don’t care if it’s one way or two way because even if it’s one way I’m gonna not talk to him/her ever again. I would like Darryl banned from my talk page. It would also be nice if someone tried to calm Darryl down and ask him/her to stop arguing. Darryl refuses to stop arguing after an earlier incident here was settled, and I can’t stand it. It’s been two days of Darryl finding every place he/she can to complain about me and how I’m a horrible person trying to break every Wikipedia rule in existence when all I did was put up an Rfc about withdrawn candidates, something that was not specifically addressed in a previous Rfc on infobox criteria for political candidates. Not only does Darryl refuse to assume good faith, but I keep having to be dragged into the same argument over and over, as Darryl refuses to stop, calm down, and let the Rfc play out, saying it’s “a stain on the organization”. I don’t want to discuss the Rfc any further because I’m sick of talking about it, I just want this interaction ban. Thanks. Smith0124 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: #User:Smith0124, a bit higher up on this page. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 08:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would suggest that you avoid notifying administrators of this discussion as it could be seen as WP:CANVASSING. You are free to ask that others not comment on your user talk page without a formal ban. (maybe you have) 331dot (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologize. I’m just very upset about this whole thing. I would like a formal ban though. Darryl doesn’t know how to stop, I’ve asked him/her to multiple times and it’s not just my talk page. Smith0124 (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Smith0124: - you mentioned they'd been finding every place they could complain about you - could you give a diff to some of these. Unless Darryl also wants a 2-way IBAN, I'd need to see some evidence of each aspect of your statement. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I’m not exactly sure what you mean by diffs but the endless arguing by Darryl has spawned across my talk page, [[Talk: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#:::@Smith0124: - you mentioned they'd been finding every place they could complain about you - could you give a diff to some of these. Unless Darryl also wants a 2-way IBAN, I'd need to see some evidence of each aspect of your statement. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Smith0124: - you mentioned they'd been finding every place they could complain about you - could you give a diff to some of these. Unless Darryl also wants a 2-way IBAN, I'd need to see some evidence of each aspect of your statement. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I’m not exactly sure what you mean by Diffs, but if you want proof of endless arguing and me trying to deescalate it’s spawned across my talk page, Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Rfc on withdrawn candidates for the individual primary pages, Talk: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Vandalism of sub-pages, and Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#RfC on infobox inclusion criteria for candidates (both are collapsed in the discussion section of the Rfc), a section of this very page that is linked above, and Darryl tried to restart the argument again on the administrator’s request to close noticeboard. Smith0124 (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A diff refers to linking to the actual edit demonstrating what you claim; the following is me linking to my last edit to this page: this diff. You find these in the edit history of the relevant page. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I oppose an indefinite interaction ban. Smith0124 has made it clear they do not want me to comment on their talk page, and I am happy to oblige besides providing any necessary notifications of processes like this one. Smith has also made clear that he does not want to interact with me, and would prefer I just leave him to do whatever he wishes at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, the related sub-pages and presumably other American politics articles. This all started because he has removed multiple candidates (Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg) from the infoboxes of those articles despite the fact that they received over 5% of the vote. A recent RfC closed on May 22, created a consensus for all candidates who received 5% to be included. I raised this in edit descriptions and then on Smith's talk page. He refused to follow that consensus. I then raised the issue on one of the talk pages for the sub-pages. That went nowhere. Then I asked for help on the main page. That conversation ended with Smith telling me to report him here, which began the above. Nihlus offered the suggestion that a further RfC could be appropriate. Smith0124 started another RfC on the main page, and was promptly told by some editors perhaps he should withdraw it, that the RFC violates the already established consensus and to put down the stick. Smith0124 refused to do so. He has then repeatedly claimed that no changes can be made to the sub-pages until the RfC is formally closed. He appears to be gaming the system by attempting to maintain his edits as long as possible and against consensus. After other editors suggested much of the same, I proposed a speedy close of the RfC Smith had created. He refused to do so, so I asked for a formal close. He went to the Requests for Closure page to oppose any close, and then ten minutes later came here to propose a interaction ban. That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: This is exactly why I need an interaction ban. This is now like the sixth place Darryl has argued this and he’s already failed four times. Doesn’t know when to stop. Smith0124 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You can't exactly propose a indefinite ban against me, and expect me not to respond.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I was proposing it because you won’t stop arguing. I’ve heard your points a million times now. Responding by starting the same argument again is just proving my point. You’ve made yourself loud and clear, it’s time to walk away from the matter until the Rfc closes. I specifically asked in my request not to talk about the Rfc, which you clearly ignored. Smith0124 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Your RfC is invalid, as you have been told by others. As is the way in which you are trying to use it to freeze your edits in place. It is completely appropriate for me to ask for a formal close and attempt to get this matter resolved quickly. Leaving your edits in place for the time you think the RfC should be allowed to run its course is disruptive. Demanding that I not bring up your RfC (a big part of why we are here) is not helpful either. Nor is making edits to the ANI page to try to recast things.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Still can’t stop arguing. Please keep proving my point and telling everyone why we need this interaction ban for me because you’re doing a great job of that. Smith0124 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan and Smith0124: Can you two just take a break from each other for a day? You are going around in circles and escalating from one page to another when none of this bickering is necessary. Smith0124, it is likely that your RfC is not going to go the way that you want it, so it is probably best to just move on and edit something else or work towards improving those articles in a separate way. You are the one who is going to come out of this situation looking bad if you don't cool your jets. Nihlus 17:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a problem staying off his talk page (as I have already agreed to do), but I will respond to his allegations against me here if necessary. I will only respond at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries or related talk pages if necessary. Regardless, this RfC needs to be dealt with, and the sub-pages need to be restored to consensus. A WP:BREATHER that only leaves these invalid edits in place and RfC ongoing, means that the wound will continue to fester. Refusing to address the underlying issues here is a problem. It is not going to be fixed by walking away and ignoring it. I brought this to talk pages, and then here to try to resolve the issue. I have not edit warred with Smith. But if the issue is not addressed this is going to continue to be a problem.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Deescalating is not the same thing as ignoring. The RfC will be closed soon enough and then everyone can move forward with that consensus. Nihlus 17:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be. Nihlus, I will do my best not to ruffle feathers. But telling me not to revert edits that were against consensus in the first place, not push for a close of a RfC that is disruptive and others have called invalid, while doing nothing else to remedy this, IS ignoring the problem. If the community can't or won't deal with disruptive behaviour, then we are failing. Justice delayed is justice denied. Sometimes the deadline is now. If Smith didn't believe so also, he wouldn't have ensured his edits were the "status quo" before he launched his RfC. I hope we can deal with the underlying issues because a breather is not going to remedy them. If you have any suggestions to resolve this issue promptly, I would be more than happy to hear them.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I will not interact for as long as needed to deescalate. Wikipedia rules are that things stay the initial way until a consensus is reached, and how the articles are now is the initial way because it’s how they’ve been since the start. So let’s just wait for the Rfc to close as Nihilus said. Smith0124 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In the spirit of not interacting with Smith0124, I would appreciate if someone else could undo this edit in which he has hidden my request for a speedy close. It is not appropriate for him to alter talk pages in this way. A previous edit doing the same was already undone by another editor. Now Smith0124 seems to be warring about it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So I see this breather is to be one-way. It took Smith two minutes from saying he would try to respect a breather to try to WP:BAIT me into an edit war on a talk page. Disappointing that this behaviour is ignored.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

My gosh, PLEASE stop accusing me. I didn't revert your edit I only saw that you had a problem with it on this page after I did it. I'd like to take a breather too but you're making it impossible by continuing to accuse. So don't even reply to this and let's call this the start of the breather. If you don't like the edit then have someone revert it. It was just bad timing. Smith0124 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, it has been another day. Can we maybe deal with the underlying issue now? The original RfC which created the consensus, that is now being ignored, was started on February 26. We are now well into June. The RfC that was started to re-litigate this matter has now been running for three days. We are currently at seven votes to respect the consensus and one (the opener) against. Can we move on? I am trying to be respectful here, but our failure to deal with this in any sort of timely way is mindbendingly frustrating. If the deadline wasn't now in February, if it is not now now, then when? How long do we put up with the nonsense?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Admins are unlikely to mess with this wall of text of back and forth arguing. Either way, this is not likely to rise into an incident requiring admin intervention. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it became clear the underlying issues were not going to be addressed here. If matters like these are not dealt with swiftly they tend to fester into WP:WALLSOFTEXT, as you say. I have gone ahead and closed the RfC and restored the sub-pages inline with consensus. Hopefully, that is all on this matter.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: Darryl and I were told to take a breather. Darryl obeyed for about 16 hours or so and then reverted all the edits he/she was not supposed to revert until the Rfc closes. This is proof that we need an interaction ban, the guy never stops. I already promised to obey the results of the Rfc, Darryl just has to wait for the process to play out fairly. Wikipedia rules state that in a dispute the edits remain how they’ve been and they’ve been my way since the beginning. Smith0124 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We discussed a breather of a day, more than two days ago. I respected that, but I was clear I wanted the underlying issue dealt with. You had time to think over your behaviour and what folks were telling you, about withdrawing your RfC and putting down the stick. It is clear you have decided not to. A "breather" is not a tool to maintain your disruptive edits indefinitely, unless you ARE indeed WP:GAMING. I think you should just desist already, or alternatively take the advice others have given you and put down the darn stick.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't take orders from you. Only you have asked that I "put down the stick". No matter how many times you say the same thing I'm not listening to you as you are not my boss. Smith0124 (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not just me. You would have been wise to consider some of the feedback you got when you started your RfC. I see that you have not.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Nsenaratna creating flood of "in creation" Sri Lanka stubs and orphan categories

Nsenaratna (talk · contribs) is creating a flood of articles on Sri Lankan electoral districts, filling various alerting lists, and in particular Category:Stubs. Each article is labelled {{In creation}}, and they are being developed piecemeal in mainspace, overwriting edits by other editors such as stub-sorters who are trying to empty that category. They have been left a variety of messages on their talk page over the few days since they registered as an editor, but have not replied to any of them.

They have also created a number of categories with no parent categories, such as Category:Polling Divisions of the Kalutara Electoral District. PamD 11:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

PamD, They are currently the editor with the most unreviewed articles, 149 by my last count. Vexations (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I asked them yesterday to please stop mass creating low quality stubs - in fact there was one point they did 6 in a minute and given this is more than just a single line of text, which I could see being possible in that time frame, I'm concerned about the rapid fire creation that seems bot like given the stubs also include detailed/difficult templates that this is automated/semi automated. Praxidicae (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I also realize this is rather quick for a proposal but I'd suggest a block at least from mainspace until they respond to their talk page. I find their unwillingness to communicate and collaborate the most problematic and the sheer number of messages that have gone unacknowledged is unacceptable. Praxidicae (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, Done. El_C 12:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, righteous partial block. Guy (help!) 21:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response, and all the trouble. I've written a detailed response here: User:Nsenaratna/sandbox/Sorry. Thanks! NSenaratna (talk · contribs) the Contrite 5:35 AM , 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I have unblocked NSenaratna and am hoping for good things to be the order of the day. Thanks for engaging! El_C 10:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Block review of AManWithNoPlan

Following the addition of a new identifier to the 'cite' templates, some editors have used Citation bot to make multiple rapid edits that remove the link to the article from the title in the citation. Examples are:

• Trimix (breathing gas)
• Ethosuximide

There is a very clear general support for the position that titles in citations should link to the relevant article, as can be seen in this well-supported RfC Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167 #Auto-linking titles in citations of works with free-to-read DOIs held at Village pump (proposals).

I made AManWithNoPlan aware of the problem. This was removed with the edit summary Technically not my edit. Will discuss on bot page. We have had the same problem in March where AManWithNoPlan refused to accept that when they initiate a bot run, they remain responsible for the consequences of its edits: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1033 #AManWithNoPlan and Citation bot.

I then warned AManWithNoPlan that they are expected to discuss concerns about their editing on their talk page. That was dismissed with the edit summary the was not the conclusion reacje.

I had earlier raised my concerns at User talk:Citation bot #Removing links from title without result. AManWithNoPlan then commented "I personally do not see a the consensus that you claim to exist based upon the discussion ... Lastly, I do not have time at this point to make changes to the bot to implement a new consensus. I took this as a clear indication that he intended to continue removing links from titles, and I have now blocked him until he no longer poses a further threat of disruption.

I am bringing the block for review to this board, and I appreciate other thoughts on how best to proceed. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• It kind of seems you warned him, justifiably, but blocked him before he actually made any actions against your warning. ie: a pre-emptive block, which is not something we normally do. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong. We normally don't block until an action is repeated after the final warning is given, regardless of their expressed intentions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• This is an epically bad block. If the bot is malfunctioning (which it wasn't, that RFC supports autolinking from free identifiers, there's still consensus to use identifier parameters to put identifier in instead of |url=), block the bot, not the user per WP:BOTISSUE. Especially the user who maintains the bot and can fix the problematic behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus to remove the links from titles in citations. Quite the opposite as demonstrated in the RfC. It is also well established that a user who initiates a bot run is responsible for the edits performed. I've yet to see any sign of anyone offering to clean up by relinking all of the titles that have been unlinked. --RexxS (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Whatever 'damage' there is can easily be 'repaired' with OA bot running on pages with |s2cid= set and a template update to CS1/CS2 templates autolink when |s2cid-access=free is set. User:Nemo bis can offer some insight here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
      • The damage is the removal of links from citation titles; it is real and there's no need for scare quotes. Or do I have to ask all of the other editors who are against removal of those links to explain their objections to you again? If the damage is that easy to fix, then why hasn't it been done already? --RexxS (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
        • You have to know there's an issue before you can fix the issue. For templates updates, go to Help talk:CS1 and try to make things budge out of Trappist the monk's schedule, you're an admin, you've got the ability to edit the templates. For OAbot, go to User:OAbot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Either way, the block to AManWithNoPlan is bad and should be undone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) @Headbomb: I alerted you to the problem quite clearly at 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC) and yet you still used Citation bot to remove a link from a title at 00:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC) as part of a huge bot run which undoubtedly has unlinked more titles. You seem to believe that you can edit in any way you choose, regardless of the damage you do. I have now blocked Citation bot to prevent further damage. You need to carefully consider your position and start looking for ways to clean up the mess you've caused. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• If the bot was not functioning correctly wouldn't the first thing to do be blocking that bot? Why was that not done first? I see you started a discussion on the bot page which is good, but that did not seem to completely agree with you. PackMecEng (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • RexxS Do you plan on addressing my concerns or anyone else that brought up the same points? PackMecEng (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• So you blocked someone for using a permissible bot and then for not respecting your authority, when you could have just blocked the bot? You also supported the underlying RFC so I am not sure how uninvolved you are. Bad blockAlmostFrancis (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Many of the links point to copyright violating PDF copies that S2 scraped, which is one reason why converting URLs to S2 ID's was strongly encouraged (similar to citeceerx conversion, which the bot has been doing for over a decade). IDs largely avoid the direct copyright violation, that the links have. Although, this discussion should probably be had on the bot page or on the copyright pages. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• RexxS, this was a bad block that served no purpose. The block should have been on the bot first with you following up with a discussion with the bot owner and those using the bot. I don't see any attempts by you to reach out to Smith609 or the other editors who were using the bot. Additionally, your comments here towards Headbomb are concerning, as you are claiming that he is openly defying your "orders" when it is possible that they submitted the bot job prior to your comments and claiming that he "damaged" articles like they are physical property. He has advised you how this could be corrected and you respond with threats? I just see a lot of missed opportunities for deescalation by you. Nihlus 01:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • When I raised my concerns with Headbomb, he had the opportunity to address them by stopping the bot run as he knew it would be continuing and I didn't. Why should it be my job to fix the problems he caused when he knows the extent of it and I don't? --RexxS (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    I'm not sure it is advisable to blame someone for not knowing about your lack of knowledge about a bot. Nihlus 01:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Why should I be expected to know how many edits the bot run was going to make? Which of us has that information? --RexxS (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    You would ascertain that information by monitoring the bot. Nihlus 03:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    No you wouldn't. Monitoring the bot tells you what edits it has already made and gives no warning that it's due to make another thousand or however many. The only person with that information is the editor who initiated the bot run. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    RexxS, yes, you would. You would see that it is continuing to edit. A reasonable person would simply ask more questions if they were unfamiliar with how the bot works or simply block it until things were cleared up. At this point, though, I am more concerned with your lack of owning up to the mistakes you have made. Nihlus 16:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    The only mistake I can see is that I didn't realise the bot was still running so didn't check its contributions. What else are you seeing? --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Your block of AManWithNoPlan that served no purpose, your potential involvement in this situation, and your barrage of incendiary comments towards Headbomb in this thread. Nihlus 17:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    The block of AManWithNoPlan prevented him from running the bot again. I have no involvement as my actions were confined to warnings and blocks for behavioural issues. Every comment I have made concerning Headbomb has concerned his behaviour and your assertion is baseless. Got anything constructive? --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, but you just continue to ignore my comments as well as everyone else's in this section. Nihlus 17:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    On the contrary, I've read and digested every comment. I know the mistake I made in not checking the bot's contributions sooner, and I'll make sure that I won't repeat that mistake again. For the rest, I simply disagree with those like yourself who are intent on making editors who run a bot immune from the effects of the consequent bot edits. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    The bot policy is clear (see WP:BOTBLOCK), if a bot is malfunctioning, you block the bot, not anyone else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    I've neither said nor implied that, so please refrain from casting aspersions. Nihlus 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    @Headbomb: The bot policy is clear and it doesn't say what you claim: "Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should soft-block indefinitely." BOTBLOCK doesn't provide immunity for you to ignore valid concerns and blame it on the bot. --RexxS (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    At no point was AManWithNoPlan running a bot on their account. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    That's not what the policy says either. There's no distinction about whose account the bot is running on. There is no doubt that you and AManWithNoPlan each initiated a bot run, and you can't wriggle out of responsibility by pretending somebody else should be accountable for the edits made. Were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? Are you aware of any bot approval for that action (diff would be useful)? --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    That's exactly what the policy says. If someone is running/is suspected of an unauthorized bot on an account, block the account as a malfunctioning bot. AManWithNoPlan never ran a bot on his account, so there was never any grounds to block them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    The policy says "Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should soft-block indefinitely." The account is what is being blocked. You're not seriously suggesting that if you initiate a bot running on some other account, you are somehow magically absolved of any problems it causes? So, I'll ask again: Were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? Are you aware of any bot approval for that action? --RexxS (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

    The account suspected of operating an unapproved bot. At no point was an unauthorized or unappoved bot running on the User:AManWithNoPlan account. The bot policy is there to deal with malfunctioning bots. With your contorted reading of the bot policy, you'd have to block every one that made used of Citation bot because Citation bot was alledgedly malfunctioning, but let Citation bot be unblocked. Both allowing it to continue with its malfunction, and having to block the next editor that makes use of it. That is a completely nonsensical way of reading the bot policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

    The bot doesn't need to be running on an editor's account for them to operate it. You're playing semantic word games with the word "operate". It's absolutely clear to anyone using plain English that the editor who sets up and initiates the bot run is operating it, and they need to take responsibility when someone tells them their bot run is causing problems. Both you and AManWithNoPlan did just that and both of you took no action when the concerns were raised with you. You didn't even bother to tell me that the bot was still processing your run, which would at least have saved a few hundred more citation titles from being unlinked. Nobody who responds to concerns in a collegial and open way is going to get blocked, so you can ditch that canard. Now, as you've failed to answer the questions I asked, were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? Are you aware of any bot approval for that action? --RexxS (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Then propose an RFC to change the bot policy, because the bot policy is about malfunctioning bots. AManWithNoPlan was not a malfunctioning bot, nor was he running any bot on his account. If there's an issue with a bot, you block the bot. That you can't understand this after you've been repeatedly told so by multiple users means you are unfit for the bit, or at the very least unfit to take admin actions in the area of bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• • Unless I am missing something (or if other cases are different than all the cases on all of "my" articles), the title unlinking here as it turns out was probably correct. In all of the articles I follow, check and corrected, the title unlinking was either because the free full text no longer existed (presumably Semanticscholar took down some copyvio links?) or the free full text link when to a copyright violation, which we should be delinking. I think. Repair in my case meant checking each link, and in some cases finding new free full text links, but no semanticscholar link that was removed was removed without good reason. Sorry if this is off-topic or over my head ... but that's just my case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Bad block - as per AlmostFrancis. Also, the section below about Headbomb seems to be vindictive retaliation. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I have no authority to judge whether this was a bad block or not, but what I will say is that this is a gross abuse of power by RexxS. Clearly just blocking and harassing people they don’t like and who speak out again them, when they could’ve just blocked the bot or not blocked people preemptively. This behavior is totally unfit for an admin and I think RexxS should have his/her admin status reviewed. Smith0124 (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Bad block. It is pretty standard that when a bot is making bad edits (or you think it is) that you first block the bot, which is a less aggressive action than blocking the person. There seems to be a legitimate question as to what the bot should and shouldn't be doing, which is what talk pages and RFCs are for. Also, WP:AN could have been used (before or after the bot block) to get input. I'm not sure how WP:involved you are, but you have some interest in it, demonstrated by your participation in the previous RFC, which (justifiably) raises some eyebrows but doesn't automatically disqualify you. RexxS, I'm basically saying this could have been handled better. What still bothers me, and you haven't addressed even though I was the first to respond, is the fact that you warned him, then blocked him preemptively. This isn't something we normally do and I would expect a detailed rationale explaining why this was necessary to protect the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure, Dennis Brown, I'm happy to explain my reasoning. When I saw the bot editing two articles on my watchlist, I looked at the popup diffs and was concerned that it was likely removing links from the titles in citations; when I checked i found that was the case. We went through a large RfC at Village Pump not long ago that expressly supported the principle of having those links, and I was concerned that the bot had removed them. As the bot edits were done some time before I saw them, I didn't think they would be still be running. I therefore went to the Talk: Citation bot to complain that the bot had been removing the links. I was met with requests for me to fix the CS1 code (as if it were the fault of the citations themselves) and then a denial that there was any consensus in the RfC for the principle of linking titles. So I then posted on Headbomb's talk page and AManWithNoPlan's talk page asking them not to repeat the action that led to the titles being unlinked. Just as he had done [[in March, AManWithNoPlan denied responsibility (in his edit summary). I then warned him that he was responsible for the edits made by a bot that he initiates, which he disagreed with (in his edit summary). At that point I was unaware that the bot was still running, but it was clear that AManWithNoPlan saw no problem with the edits he had initiated, and I sincerely believed he was quite willing to initiate another run. When a bot alters dozens, sometimes hundreds of pages at high speed, it can cause damage that is very hard to unwind and I believed that it was best to block AManWithNoPlan to prevent him initiating another run. Neither he nor Headbomb had suggested that the bot was still running, removing even more links from titles. I posted here immediately afterwards for review and to seek broader input on what steps would be needed to undo the damage done by the bot runs. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • On many of the basic principles here, including accountability, I agree with you. What I don't agree is how you used the tools. Since the purpose of the block button is to prevent disruption, you should have blocked the bot, then either continued discussing, or preferably taken the issue to WP:AN. Your participation in the RFC means you have a bias in the outcome, so it would have been the preferable thing to do in this case, even if it isn't an obvious WP:involved issue. The actual "damage" was caused by the bot, and your block did nothing to stop it, which is odd. There is also a lack of clarity of the finer points of the RFC, which is what the discussion at WP:AN could have addressed. What you did instead was cause drama and for 2 hours and 27 minutes after blocking AManWithNoPlan, the bot continued unblocked. I know you didn't mean to do this, but you can either argue about it, or step back and see why it was a mistake. I've devoted a fair amount of time on this, and NONE of it has been regarding AManWithNoPlan. Not because he didn't make mistakes (he did), but because first I feel I need to address the admin who made the mistake in handling it. Mistakes happen, but until you recognize it, I can't help but be focused on it. I'm not the only one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
      • You can choose to believe me, or not, when I say I was under the impression that the bot run had finished, when I asked AManWithNoPlan not to do another run. If you don't believe me, then we've nothing more to discuss as you would be basing your assumptions on a false premise. If you can see that I wanted to prevent another bot run by asking the initiators not to start the bot again, then I don't see how you can characterise the block as anything more than preventive, given AManWithNoPlan's responses. I have already stated quite clearly on this very page that I understand I made a mistake in not checking the bot's contributions until much later, and that I would be sure not to make the same mistake again. I'm disappointed that you choose to continue to focus on that and not the disruption caused by AManWithNoPlan's and Headbomb's use of the bot. That's your privilege, but please don't pretend that you're being even-handed here, particularly in your incredible stretch of INVOLVED; Headbomb himself !voted in favour of the RfC, so I really don't see how I could be accused of "a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to" because there's no dispute about that RfC, which was even closed early because the support was so overwhelming. --RexxS (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Wut? Emergency shut off button is a thing. If that doesn't work, block those fighting over the button, or worst case the bot itself. The immediate bot block plus the botop plus threats to headbomb is overreach and this looks like a long-term involved thing. And seeing good arguments for the bot's behavior, it is not black and white. Maybe RexxS should instead try the shut off button, and if that doesn't work seek help from an outside uninvolved admin. -- GreenC 13:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Where is the WP:BRFA approval for these edits (Special:Diff/961260133, Special:Diff/961352757)? I'm not seeing it at User:Citation bot. If a botop or asst botop programmed the bot to do something without BRFA approval and refused to reverse/stop it when asked, then it's a good block of the op and the bot. If BAG approved these edits, then it seems like it would be a bad block of both. But it should have been a short conversation: "Are these edits approved?" "Yes, here: [link to approval]". I'm not sure how it is that didn't happen. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The bot has approval for converting hard-coded URLs to their specific parameters (see Citation Bot 8 for example) and do general maintenance inline with template documentation (which states to use specific parameters instead of hard url). The recent RFC says that when identifier are free, the title should be autolinked, but the CS1/2 templates don't support that just yet and need to be updated by someone who knows LUA and who is an admin. Other bots have that approval too, e.g. CitationCleanerBot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The bot approval for Citation Bot 8 is for "Convert bare URLs to "Cite Journal" or "Citation" templates". Converting bare urls is not in question here. These are the three examples I already quoted of the bot unlinking the title in an existing templated citation: unlinked first and third titles, unlinked title, unlinked title. Where is the bot approval for those edits? and how does it square with the principle of linking titles expressed at Village Pump? --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I believe the citations are still linked. The link is moved from the title to the DOI or similar parameter location.

Your responses and comments haven't indicated that awareness.

Am I wrong about the link? Are you aware if I am correct? —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Philoserf: You seem to be unaware of the RfC I suggested you look at. There is overwhelming support for the principle of linking the title of a citation. Removing existing links from the title should not be happening. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan and Headbomb: I read all nine approvals linked at User:Citation bot#Bot approval, I don't see anything about removing |url= in favor of |s2cid= under any circumstance in any of the approvals. What am I missing? When was Citation bot programmed to remove |url=, and by whom, and why? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing on sc2id specifically, but it's approved for other similar conversions. DOI link --> |doi=, PMID link --> |pmid=, PMCID link --> |PMC=, etc... It's being doing this for years. Now that we have an |s2cid= parameter, it's doing it for S2CID links too. These recent runs are mostly cleaning up after itself, as prior to April 2020 or so, the bot added a lot of hardcoded S2CID links because there was no S2CID parameters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you point to the approval for removing links from titles, because I can't find it. It seems to remove links to jstor from the title as well. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Citation Bot 8 covers that I believe. CitationCleanerBot 1 also covers that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Then I think you need to read the approval again. The bot approval for Citation Bot 8 is for "Convert bare URLs to "Cite Journal" or "Citation" templates". How does that cover the unlinking of titles from existing templates?

Although this is a red herring, as we're discussing the use of Citation bot, not CitationCleanerBot, I'll refute your argument for that as well. I can't find the approval for CitationCleanerBot 1, can you point me to it? The Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot 5 gives approval for the WP:GENFIXES that AutoWikiBrowser uses, but the section Citation templates (FixCitationTemplates) doesn't show approval for removing links from titles. The best you can argue is that it "Removes duplicated fields", but when the url field links the title and the identifiers don't, you can't really claim that it duplicates the function, can you?

Were you aware that the bot would unlink titles? --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot would be it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• The block and justification for it strike me as unnecessarily heavy-handed and authoritarian. Just block the bot if it's malfunctioning, don't issue punitive blocks. Reyk _YO! 21:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I should add that blocking me did not stop the bot. I could not stop the bot. I told other people to take it to the bot page where it could be dealt with. People have suggested I 'stop the bot" as if I am somehow the bots operator. Blocking me just made it so I could not take part in the discussions. The bot run in question had been running for over a day, and I was busy and unable to assist so sending people to the bot talk page was helpful. Their failure to listen to and the decision to block me made the "damage" worse. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Blocking you was done in order to stop you initiating another bot run – a legitimate concern and you know it. You started a bot run knowing that it would unlink titles from citations, and when my concerns about your actions were raised with you, your replies (in edit summaries!) were: Technically not my edit. Will discuss on bot page and the was not the conclusion reacje. This is the second time in three months that you've refused to take responsibility for your actions and once again you're trying to put the blame on the bot, but bots don't act without being told to. Sending people to the bot page was not helpful as you knew the extent of the bot run, not the editors watching there. You told me nothing on that bot page other than a denial that a problem existed and a statement that you were too busy to fix the bot. How did blocking you then make the damage worse? Where was the "the bot is still running, so you ought to stop it"? which would at least have been constructive. --RexxS (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Blocking AManWithNoPlan was a bad fucking block, goes against policy, and did not stop the bot from running, nor did it stop the bot from making any edits, nor did it stop the bot from being activated by others. That you refuse to understand this is beyond me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
        • This is starting to become a pattern. Flipping out, going full schoolmaster mode, and imposing overkill "solutions" that don't actually solve the alleged problems. It's not so long ago that he got upset about User:BrownHairedGirl allegedly indenting her posts wrong. Instead of, I dunno, just editing the colons and asterisks to his preference (which nobody including BHG would have objected to) he just deleted her posts wholesale and then accused her of deliberately persecuting the vision impaired. It's one of the most vicious and cruel things I've seen in my time here. And a completely over the top overreaction, just like this. Reyk _YO! 15:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the ping, Reyk. Yes, RexxS's OTT reaction here is very similar to the rage he got into over colons and asterisks.
            And it's sad to see again that even when brought to ANI, there is zero sign of RexxS taking a chill pill. It's all double-down and demand complete-compliance. Very much the same mindset as the police brutality videos which the internet has been awash with for the last twelve days, with the same demands for absolute submission. Thank goodness RexxS has no power to mete out physical punishments, or we'd be seeing lots of editors gassed, rubber-bulleted, tased, and beaten. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
            • Please, BrownHairedGirl, as gently as I can say this, that last sentence is inappropriate. It is a personal attack ("this person supports brutality") and it cheapens the suffering experienced by many in real life. I understand this is raw for you, but I think you're better than this. FWIW, I also think this was a bad block as per Dennis and others. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
              • We will have to disagree on that. I see the same mindset of aggressively demanding compliance and aggressively using all avaiable means to enforce compliance. Feel free to take a different view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
                • I think I have to agree with 78 here; that's going a bit too far. Reyk _YO! 06:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb

Despite being warned of the problems caused by Citation bot removing links from titles, Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has continued to run the bot, making around 100 edits per hour, many of which remove links. I would like to see Headbomb held responsible for the damage done and required to restore those links which were removed. Failure to do so should result in sanctions. It is unacceptable for editors to initiate bot runs that make sometimes thousands of edits without any sensitivity to other editors' concerns. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Get off your high horse. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Where is the authorization to make this run? Where is the consensus to remove the links? No consensus, no authorization, please block the editor until they clean up their mess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The bot was operating, so I asked the bot to edit articles (I asked the bot to make its run prior to seeing RexxS's message for what it's worth). The bot misbehaved, so now it's blocked until the bot code gets updated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

He ran a permissible bot which was unblocked at the time. If you have blocked the bot originally as opposed to going after the user this would not have been and issue. What sanction do you even want.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I should note that blocking individual users did not stop existing bot runs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Editors need to take responsibility for bot edits that they initiate. When a concern was raised and you knew that the bot would continue to edit, why didn't you follow the instructions at "Emergency shutoff" or just ask an admin to block the bot? Why are others always expected to fix the problems you and Headbomb caused? --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You argue for linking of titles since people cannot figure out the blue links after references then you argue that i should have a list of of admins on speed dial. Please be more consistent about your expectations of others. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Triply dumb when RexxS is himself an admin. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: The support for the principle of linking titles is plainly demonstrated at the RfC linked in my original post and drawn to your attention at User talk:Citation bot #Removing links from title, so there's little point in you trying to refute it. The "Emergency shutoff" instructions are clear that you can use WP:ANI to request a bot shutdown and the noticeboard is well watched by admins. My expectations of you remain that you take responsibility for edits that you initiate, and that you take responsibility for fixing problems that you cause. --RexxS (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So if you knew running the bot was permissable and knew how to stop it what is your excuse for blocking the user, other than personal pique. You knew that blocking the user wouldn't stop the run but blocking the bot would. I don't see a goal other than excerting control over someone who did not obey you. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is any consensus for the bot or anyone else to unlink titles in citations. As I was unaware that the bot was still running, I don't see what point there would have been in blocking it. As AManWithNoPlan was denying that there was any problem with the edits he initiated, what conclusion should I draw other than he intended to run the bot again? There has been a repeated refusal by editors who perform bot runs to accept responsibility for the edits made, and your attempts to give them a free pass to continue causing damage are unhelpful. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The bot has a valid BRFA, was unblocked and was therefore permissible to run. The point of blocking the bot is that per Wikipedias policy it is the proper way to handle a malfunctioning bot. Your refusal to follow policy, which judging by your most recent comments are based on personal dislike, is what is not helpful.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You keep saying the bot has a valid BRFA, but where does it say that the bot can remove links from the citation title? The bot users were causing edits to be made against the wishes of the community, and no amount of wikilawyering about it being the bot's fault will cut any ice. If you think that editors who start a bot run should be granted immunity for any problems caused by the bot run, try starting an RfC at VPP to get that into policy, but until that happens, those editors need to recognise their responsibilities. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you agreed to no longer administer around the users and bot so I don't think arguing with you really serves a purpose. You will either take on the input that your block was bad or you won't, and will either start blocking only within policy or not.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Citation bot and its operators)

• Imho the block was unavoidable, after all previous discussions, in some of which I was involved too. The block, however, does not resolve anything in itself: it is an emergency brake, bringing a train to a standstill, but does not repair the train, nor resolve irresponsible behaviour by its conductors. The train, i.e. citation bot in this comparison, is an excellent tool, so, just inactivating it is not in itself a solution. Either its conductors, i.e. AManWithNoPlan and Headbomb, get more responsive when issues are raised, or they should be removed as operators of the bot (i.e., they should no further operate the bot). Then there's no other solution than keeping the bot in standstill (i.e. blocked) until other operators are found, that is operators who are sensitive w.r.t. potential issues & responsive when issues are raised. I don't want to run ahead, and think AManWithNoPlan and Headbomb still can commit to a behaviour change by stating so explicitly here (& explaining which modifications to the bot code have been undertaken), which, when approved by the community, may lead to the bot being unblocked with them as operators. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• For the record, I do not understand this conversation. It seems like a lot of noise with too little context. The Citation bot is to useful to sit idle. What can I do to A) help get a constructive conversation going and B) get the bot back on the job. Also, I am appalled at the personal attacks I see in comments by some editors in the conversations above. Do they not violate a policy? Can we quench the fire and have a fact based discussion? —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Philoserf: a concise summary, as neutrally as I can: citation bot is currently programmed to remove bare urls pointing to Semantic Scholar, and replace them with a a parameter named "s2cid" that links to the same place. (Example: [63]) Apparently the semantic scholar people asked for this to be done. The argument is whether this kind of edit falls within current consensus. Citing the recent discussion where many users expressed support for the need to link titles, User:RexxS says there is no justification for removing urls, and has blocked User:AManWithNoPlan for being the one invoking the citation bot to make the edits. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 19:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:Smith609 is the bot operator, not me, nor AManWithNoPlan. AManWithNoPlan codes the bot, but does not run it. Likewise, I have no involvement with the bot other than making a lot of bug reports and asking the bot to run on certain articles. Neither AManWithNoPlan nor I have special status here, anyone can do this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• "Blocking this account is causing disruption. User:RexxS can you please unblock it?" is a quote I found on User talk:Citation bot. I believe that views is predominant. Can we get this resolved quickly? How about a speedy unblock? —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that the bot should be unblocked because when you try to run it, it goes about half way through an article then stops. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  The C of E, I thought so too. What I see is actually happening is that it does all the analysis, prepares the edit, then is stopped. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Perhaps because of this half-run behavior, the Citation expander gadget appears to still work. This can be a workaround to edit individual pages while the bot cannot be run. —Ost (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Can this be fixed just by editing the template to render an inline link when s2cid is specified? I'm assuming the request is something to do with them wanting to be able to change the url syntax at some point, that bit seems fine. Guy (help!) 14:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • When |s2cid-access=free is set. I believe there are some changes in the sandbox for that although I don't know if they covered this one specifically. Not all SemanticScholar links are free/copyright checked or whatever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
    • This discusion is happening on at least four pages. RexxS has accidentally mischaracterized me and has made statements that only someone could read my mind could make. I have always been willing to discuss the bots actions on the bot pages. Discussing them all over the place has historically lead to editors being harassed and even threatened on multiple occasions. That is why inso not like to discuss the bots actions on my personal talk page. It also fractures the discussion. I could easily see different pages come to different conclusions and people being left out completely. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Please accept my apologies for mischaracterising you. However, you need to be willing to discuss concerns about your actions (such as initiating a problematic bot run) on your user talk page, the same as any other editor, and I'm not sure who I would be leaving out in that dialogue. The talk page for the bot is an echo chamber for a particular point of view, which is not shared by the community at large, and has historically led to insulating editors from the edits that they cause to be made. The alternative to discussing your actions at your talk page is to discuss them here at ANI. I am always happy to discuss your use of a bot to edit for you at your talk page in a collegial manner without any harassment or threats if you're prepared to engage in the discussion. --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• This feels remarkably like the last time this issue was discussed at a noticeboard. Editors asked Citation bot to stop doing something and AManWithNoPlan decided that those with the technical ability to push the changes through didn't need to heed the concerns of other editors. AManWithNoPlan actually ended up blocked during that debacle for repeatedly accusing editors who were raising concerns in good faith of lying. Before this peters out again and Citation bot is unblocked (as it inevitably will be, sooner or later) to carry on regardless (as it inevitably will, because its maintainers believe they are the sole arbiters of citation formatting, consensus be damned, and therefore refuse to address the problem), we should look at a longer-term solution. I would suggest starting by banning AManWithNoPlan from triggering the bot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I know nothing about bots. I do know that citation bot makes mistakes and ignores editor CITEVAR preferences. But when non-technical editors ask technical editors for help, we're regularly snubbed in language we don't understand. RexxS often helps us by acting as a content-editor whisperer. A solution to the bot problem would be appreciated. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• PRECISELY! Citations get messed up by the bot, but the real frustration is trying to get answers in English about what the problem is. (Start here and read the rest of the page for a true exercise in frustration.) There is a communication problem here, and we need a better solution than being sent to the talk page of a bot, where we get even more language that doesn't answer the questions or address the issues for a person who doesn't speak bot. For more than a decade, I maintained a manual citation style in the Featured articles I nominated, so I would not have to deal with this. Recently, I converted to citation templates, and since then, it has been one long problem. We need a way for bot people to speak to non-bot people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see what's confusing or frustrating about the "Me again" conversation. It's probably also a discussion that should have taken place at User talk:Citation bot, and not at AManWithNoPlan's talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, you have perfectly illustrated the problem in that you don't see what is frustrating there. I understood almost nothing of the earlier interaction with AMWNP at the Me again section, but kept asking and asking, and the second thread has led to all kinds of contradiction, until I pinged in someone I trust (Diannaa) on this. And going to the talk page of the citation bot has always yielded even worse results, as covered by SarahSV above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec) There you have it, Headbomb. An editor tells you that they don't understand what's being said, and your response is "I understand it, I don't know why you don't."

You need to accept it on good faith that the editors who tell you that you folks are not communicating effectively are telling it to you straight, from their PoV, and make some effort to talk to them in standard English, not technicalese. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I can entirely appreciate that someone can't understand technical terms, but I fail to see what's particular technical or unclear about that discussion, or what's particularly frustrating about it. It's also why having the discussion at User talk:Citation bot instead of User talk:AManWithNoPlan would be a good idea, since others who don't watch AManWithNoPlan's talk page can help. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You think the following is a clear response? "S2 actually has asked for the parameter to be added and for the urls to be converted. The comments should block to url to ID conversion." SarahSV ^(talk) 00:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

S2 is SemanticScholar. The second part should be "The comments should block the URL to ID conversions". Or, in other words, if you put a comment in |url=, such as |url=https://semanticscholar... <!-- -->, it should stop the conversion. This is should work in general for any parameter you don't want the bot to touch. See User:Citation bot/use#... the bot made a mistake?, first bullet. Also why, if you go to User talk:Citation bot, you can get help from the whole community, and not just AManWithNoPlan. Which is also why they ask you pretty clearly at the top of their talk page to ask Citation bot-related questions on the Citation bot talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact you have to explain who S2 is and in other words illustrates the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Quite. The fact that you don't realise that 99.a lot% of English speakers wouldn't know who or what "S2" is demonstrates that you have a communication problem. I'm actually quite flabbergasted by this discussion, because my experience has been that Headbomb is one of the good guys, but here he is defending the indefensible. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not defending the defensible, I didn't understand the source of frustration, it was pointed out, and I explained what things meant. I'm also not responsible for how others communicate. Which is also why you should ask questions about Citation bot at User talk:Citation bot, so people who can explain things more clearly can explain things more clearly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN and 1-way IBAN of RexxS

Don't feed the trolls Dennis Brown - 2¢
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. RexxS actions are out line and have disrupted the proper functioning of this encyclopedia. RexxS has been hostile towards Headbomb, AManWithNoPlan, and bot operators generally. To avoid further disruption, I propose RexxS be topic banned from bots and prohibited from interacting with Headbomb and AManWithNoPlan. Товарищ конрад (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Support as proposer. Товарищ конрад (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose Unwarranted and way out of proportion to any errors made. Also ignores the real problem, that of info being stripped out of citations against consensus, using a bot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose as ridiculous, but admins might want to take a closer look at the proposer. Grandpallama (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Does anybody know who this sock is?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) Strong oppose - I'm not gonna pretend to know the full context behind this incident (though I have been reading this incident as it went) but a TBAN of this nature over a bad block and a few hostile comments sounds too preemptive to me, and, should I say, rather punitive, which is not the purpose of blocks in this website, let alone TBANs and IBANs. Should the admin's actions be scrutinized? Absolutely yes. But does it warrant a TBAN? No. Come back with this proposal in about 3-6 months time if things fail to get any better by then. --letcreate123 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Observations: RexxS’s actions and behavior are unprofessional and disruptive. His failure to engage w/o accusations and personal attack are unbecoming. His hyperbole hide the actual issues. He also does not appear to understand the blocks relationship to the tool, citation bot. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Additionally I am uncertain that the consensus he claims actually exists. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC) If you don't think that the community is firmly behind the principle that citation titles should link to a free text source where possible, then I suggest you read the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167 #Auto-linking titles in citations of works with free-to-read DOIs and see the number of supports based on the principle of linking the title. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose. This is something that I come across regularly on Wikipedia - a refusal by "techies" to acknowledge that everyone is responsible for their edits, whether performed manually or by a bot. The only time I have ever been threatened with a block (by a since defrocked admin) was over this very issue. If edits are disruptive and against consensus then action needs to be taken to prevent them continuing. Maybe RexxS could have prevented them in a better way, but the important thing was to take quick action. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose FWIW. Only note that the proposer has about a dozen edits, ever, so this seems fishy. ValarianB (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose obviously ridiculous proposal (by 16-edit contributor who just happens to know about IBANs). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose And someone needs to check the laundry. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Trivia: It seems Rexx made a new friend, whose username translates to "Comrade Conrad", which is the name of a Bill Evans song from his album, "We Will Meet Again". Clever sock. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal (Citation bot and RexxS)

I propose the following:

1. No further bot runs for this purpose until the citation template is fixed to render an inline link, thus leaving the articles cosmetically and functionally similar.
2. RexxS to recuse from future admin actions in respect of citation bot and its operators.

Opinions

1. as proposer Guy (help!) 22:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
2. Support as I'd dearly love not to have the same arguments a third time. --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am strongly opposed to autolinking semanticscholar ids to paper titles, if that's what's being proposed here (it's very unclear, but that seems to be the implication). We should only autolink versions of papers that are both free and the version of record (and I'm not especially happy with doing it even then). When the version of record itself is unfree but a semanticscholar version is free, it often means that they have scraped a pirated version and we should not link them at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  David Eppstein, fair point. Guy (help!) 11:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now. I'm not against RexxS participating, he has the experience to bridge some gaps, but I think in this case, he was heavy handed with the block button (and it seems a consensus above agrees). I've been asking him a lot of questions because I've been trying to get him to understand his mistake here. It isn't the end of the world, but it was a mistake. I don't want him to avoid monitoring and participating, but maybe it's best he didn't use the tools in this one area, at least for a while. And yes, the bot has issues that need addressing, which is equally important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dennis Brown: Just to be clear, the proposal also calls for the bot ceasing to remove redundant links for the indefinite future (until a template not maintained by the bot operators is changed in a way unlikely to achieve consensus). Do you also support that aspect of the proposal? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, I thought I stated as much. It seems obvious an RFC is needed and some tweaking based on that RFC, as there is some confusing on what it should and shouldn't be doing. It isn't the end of the world if the bot is down a couple of weeks. There is no deadline for building the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I do not believe that this will help. Citation bot is needed for some pages. And agree with David Eppstein. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 20:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1; oppose 2 (restricting RexxS). What would be helpful is a solution to small numbers of editors making decisions, on pages no one checks, that affect all articles that use citation templates. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• The bot should not be running until we figure out a way to solve not only this problem, but the overarching problem of how to deal with the communication issues. When non-technical editors go to the bot talk page with concerns, they are usually overwhelmed by bot editors or technical types who don't answer appropriately or don't resolve the concerns. We need to find a way forward; I hope not to have to put a deny bots on everything I edit. Separately, I understand that AMWNP was blocked the first time because of personal attacks, but the second time was different, and I hope we also figure out a better way to decide when to block a bot and when to block a person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether the title links to the full text article is a function of the template. The bot is only converting links to identifiers. The short term harm of having the link on the identifier as opposed to on the title is minimal. --Bsherr (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I share some of the copyright concerns brought up by David Eppstein for Semantic Scholar in particular, but these concerns do not extend to all sources. For example, arXiv rarely has copyright issues, and there's a strong case for auto-linking the title to the free versions of papers with expired copyright when the original publishers still have those articles behind a paywall. $\langle$ Forbes₇₂ | Talk $\rangle$ 17:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

This seems to me to fix the actual problem. Guy (help!) 22:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What about fixing the citations which have already been changed? Is that not the responsibility of the editors who set up the previous run(s) of the bot? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: If the plan is to change the citation template to mimic the behaviour it has with |url=, that will consequentially fix all of the citations which have been changed, without manual effort. Not opining on whether that's a good or bad solution, merely an observation. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta: When will this happen, specifically to the citations which have aready been changed against consensus? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: A very reasonable question. The relevant template is entirely controlled by the module at Module:Citation/CS1 and its submodule, Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers - both of which are (very understandably) fully protected. I see that Trappist the monk has edited them a lot in the recent past - they may be able to give some more specifics on how trivial or non-trivial a task it would be to make that change. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, when the template is fixed. Which needs someone with strong enough template-fu. Guy (help!) 23:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Then, in the meantime, I believe I would be in favor of blocking the editors who created this mess until they clean it up, a standard procedure with problems of this kind. Then, moving ahead into the futre, the changes can be made that will prevent this from happening again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn, per below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That makes total sense, blocking someone until they clean something up, preventing them from cleaning it up in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you're going a bit Chicken Little there. The fix can be coded by anyone who has the relevant skills (I don't, that template is complex). As long as there aren't any more bot runs there is no need for blocking, that just looks vindictive at this point. Guy (help!) 23:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As I wrote below, I think I'm misunderstanding the situation, and will withdraw from the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No. Making changes to the template code will not restore the templates to their pre-bot-edited states. Templates cannot modify articles. Changes have been made to the Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox to support the RfC. The RfC is not my doing nor is the code that supports it. Editor Pintoch proposed the change and wrote some code to support the RfC. It appears that the coding process is stalled. See the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Auto-linking titles with free DOIs. As currently written, and were it to be implemented today, the change at cs1|2 would, I think, be disappointing to those who are imagining that changes to cs1|2 will be a magic bullet that restores the templates edited by the bot. These are the changes that the bot made to the example articles that Editor RexxS mentioned at the start of this discussion:

• Trimix (breathing gas)
  • one change: these link to two different places; the RfC change to cs1|2 will not restore this citation
    • deleted |url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3725/b3dc951df73c4d31b0c645cd9f5b2fe2e178.pdf
    • added |s2cid=56164217 → https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:56164217
• Ethosuximide
  • change 1 of 3: these link to the same location; the RfC change to cs1|2 will not restore this citation
    • deleted |url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/ecc5761973b41a6df07c73ef1d02fc91317a0fa5
    • added |s2cid=20670160 → https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:20670160
  • change 2 of 3: these link to the same location; as the template in the article is currently written, the RfC change to cs1|2 will not restore this citation (missing |doi-access=free)
    • deleted |url=http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/18/13/4842
    • preexisting |doi=10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-13-04842.1998 → https://doi.org/10.1523%2FJNEUROSCI.18-13-04842.1998
  • change 3 of 3: these link to the same location; the RfC change to cs1|2 will not restore this citation
    • deleted |url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/af444a3294b241f2f71c87a9bb00bfaaa3f4ca8f
    • added |s2cid=7098669 → https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7098669

There is no magic bullet at cs1|2. If you want the templates restored to their pre-bot-edited states, the bot edits must be reverted.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's a fine mess, because I already fixed all "my" articles, as some of the bot edits were good, and some URLs could be replaced by other sources. So now, if all the bot edits are reverted, I have to re-do the work again. And yet, if I add bots deny on articles, someone always complains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The CS1/2 update is the first step, the second would be OABot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually use the pages the deny the bot as debug pages to figure out why we were blocked. Fixed lots of bugs that way. I wish all people that bock the bot would report the problem, like you did. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, AMWNP! And, I can't decipher what Headbomb's response means or how it relates to my post it was responding to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The first step is having the CS1/2 templates (e.g. {{cite book}}, {{citation}}, etc...) support automatic linking when |doi-access=free and similar (like |s2cid-access=free) are set. The second step is having OA-bot run through pages with S2CIDs and set |s2cid-access=free when the SemanticScholar links contain free full versions of record. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I'm concerned about your #2, given SarahSV's comment above "RexxS often helps us by acting as a content-editor whisperer." Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC) NM, he can still act as a "content-editor whisperer" without taking admin actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, yes, exactly. I'd have added AMWNP to advocate the template fix as well, but that is a bit pointless as the need for the fix is already established. Guy (help!) 23:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Citation bot and RexxS) - WITHDRAWN

Withdrawn. I believe I'm misunderstanding something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Headbomb and AManWithNoPlan are blocked until the citations from which URLs were stripped have the URLs restored. Survey Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose as disproportionate. The fix requires one edit to one template, and the holdup is largely around the complexity and need for QA. In the mean time all citations remain usable: courtesy links are nice, but not essential. Guy (help!) 23:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Fucking ludicrous Do you want to block everyone that asked CitationBot to make edits since April? Because that list is fucking long. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose - seemingly bad faith proposal. Just snow close this proposal. Cjhard (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Not at all in bad faith, please retract that. I will withdraw the proposal though, as I'm obviously misunderstanding something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose as excessive, not unlike the original block on AManWithNoPlan. I am not sure why a few users and an admin are demanding retribution and demanding that someone answers for the "damage" done to the wiki. WP:NOJUSTICE/WP:PREVENTISHMENT are good reads for those involved. Nihlus 23:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Discussion

RexxS’s behavior

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

---

I am appalled by this editor’s initial behavior and judgement as an Administrator. I am also troubled by the nature of this editor’s continued conversation on the topic in the threads above and at User talk:Citation bot. I am too new to grok what can or should be done to sanction the initial behavior and rein in the continuing behavior on this topic. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Thread moved

For "User: DarrylKerrigan", see #User:Smith0124 above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

LTA against Lebrouillard

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

---

Hello dear administrators,

I am an admin on frwiki (check : fr:Wikipédia:Administrateur/Bédévore). My friend Lebrouillard is being a target by a user called Mémé Germaine - they're writing garbage on his talk page currently. Would you please be so kind as to block and protect ? Kind regards, -- Bédévore ^{[knock knock]} 13:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Creating Autobiographies on Draft:Ayoub El Omary

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

---

The usernamed called Ayoube el omary is creating autobiographies and recreating deleted userpages, these links are created

• Draft:Ayoub El Omary
• User:Draft:Ayoub El Omary
• User:Ayoub El Omary/sandbox

These 3 links are same information but it may copy-pasted from 3 these link and i need block this user. -- BEAMALEXANDER!, talk 14:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is all quite strange. The CSD G6 nomination for Draft:Ayoub El Omary doesn't make sense (unpublished drafts often start in user space before getting moved across to Draft space), yet has been reinstated 3 times by BeamAlexander25 after being removed by a respected admin. Anyways, the author has been indef blocked by Materialscientist, so the draft will get G13'd in due course. Moral of the story: looks like there isn't anything that needs to be done here. 1292simon (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Александр Мотин‎

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

---

A we wile back the user was blocked form editing Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (but not the talk page) for disruption. Now they are back at talk with posts like this [[64]] and misapplying polices [[65]]. Its clear they are wp:nothere and are just a time sink. I would ask the ban is extended to the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that the administrator Ymblanter is allowed to call my edits as "propaganda bullshit" and I'm not. --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Because this is not an article talk page, different rules apply.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It's time for you to back up your part of the talk with some facts which prove that these topics are "a time sink": Why there is nothing said about SBU chief's press conference regarding MH17 held on 18 July 2014? and "The Donetsk People's Republic claimed possession of such a Buk missile system in a since-deleted tweet" ... --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Because you are ignoring what has been said (now by more than one user) that wp:v does not mean what you think it means, Because we are going round in circles with you refusing to drop this, despite having been told in April you are wasting everyones time, and earning a block (an "especially lenient. Please do not squander that opportunity" one). It is clear you have not leaned that lesson.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you refuse this? Just take no part in these discussions and then your time as you say "will not be wasted". It is so simple.--Александр Мотин (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, I should have just said no and then ignored your responses rather than trying to enrage with you, I will not make the same mistake again.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

But instead, you filed a false report because you thought your "time is wasted"? It is a clear DISRUPTSIGN (Campaign to drive away productive contributors). --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

NO, but I will let other users decide now.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

But your accusations ("a time sink", "wp:nothere") lack facts that prove them. Just pay attention, Slatersteven. --Александр Мотин (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hmnmm. Not a WP:SPA, per [66]. How about a topic ban? Guy (help!) 14:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Its what I am asking for, an extension of their article ban to include the talk page as well.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly WP:NOTHERE. I would support at least a topic ban but I think, given the evidence, including the subsection below, a global indef block is warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• I am not sure how many people realize here that the user disputes a claim of a source which has previously been evaluated as reliable, on the basis of a removed photograph in a Russian social media (double original research). I am afraid an indef block is the way to go here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: So was this tweet written in English or Russian? In Russian it has a different meaning. Need some facts that prove your claim. And , of course, I sincerely understand how hard this is for you. --Александр Мотин (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly, precisely the problem. You are trying to perform original research to convince us that a reliable source has it wrong. This is not how Wikipedia works. You need to find another reliable source disputing the first one. Your opinion is not a reliable source. Russian (or, for that purpose, American or Cameroonian) social media are not reliable sources. You have been told this already dozens of times, you have got a partial block, but you continue wasting everybody's time and either you do not get the point or you have chosen not to follow the policies and wikilawyer instead. Since you are way beyond the acceptable number of warnings, an indef block and a site ban look to me like the only two viable options. An indef block is presumably easier.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You must read this first Wikipedia:Conflicting sources and only then accuse me in doing something wrong. And this Wikipedia:These are not original research#Conflict between sources. It seems that all you can do is not resolving a dispute but only blaming me.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There are no conflicting sources here. There is one reliable source and your personal opinion, supported by social media. When you publish this opinion in a reliable source, please come back.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Really? So "DNR" tweeted in English or Russian? Why there is nothing said about the tweet in Russian in the article? I assume that they "usually" tweet in English in order to inform the British people, right? --Александр Мотин (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: According to the DNR's official website it's twitter account is https://twitter.com/OnlineDNR but not https://twitter.com/dnrpress --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you really not get that we go by what independent secondary sources say, not this group's own web site? It's pretty obvious by now that you are trolling here just as on the talk page in question. Someone who has the power please just block this editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What?? One of that "independent" sources says Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession in June 2014 illustrating it with a photo posted in 2011? So I searched the archived (April 2015) version of their website and there is no link to their "official twitter" account at all.--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I found one [67] (April 2015) — http://twitter.com/newsdnr registered in May 2014. So yeah, it seems to be a propaganda bullshit pushed by "independent" media. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that personal attacks will win you sympathy here, but you can keep trying.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You must be stress-resistant as an administrator. I'm doing nothing of that!--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Change to site ban Anyone who thinks that "This happens, when two (or more) equally reliable sources contradict each other about certain facts." means social media or their own OR is equal in weight to a respectable published magazine should not be here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment The fact that a block to the article main space does not include a block to the talk page of that article by default seems to me to be a loophole that should be closed. Isn't it kind of implied that if someone has been disruptive enough to be banned from the article, it's probably a bad idea to let them continue interacting on the talk page? And this very reportis a clear proof of that. --McSly (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You had 6 years to improve the article on your own in the way you like. What did you do? Here are my recent improvements and my recent proposals--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Not major at the moment, but they are also refactoring their posts after they have been replied to [[68]]. I leave you to see the other problem I see with that post overall.Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal Boomerang block

It a clear example of the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Just check the article's talk page (here):

1. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability
2. Campaign to drive away productive contributors

I beleive Slatersteven should be blocked for this false report. --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The above being a case to point, as they have not shown the sources do not say X (In fact their whole point is the sources do say X), only that they do not agree with the sources conclusions. Thus either they do not understand or have not actually bothered to read wp:v (I seem to recall this was an issue last time), or they are...not being wholly honest.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) How is it that a statement that says exactly what the source says cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability? It's right there in black and white in the source (which, you seem to need to be told again, is not the tweet itself but the secondary source cited). Phil Bridger (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: It seems that this is just someone's propagandist interpretation (the Diplomat outlet) of that tweet allegedly written by DNR because the original tweet seems to be in Russian with a different meaning! Check the discussion here. --Александр Мотин (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I had read that discussion before I commented above. The whole point of WP:V and WP:NOR is that we do not interpret primary sources like tweets ourselves, but let independent reliable secondary sources interpret them and report the results. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: What I see is that this source says that "A deleted tweet by the Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession" The photo of the Buk launcher was posted on the internet in 2011 and the so-called reliable source says "Donetsk People’s Republic showed a BUK-M1 system in the group’s possession" (on 29 June 2014). So what are talking about? What reliable source? It seems to be a "propaganda bullshit" as the administrator Ymblanter says in this case.--Александр Мотин (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment by non-administrator: Deny I don't think that this would benefit Wikipedia. There is no rule saying that the person making a false report would have to be blocked. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 14:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Just as importantly there's no evidence that this is a false report. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban

I topic banned Александр Мотин from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 as an arbitration enforcement action. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal Threat from 74.192.3.63

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

---

I realize that this is several days old, but can an admin rev-del this edit summary as it is clearly a legal threat. Thanks. 66.108.131.114 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't qualify for revision deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Batshit insane, but not sanctionable. Guy (help!) 22:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Canterbury Tail talk 12:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Editing from 201.203.9.237

I know this IP for disrupting templates of countries coronaviruses medical chart. I caught this IP doing edits on Oman first with this edit. I also remember it doing this [69] but i did not warn it at that time. Eventually it demanded me to stop it (despite the fact that i only removed the date) in which i decided to comply. I let what it wants to do. Eventually, its work is undone, which i realized i'm doing something wrong and something is wrong with that IP. Once that IP makes this edit i finally warned that IP of disruptive editing. When i also realized that this problem are much more severe than expected, i gave it a final warning in an attempt to stop him from what it wants to do. Unfortunately, the IP ignored it and lashed out at me. Once again, i reverted that edit as a final revert to comply WP:3RR. I'm sorry for this incident to be as detailed and not summarized, but there is a problem with that IP. SMB​99​thx_{this might be ugly} 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• have applied protection to the templates as they are transcluded on multiple pages and should not really be open to anonymous editing. Guy (help!) 23:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It could be better if you put template editor, recommended instead of extended confirmed protection. 201.231.9.237 (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So by that statement you are going to get a account and get extended confirmed (basically) and then vandalize. Wow. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 00:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Why you are asking for it? That's not how Wikipedia works. Shawnqual is not a template editor and i, which i'm going to admit manages Qatar, Ghana, Panama and Costa Rica templates is not even a template editor. I used to edit and create templates in the past, but i had never been nominated by anyone to become a template editor. Both of us are extended confirmed users. So please, do not game the system. SMB​99​thx_{this might be ugly} 00:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

With this edit on their TP, IP seems to have gone into Terminator mode, and may need watching. Narky Blert (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert I agree, this IP should be watched out. It replied to the final warning before said "OK thanks", which could be a good step towards becoming a good editor, but i'm not sure if it is sincere. And replies like "Haha. YES!!! XD" seems to show that this user is not mature enough, which is a red flag on what it could do next. I wish the block could make it learn, but i think it needs real help. SMB​99​thx_{this might be ugly} 11:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

SMB99thx, Perhaps we could block him for 1 yr or at least 3 months? {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 13:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, if it does not change or improve in long run. We have to see things first before to decide to block him for that long. If we do it now, i see it as too harsh and unfair in my opinion. I'll settle for one week block first before eventually execute that long block. SMB​99​thx_{this might be ugly} 22:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Based on their comments and editing patterns, I extended the block to 6 months. This is someone who isn't here to contribute in a positive way, and by 6 months, these articles will probably be much more stable. I don't think baby sitting articles and monitoring the IP after the block has expired is going to change the outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

IP range making disruptive edits to California articles. Rangeblock warranted?

Special:Contributions/2605:E000:A440:7900:95E9:E7DA:541C:B19C/48

This IP-hopping editor comes through every few days and makes a bunch of edits to California articles. This editor appears to be on a mission to say that summer rainfall/snowfall/thunderstorms in the mountains and deserts of California is more common than it actually is. Sometimes this takes the form of edits to prose; sometimes it takes the form of twiddling around the numbers in {{Weather box}} templates. I suspect that sometimes the prose edits are done to mask the data edits on peoples' watchlists. Every time I've checked the climate data source referenced in the articles, the IP's edits have gone against that source data. I think a rangeblock might be warranted here. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 06:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

NB: No need to run mass rollback on the IP range's contribs. I've undone all but two of his edits, and those two edits look fine to me. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 06:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblocked for 3 months, good plan. There's basically no edits from the range other than the mysterious Operation Make-California-Sound-More-Rainy. Hopefully this puts a stop to this odd project for now! ~ mazca ^talk 12:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Xsaorapa

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

---

Massively removing links to Wikiquote, "removing wq-link possible copyvio." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I was removing these links because most of these pages have been tagged for copyright check on wikiquote (via their talk page), so the linking may be problematic. If this is not allowed I will not insist in removing them. --Xsaorapa (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Check; you've got a point there. Yet, the problem should be solved there, I think; not by removing links to Wikiquote. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Xsaorapa should be commended for such changes, not dragged to ANI. A page like this on Wikiquote is a massive copyvio host, which is not unusual at all on Wikiquote. Linking to copyright violations (which I just did, I know), is not allowed on Wikipedia. "The problem should be solved there" is nice in theory, but in practice they are years behind on copyvio cleanup (e.g. tag from August 2017December 2016, July 2009... Please continue removing these links, and thank you for takiong care of this. Fram (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

And add a trout for Joshua Jonathan for not even attempting to discuss this with Xsaorapa before bringing this here. WTF? Fram (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's make that a whale for going on a revert rampage, reintroducing links to copyright violating pages, without even waiting for the result of this discussion. Fram (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Checking a few of the pages Joshua reverted back in, I find that they are all godawful. Useless, crassly tendentious quotefarms. Unacceptable under WP:EL, quite independently of any copyright issue. I've reverted a few back out. We really shouldn't be having routine inclusions of links to wikiquote just because those pages exist. As I'm sure I've said elsewhere, Wikiquote links need to be evaluated on the same quality criteria as all other external links per WP:EL. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. --Xsaorapa (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at the Wikiquote-page for Indo-Aryan migration theory myself; it was a propaganda-page for indigenists. So, as I noticed above, Xsaorapa has a point here. Yet, excuse me for being surprised when an account that's never been used before starts with mass-removal of links; quite unusual for new accounts, isn't it? Anyway, my apologies for my short-temperedness. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. It may be better if I create a thread in the related talk page before removing the external links. --Xsaorapa (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Calling an editor a disgusting Scotsman who needs to be purified

This rant from Qualitycontrolchecker about JarrahTree is egregiously bad:

Everyone else who is a foreigner BACK OFF. I am sick and tired of counter edits from people who have this narcissistic flair of arrogance about them lecturing me about what's like to be Viet. I'm talking to you, "scotsman who wants a SEA wife". DISGUSTING. An informational purification is what you all need. Clearly the coronavirus wasn't enough.
— User:Qualitycontrolchecker

This innocuous message from JarrahTree was the catalyst.

I was going to write a comment to them after their initial post and this misguided edit summary, but they pushed themselves far beyond what I would call misguided new editor conduct. Could an admin please intervene? — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Good report. I see the editor has been blocked for 72 hours. --Merbabu (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. El_C 10:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

They apologized, and El_C unblocked: the system works. Many thanks to all involved in calming and explaining the situation to a new editor.

That was pretty specialist stuff: "You Scotsman looking for an Asian wife" has to be one of the most original insults yet. ——Serial ^# 09:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto

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

---

Yesterday, Cassianto used rollback on what appears to be a good faith edit here. I assumed this was a mistake on their part - happens to everyone! - so I went to their talk page and brought it up with them, assuming that the response that I'd get would be either a justification of the use (maybe I'd missed that the user was a persistent vandal) or an "oops! made a mistake!, either of which I would have had no issue whatsoever with.

Instead, Cassianto undid my message - something I only spotted this morning. This struck me as a concern - it's important that we all engage with one another, of course - so I requested that the situation was explained. Within minutes, this post was removed by another user, Unbroken Chain. Cassianto then responded on their talk page, calling me a "troublemaker" for raising a concern about their misuse of a tool - and has since gone on to threaten me with an ANI thread on my own talk page over my "pompous and pontificating post" pointing out that they'd done something which was a violation of the rollback uses policy.

This is not remotely an acceptable way to deal with criticism, especially when it concerns use of a potentially powerful tool. For obvious reasons, I am disinclined to continue this conversation at their talk page, so I have brought it here as the only viable alternative. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto has gone to the lengths of having that user right removed, so that ought to have been the end of that. El_C 10:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing the post should have the second end. Maybe a WP:Boomerang will stop a third. Unbroken Chain (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Unbroken Chain: If you feel I've violated any policies, I encourage you to tell me so we can discuss it - people make mistakes, and I'm more than happy to engage with people pointing out my own. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I didn't know that, thank you for telling me - I'd not had any reason to check, because they'd not engaged and told me that they'd done so. Nonetheless, there is an issue here not only with WP:ENGAGE not being followed, but also with general civility, I think. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing a warning is tantamount to reading it. It will help you. They dont have to be accountable to you..Unbroken Chain (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think you should have continued to post on their talk page, either, once your original message was removed, but that's by-the-by. I would just move on from this. Nothing good will come of this. El_C 11:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: What would you have recommended doing, other than immediately taking it here? More than happy to take on board advice, of course - but I don't think just leaving a situation in which someone who I understood to still have rollback perms was refusing to engage with criticism over their use would be a good solution, in general. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you want to start throwing bluelinks around, then I'll point you to Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages. Whatever other issues there may be here, Cassianto is entirely within his rights to remove your comments, and you are the one acting inappropriately by restoring them. ‑ Iridescent 11:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Only thing I'd support here is a boomerang block - When it was pointed out Cass may of misused rollback they immediately asked Tony to remove their rollback right so as El_C states that should've been the end of it, I'd support speedy closing this or failing that a boomerang block. –Davey2010^Talk 11:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Praxidicae keeps stalking me and calling me 'a disruptive childish editor'

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

---

Praxidicae has repeatedly been stalking me and commenting on me rather than on content. I feel I really have to address their behaviour after they called me a childish vandal ([70]) and I told them a few weeks ago ([71]) to stop assuming bad faith towards me and to comment on content, not the contributor. But they are still persisting in doing this and assume I am here to disrupt Wikipedia rather than improve it, which is clearly not true looking at my contributions history. I would appreciate a swift interaction ban between both of us because they appear to be repeatedly uncivil towards me and have kept on posting baseless messages on to my talk page. They just appear to think I'm a net negative to the project and don't focus on anything good. They have given me nothing but ridiculous warning messages and they honestly give me a heart attack every time I see them. I'm not going to go over to their talk page because I don't think it's worth communicating with them anymore. I would like someone to consider an interaction ban between both of us if this doesn't get resolved immediately. Thanks, C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I have made a handful of edits to your talk page after you needlessly pinged me in places and then threw a tantrum on my talk page. I asked you to stop acting like a vandal and edit with some maturity. You didn't bother to discuss it before even bringing it here, so what exactly are you hoping to happen? Praxidicae (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I certainly do not appreciate being called a vandal. Once again, you need to comment on content, not the contributor. I have been editing like a mature person and no one but you has referred to me this way. And regarding your comment You didn't bother to discuss it before even bringing it here that's exactly why I'm bringing this here to discuss your conduct towards me and propose an interaction ban if this doesn't get resolved. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@C2A06: that's exactly why I'm bringing this here to discuss your conduct towards me and propose an interaction ban if this doesn't get resolved. well you proposed a nuclear option of an iban in your first edit here but what exactly is there to resolve? Was I incorrect in my assessment that your page move was incorrect? Or that your edit summary was immature and vandal like?

And in case there is any doubt, the incessant use of the help template is why I even came across your edits to begin with, followed by this when you thought "it would be funny" to see how people would react to being randomly pinged for no reason. I fixed a bad page move that showed on my watch list because I also fixed your sourcing in White City depot, which is how it got on my WL in the first place. Perhaps you should assume good faith instead of assuming that every experienced editor who gives you constructive criticism is somehow out to get you. Praxidicae (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Even if I make a mistake, they are all the past, I even apologised for the mentioning of you my edit summary. If you think I'm no good to the project, leave me alone and stop stalking my edits. Anyways, I don't want talk about this anymore because it's frustrating me and please leave me alone and do not use my talk page. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 14:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You brought this directly to AN/I, yet you expect you can have your way without the editor you're accusing having the right to respond to you? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 15:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you should take Praxidicae advise to heart, C2A06. Not to sound like a broken record, but nothing good will come of this. El_C 13:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you know what this is, C2A06 ? Nick (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm feeling frustrated. I'm leaving Wikipedia forever. Goodbye. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Can you at least do an interaction ban between both of us? C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Hope you reconsider. With respect to an interaction ban, I don't think there has been enough intractable interactions problems between you two for that restriction to come into effect at this time. El_C 13:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@C2A06: Why do you need an interaction ban if you're leaving Wikipedia forever ? Nick (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nick: When I say I'm leaving Wikipedia forever I never mean it literally, i will always return at some point. And the reason why I would need an interaction ban between me and Praxidicae is to avoid them from posting baseless messages on my talk page which contain nothing but personal attacks and threats. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 13:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@C2A06: A suggestion, perhaps start saying what you mean, rather than making it up. If you say you're leaving, people will assume you're leaving. Likewise, if you ask editors to comment on content rather than the contributor, they will assume that you will also. (Even if, of course, you don't.) ——Serial ^# 14:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@C2A06: would you mind providing a diff to where I threatened you?. I can't find them in any of these 10 or so interactions, which consist mostly of me responding to help me templates and asking you to stop repeatedly using them, me asking why you pinged me randomly in an article which I'd never even seen or edited, me asking you not to ping me for no reason, me asking you not to leave a novel length diatribe on my talk page and finally me informing you of a bad page move and vandal like edit summary. But perhaps my mind has gone in my old age and you youngsters think constructive criticism is a threat. And lastly, stop accusing people you start an ANI thread about, then ping, of stalking you for responding to you. Praxidicae (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

C2A06 please, give it a rest. The first diff in your report links to Praxidicae giving you some sound advice. The second diff links to you describing a comment of hers as a lie - a deliberate untruth - that is a personal attack, and it's the only one I'm seeing. I honestly suggest that you have a cup of tea and a bit of time out before that bendy stick starts arcing its way back to you - walk away. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Boomerang and block indefinitely because C2A06 assumes that all forms of criticism are "bad faith", even though they were pinging users for no reason other than to get a reaction. Also because of the outburst edit summaries like this and this. If C2A06 wants another chance they can properly appeal the block. (Also, User:C2A06/Nonsense should be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST / WP:U5) Cards84664 14:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm very sorry everyone for all the disruption i've caused throughout my time here. I promise I won't repeat it. I will not continue to tag other editors in my edit summaries I will accept criticism, I will not create any nonsense pages, I apologise to @Praxidicae: for not following their advice, i will do that in future and listen to everyone. I'm very sorry, i understand what I did was wrong and I won't repeat it. I hope you choose not to block me now. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 14:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@C2A06: real talk and I don't care if you want to give me shit about it. I don't know how old you are, but I assume you're younger. This is an important life lesson that is not limited to Wikipedia. Criticism sucks. It is often difficult to deal with but it's required for any type of collaboration and to get anywhere professionally or personally. It hurts and that's human but instead of reacting, start reflecting before you respond and see what you can do with that advice. This is something that many Wikipedians struggle with, including most of us in this thread, but it is absolutely necessary for this environment. With that being said, I'd strongly suggest taking an extended break of several months to a year so you can mature and come back. If not, I fear you will wind up right back here again and instead of a temporary block or ban, it will probably be longer and harder to come back from. You obviously do not have to take my advice but I believe it would be more meaningful and helpful to you rather than your sudden 180 above when a realistic block was proposed. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

C2A06, assessing the value of your contributions against the work you make for other users, do you consider yourself a net positive to the wiki? I've got to confess I felt a little disappointed (and saddened by my own reaction) when "forever" turned out to mean just 3 minutes. A third of your contributions have been to your own userpages and making up silly restrictions for your talk page contrary to the page's purpose. It's time to ask yourself what you're here for before your next block turns out to be your last. Cabayi (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

C2A06, so no more citing Reddit for made-up terms? Some of us are old enough to remember Eddie Segoura's attempt to use Wikipedia to promote as neologism., It went badly. Guy (help!) 14:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• Do I understand correctly, @C2A06:, that you understand now that you are 100% in the wrong, and plan on 100% changing your approach here? I was just about to block you from editing for 2 years - had the block page open and everything - on the assumption that you need to gain a significantly higher level of maturity. If you've really had a "road to Damascus" moment in the last half hour, I suppose one more chance is OK, but I've never seen disruptive editors instantly become non-disruptive, and I think this is kind of a false hope. It seems more likely to me that you're hoping to say something, anything, to avoid a block, and aren't going to actually commit to change. In any case, be 100% more careful, 100% more open to comments, 100% less disruptive or you will be blocked with no further warning. Praxidicae's advice to voluntarily take an extended break is really spot on, if you'll listen to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• I reviewed the activity logs and talk pages of Praxidicae & C2A06 and it would appear as though they have had minimal interaction over the course of several months. Most of this dispute, (which Praxisicae justly paid heed to), concerns C2A06's self-governed rules. C2A06, you can dress your talk page up a bit, but trying to claim autonomy or unique & enforceable edicts that state nobody may ever challenge what you do will not fly. You could write a rule that says nobody with a BMI above 20 or wearing pants may visit your page and it would be about as enforceable as what you're trying to establish here. I recommend you remove everything from your user page and the rules on your talk page, (see WP:POLEMIC), and start fresh. I don't want you banned, as I was once young/experienced and needed to learn the ropes. However, you should step back from Wikipedia and spent time observing how senior editors conduct themselves - especially on one another's talk pages. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 15:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

or wearing pants may visit your page given the pandemic, there's a good chance most people aren't wearing pants right now. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

correct.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae Thanks for catching that little Wikipedia-breaking bad keystroke I did. This is why we can't have nice things! :D DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 15:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits on Scottish islands

86.31.176.54 (talk · contribs) has made a number of unconstrivtive edits such as this and some uncivil comments such as this. Could this be User:Dopenguins similar to the history of Seil? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree - see also unconstrivtive (sic) edits by The Bens MacDuis on the South Uist page, removing verified data and replacing with unsourced hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.176.54 (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"I agree" So you agree that your edits are unconstructive? Wow. Never before seen IP. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 20:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I made some unconstrivtive (sic) edits on different pages to illustrate the absurdity of the unconstrivtive (sic) edits The Bens MacDuis is making on the South Uist page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.176.54 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Also please stop making fun of User:Crouch, Swale's editing mistake. It is not funny. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 21:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

IP editor, that sounds like a textbook example of WP:POINT. I would suggest you take the time to read and understand that guideline. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 23:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for disruptive, pointy editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Archaementon

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

---

• Archaementon (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Archaementon created an account on the morning of June 9 to contest my draftification of WDSW-LP. They posted on my talk page claiming to have "reported your malicious deletion of the WDSW-LP wiki page to Delta State University and they will correct you actions." After I warned the user about legal/off-wiki threats and personal attacks on their talk page, the user backtracked, saying that it was only possible that Delta State University would impose "civil and or legal penalties" upon me. After a final olive branch offer from me, the user made many unprovoked attacks, calling me a "bully", saying that I "bullied Frisbee Golf people" when I actually wasn't, bringing up the possibility of federal prison for me, accused me of having a "weird agenda", and said I was "drunk on the exercise of petty power", all over the routine draftification of a radio station page from a college I hadn't ever heard of up until today. Even though the user "wont be checking back in", I'm asking for a block under WP:NOTHERE and WP:No personal attacks. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies on not notifying affected user. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Willsome429, reminder: even though they've said they're leaving, you're required to notify an editor when you file a report about them on this noticeboard. I have taken care of it for you this time, please make sure to do it in the future. creffett (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate has beat me to the deserved WP:NLT block, for such edits as [72], [73], [74] (which cites a specific statute along with a claim of jail time! Hows that for a legal threat...). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The statute that they cite apparently doesn't exist... M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Repeated edits against consensus

User:Visaliaw has repeatedly made the same edits despite being rejected in the talk page.[75][76][77][78] There is no consensus to make such a change. Ythlev (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Visaliaw has already been warned multiple times:

• by me on their talk page: warning about edit warring (diff)
• by me at Talk:Taiwan#Proposed changes: Visaliaw needs to stop reinstating their contested edits against consensus and open an RfC instead (diff)
• by me at Talk:Taiwan#Proposed changes: Visaliaw not being satisfied by opposing arguments isn’t sufficient to reinstate their changes (diff).
• by Ythlev at Talk:Taiwan#Proposed changes: ceased to respond cannot be assumed to mean agreement / consensus (diff).
• by Ythlev at Talk:Taiwan#Proposed changes: Visaliaw will be reported for continued reinsertion of their contested changes (diff).

It’s a pretty clear WP:ONUS and edit warring issue. Visaliaw ironically didn’t even bother to respond in the talk page before their latest reinsertion of their contested changes. I had given them one more warning, but it doesn’t seem like that will get through when all of the others haven’t. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

BLM2020 edits on the Al Campanis page

BLM2020 keeps making edits [79] on the Al Campanis page that violates a number of rules here. He/she refuses to discuss this on the talk page. If someone could speak to them about it.....it would be appreciated.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Next time, you can take something like this to WP:AIV. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. His/her first few edits didn't come across as vandalism....just someone who didn't know the rules here. So I tried warnings. The last edit is where it got ridiculous.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

While the edits were clearly inappropriate, just to let you know they are unlikely to have violated WP:BLP since the subject has been dead for over 20 years and the edits seemed to be solely about them. BDP suggests 2 years at an outset for "recently deceased". Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by User:WeAreAllStars

• WeAreAllStars (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

WeAreAllStars is making ad hominem WP:PERSONALATTACKS as a result of my nomination for deletion of an article he created: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Band Famous (2nd nomination). He called it "targeted harassment from groups of white supremacy" [80]. And he claimed that Johnpacklambert acted out of "racism or other bigotry." [81] He has a history of this. [82] Drmies called these "wiki-tantrums and outright lies" and warned him not to continue in that vein without expecting to be hard blocked. He is WP:NOTHERE. [83] Theredproject (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Theredproject, per the bright yellow notice at the top of the page when you edit it, you are required to notify users of a filing at ANI on their own talkpages; simply pinging them is insufficient. I have done so for you, but please remember to do so in the future. Grandpallama (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, Thank you. Theredproject (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The personal attacks made by this user are extreme and over the top. The thing that also sticks out as over the top is that they have been editing the article Jacob Alexander Figueroa and related topics since 2014, exclusively. Their additions to the Figueroa article are, to put it plainly, simply awful and not an improvemnt to the wiki. I have a hard time even telling who the artist is or what they are notable for. In addition to the PA issue, I would say this user is here to improve/promote the Figuroa article, and for no other reason.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Reading through the comments, apart from the assertions, there's some obvious quacking going on, both within the current deletion discussion and connected to the first deletion discussion. It's amazing how all of the SPAs happen to use not just similar language, but similar phrases; for instance, they're all consumed with how coverage is both "national and international". Grandpallama (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Much as I hate to be on the same side of any argument as Johnpacklambert, he only acts out of incompetence and bone-headedness rather than racism or other bigotry, and everyone else has acted perfectly well. Just block WeAreAllStars. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I would support a block if someone proposed it. The butchering of the Figueroa article with what is possible the worst editing I have seen here, the original ANI problems and the current instnances of calling people homophobic and white supremacists sort of means the wiki would be better off without them. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Musicislife777 is  Confirmed to WeAreAllStars, and I've blocked both indefinitely. I'm not really impressed by Phil Bridger's commentary above and would advise keeping such comments to oneself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why should I keep the truth to myself? Have you ever seen a comment from User:Johnpacklambert that is actually based on looking for reliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is worse than I thought. The attacker is incapable it seems of probperly writing what I stated. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The failure to properly write the name of an organization someone else belongs to is a clear case of failure to show them respect. I am tired of not being shown respect. I am tempted to point out that as a white man with a black wife, who works as a resource room coordinator at a government Career Center in Detroit where 95% of the participants we seek to assist in training, resume development and other aids to place them in higher paying more fulfilling careers are African-Americans, trying to call me racist flies against the truth. Of course I have also watched American Son and so know that in some circles some feel that pullign the "I have a black wife" card is a way to cover for racism, but it might be relevant here. I am still most mad that the person in attacking me refuses to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the proper way. I have been insulted long and hard enough on Wikipedia that I am ok with it, but I ask others the courtesy of refering to the Church I belong to be its correct name. I seek to grant others the ability to be refered to by their chosen names, and so have sought to increase the frequency of articles where we refer to Utes, Navajo and Lakota instead of using undifferentiated terms that refer to amosphous groups.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring and sockpuppetry to add copyrighted text to Columbia University

Can an administrator please step in at Columbia University? CUfiveo is using sockpuppets to add copyrighted text to the article. He or she first copied this material directly from the university's webpage, 2603:9000:6504:12bd:e0ee:9b74:ded8:35a6 restored the edit after another editor reverted it, and 2603:9000:6504:12bd:8533:ea1b:f5bf:2deb also restored it after another editor removed it again; this behavior has continued for several hours today with more reverts. There is also an open SPI request related to this. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 21:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Just adding the fact that the user blanked Template:Education in the United States twice. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AEducation_in_the_U.S.&type=revision&diff=961911689&oldid=961829850 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AEducation_in_the_U.S.&type=revision&diff=961820278&oldid=833424624 --HamiltonProject (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Battleground beheavior by bender235

Greetings. There was recently a contentious AfD for Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, which I closed early per WP:SNOW. I then immediately went to the main administrators noticeboard for a review of that close, which was sustained. That thread was also closed relatively early.

One common thread in those two discussions was persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by bender235, who badgered participants relentlessly, spinning out several long sub-threads and repeatedly making the same points over and over even after it became clear that the people they were talking to understood the point bender was trying to make and weren't going to change their minds.

In my close of the AfD, the first line of the rationale was "Consensus is clear and there is little benefit to keeping the discussion open, considering the amount of disruption and interpersonal sniping that has already taken place." (blue mine). That line was specifically in regards to the disruption being caused by bender (though not entirely him). In the close for the AN discussion, the closer's rationale was "Speedy close at AfD endorsed. Closing a bit early as heat to light ratio is rapidly increasing" (blue mine). I suspect John from Idegon was also referring to the disruption by bender.

bender235 is now taking the same issues that he raised at the AfD and the AN and bringing them into the did you know nomination for Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman. If he could be excused for vociferously arguing his points at the AfD and AN, there's still no reason to bring them up again at the DYK nomination.

I am asking an uninvolved administrator to tell bender235 that he needs to drop this issue, and if necessary, impose a topic ban around any content related to Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A topic ban would definitely be overstepping here. Continuing to raise concerns about the article at the DYK nominated by the AfD closer isn’t the same as WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct; I don’t see incivility nor a “need to win” type of behavior.

At most, this just a concern about bludgeoning that could’ve been raised at their user talk page before opening an ANI thread. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The canvassing incident surrounding the article/AfD The Squirrel Conspiracy is referring to is still being discussed at WP:VPP#Is it time to place greater restrictions on AfD?. All I did was bring that to the attention of the Wikipedians discussing the DYK nomination. I wasn't bludgeoning The Squirrel Conspiracy or anybody else involved, so I don't quite understand what is the purpose of this report. Besides, I don't understand the "badgering" allegation raised by The Squirrel Conspiracy above: in the AfD I responded to exactly three people's comments (besides the questions relating to my own !vote), including one that I know now was never going to be answered because it was one of the 22 meat and spa votes that sabotaged the AfD and led to the speedy close. --bender235 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Your concerns at the AfD were valid, especially when it came to the flood of new participants, and I tried to specifically address the issue of new editors coming in solely to participate in the AfD in my close. It's also clear that you have very strong opinions on how social media-based figures fit into our inclusion criteria, and they're worth discussing, but an AfD is not the place to argue whether the inclusion criteria need to be adjusted.

The problem is not that you made those points, it's that that you kept arguing, and arguing, and arguing, well past the point where you were adding anything new to the discussion, have now done that in two related discussions, and had started down that path in a third. After you've made your point, continuing to hammer it over and over again in the same thread becomes disruptive.

I recommend that you spend some time putting together an RfC to see if there's community consensus for changing the way that we define notability for social media-related topics/people, and then once it's ready, post it and take a step back and let the rest of the community hash it out. Then, either you'll get the changes you want or the community will agree that the status quo is fine, or something in-between those two options. That would be a better way to channel your passion for those issues than what you were doing in the AfD and AN threads. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: you must've misunderstood my point, because I was never arguing to have our notability criteria modified. My point in my original !vote was that we should apply WP:ACADEMIC to a person that defines herself as an economist. Quite frankly I don't know what our notability thresholds for social media personalities are, so maybe Opoku-Agyeman meets those. As I can see, her article has by now been modified to reflect the fact that she's notable as an activist, not academic.

By the way, my concern that this type of large-scale Twitter canvassing, that had its test-run in AfD/Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman, would be the "new normal", is becoming a reality sooner than I imagined, see AfD/Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. --bender235 (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Bender235, the crowd there is likely because of the Fast company article on the AfD. Schazjmd (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibly. But apart from that case, the same tactic was also just tried by MethanoJen at CfD/Black geoscientists. This is becoming a cancer on our community and its decision processes. --bender235 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Skarz and Talk:Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

NedFausa oversighted an edit by Skarz on Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. Skarz just added another edit with this same link to Talk:Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, trying to get us to re-add it to the article. I think they need a warning, this is not a WP:PRIMARY source situation, it's a partisan's opinion on that person's behavior. On NedFausa's talk page, where I was about to go, he said this should go to AN/I. So, I'm bringing it here. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The edit was not oversighted, it was revedeleted. And it wasn't revedleted by NedFausa, who is not an admin. It was revdeleted by Guerillero. And rightly so, that edit is a severe BLP violation! El_C 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Oh, thank you for helping me get the facts straight! I'm so sorry, I didn't know there was a difference between revdeletion and oversighting. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not really the point. You've attributed something to the wrong person. You've also failed to understand the nature and gravity of the violation itself. El_C 01:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've now apologized to NedFausa for the oversight (pun not intended). Thanks for doing that. El_C 01:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: No problem. I don't think I have failed to understand the gravity at all, given I immediately brought this to AN/I, even without checking whether or not NedFausa was an admin, on the assumption that he told them to go to AN/I because he is an admin and this is the place to complain about one. I've put an {{ANI-notice}} on Guerillero's talk page. Once again, sorry about that, next time I will be sure to look at the log and not make any assumptions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but what are you complaining about? That's what I mean when I refer to your failure to understand the nature and gravity of the (BLP) violation. El_C 01:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

For admins: the revdeleted edit in question is here. El_C 01:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, warnings from Guerillero and NedFausa's not accepting the video as a source have not been enough, and this user is continuing to disrupt, making an edit request without a source then re-adding the video later as the only source, above replies even. Given that Guerillero determined this was WP:RD2 and Skarz continues to advocate for its addition, I believe that a further warning from an admin who can see the deleted material is warranted. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the nature of your complaint. I will have a word with them. Thanks for bearing with me! El_C 02:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Similar material is being added to the Raz Simone page as well, linked to sources that do not support the claim being made. Grandpallama (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have semiprotected that page and revdeleted the edits (I think I got em all). I have also warned Skarz about making defamatory edits. El_C 02:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Since I don't see a reason, yet, to use NEWBLPBAN, I think we are done here. Thanks to EL_C for their admin actions --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So wait everyone is upset because I was informed that my edit violated a policy (still have not had that one explained to me) and I tried to have a discusson on the Talk page and now I'm somehow inciting a riot and disrupting the peace? This CHAZ situation has been developing for less than 36 hours and has a full-fledged article on it. I don't appreciate the allegations and chastising when I'm simply adding information to an on going event based on events that are actually happening (video evidence). Skarz (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Skarz: The problem is that claims about living people that involve illegal activity need Reliable third-party sources --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Request a link to Wikipedia policy on using live video as a reliable source? So if mainstream media doesn't pick this up (doesn't look like they will at this point) this incredibly important event just fades in to the oblivion and goes unnoticed? What's the point of Wikipedia then if you are not documenting attempted usurpation of powers in an event that is important enough to have its own article? Skarz (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers and is a reflection of what reliable sources publish. No more, no less. El_C 02:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Skarz: This is overly dramatic. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. The alternative media is more than able to cover it; indeed, you may make a blog and write about it. I suggest Medium. Please re-read WP:GREATWRONGS. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Last question, is this a reliable source?

<redacted> - Skarz (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You really can't help yourself, can you? Go ask on the article talk page WITHOUT REPEATING THE BLP-VIOLATING CLAIMS and see what reception you get. --Calton | Talk 02:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia User Bot lowercase sigmabot III

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

---

On the Wikipedia article talk page Talk:Adult Swim I posted a discussion called "Do we really need to have Death Tributes?" back on 21 February 2020, there has not been any respond to the post and as a result the Wikipedia bot User:lowercase sigmabot III keeps archiving it, I in turn un-archive because this is an important discussion as to whether the article is too long as a result of the Death Tributes section and/or is the Death Tributes considered trivia? I am trying to get a consensus but unfortunately I cannot do that because this stupid bot keeps archiving the post. I also changed the signature so that a new date will appear, maybe it will or maybe it won't help but in any case I would appreciate some assistance. Thank You. YborCityJohn (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So I ended up here via WP:RCP

It's getting archived because no one has replied in 90 days and the section being archived wouldn't make the talk page empty. Look at the archiving setting. See WP:ARCHIVE.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 130K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Adult Swim/Archive %(counter)d
}}

I don't know why you are reporting this. There is no urgent or long-term userbot-conduct issues here. There are 435 watchers, so probably nobody cares until you be bold and someone reverts, and here we go with bold, revert, dicuss. (Non-administrator comment) {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 05:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is a way to prevent archival, but I'm not sure, so please ask the technical village pump. There is no conduct issue requiring admin action here. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 07:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(after EC) Yes, it's {{Do not archive until}}. Graham87 07:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a slow moving enough talk page that I'd just turn off the auto-archiving completely. It is fine to keep old discussions on the page as long as the page doesn't get overlarge. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• The bot is doing what is told to do. Just increase the timer and minthreadsleft if it is a problem.--Hippeus (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Magnovvig and irreconcilable personal attack issues

I've been dealing with edits and comments from Magnovvig for a few days now, and based on what Magnovvig themself actually described as a clear provocation to [me] and only [me] [84] I read more of their talk page and I feel their routine hostile attitude and personal attacks need to be addressed.

From this talk page, it is evident that the user has never employed a courteous tone and routinely seeks to belittle or mock editors that seek to discuss with them, especially RexxS. The first comment by Magnovvig on their talk page is the passive-aggressive thanks for your help. It would be even more helpful if someone were to amend the (cumbersome) AfC process to inform editors of the Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects in order that we would not need to have this conversation. Following that, there is your last full sentence is nonsense. Although I disagree with your deletion of the word "thwart", I have amended the language to which you object - in this case relating to insertion of said NPOV language on a controversial political article.

Some of the worst has to be the openly insulting and degrading language used to speak to an administrator who was merely asking for Magnovvig to use sources more accurately, starting in the User talk:Magnovvig#Neil Ferguson section: Are you naive or just a hack? and then Only because you have more seniority in this forum than me and can use it to silence me, I will back off my edits, which is openly asserting Magnovvig's belief that RexxS would block them in bad faith. In a separate discussion, Magnovvig brought up RexxS's editing as an excuse for their own mistake, and continued to insult him. RexxS tried to politely engage, and was responded to with this: What is the problem with my behaviour? Do tell. How dare you touch my talk page comments. You seek to tilt the playing field to your advantage. That's not very gentlemanly of you, is it? I refuse to lower myself to your level. We could honestly keep going with comments towards RexxS, but let's jump to users Magnovvig should have nothing against:

An editor tried to address a misunderstanding at Isolated protein, and was attacked with rather than delete and destroy my work; when asked not to machine-translate articles, Magnovvig responded oh is there an official guidance on that? I'm surprised at your remark; when asked not to add unsourced information or edit war, they said FYI your edits make no sense. Did you not read the tags that I sent? If you like we can just strip Michael Hood of his chestful of medals. Are you that unfriendly to the armed services? I puzzle at your behaviour, to put it very mildly.

And then the issues that brought me here. I tried to openly discuss their disruptive changes to the title of Hong Kong national security law - perhaps it could be improved, but as a current and controversial article, moves should be discussed, and it should not be moved to the incorrect titles Magnovvig did. I tried to reason with them, only to be attacked when I didn't just bow down, with the belittling comments Wiki needs to reflect reality, to tell it as it is. Is this clear now? and I made the second move to fix your mistake. I ignored them, and explained the issues again (in case you're interested, naming the article 'bill' when 1. it's about more than the current attempt, and 2. there isn't even a current bill). Magnovvig's comment this time began with You premise is mistaken, so I have difficulty with everything else you've written. You're flying off into barking madness with your "theory" comment and ended with Side note: have you declared your interest (pecuniary or otherwise) in this topic?, subtly accusing me of paid editing without even a hint of reason to suspect it. Guess what, I ignored this again, even saying I agreed with them on some of their comments about a different article. This was pointless, because they then openly attacked me in an edit reason at the article [85]. When I left a warning comment about it, they said Come on @Kingsif: if you can't understand a clear provocation to you and only you, you need to back off, admitting to a personal attack and effectively calling me dumb for not taking it, then saying they added a completely fictional unsourced opinion to the lead because I knew that it would get your attention and thereby receive your attention. I have no idea what this guy's MO is, but it looks to be baiting and attacking anyone that calls out their bad edits. I think the best course of action is a block, but short of that an official warning that they will be banned if any more personal attacks are made seems necessary.

Pinging both @Magnovvig and RexxS: because of involvement. Note that this mountain of offenses does stretch back to September 2019, but is mostly in the past few months, which seems truly remarkable. (Feel free to collapse some of this comment if appropriate, I know it's long) Kingsif (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Quark dispute

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

---

I'm unable to reach a consensus with 2 editors. Therefore, I need input from a third party (other editors).

Editor Cuzkatzimhut has a poor understanding of particle physics. He couldn't provide any valid counter-argument against my claim, which is backed up by many scientific experiments. See Talk:Quark#Free quark. It is clear that he tried to use circular reasoning and ignored all the scientific facts I provided.

Editor Ruslik0 claims that my sources are not reliable.

1. How is a published book not a reliable source? (source 1)
2. Source 2 is from CERN website. CERN has the largest particle physics lab in the world. It is leading the world in particle physics research.
3. Source 3 is from Forbes. Forbes is a well-known American magazine that explains science for the layman. Source 3 is written by a Ph.D. astrophysicist.

The information in the quark article was written over 10 years ago. It's outdated, and nobody has updated it for the last 10 years. Now, as physicists gain more understanding of the quarks, physicists discover things that they didn't know for sure before. There are many many sources that support my statement. Here are 3 more sources from many more in addition to the 3 sources above: from Livescience, from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and from European Commission, managed by European Union. It would be nice to hear input from editors that are actually particle physicists in real life or anyone with a deep understanding of particle physics. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As I was hanging around this page just now, I would recommend that your query be taken WP:WikiProject Physics and/or WP:3O, since it's not a problem requiring (or requesting) administrator intervention. Since I can't ping an IP, I'll leave a note at your talk page, too :) Kingsif (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not able to edit the article anymore, which leaves the error unfixed. How do I get the attention of WP:WikiProject Physics members? Thanks! 14.169.212.232 (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The best way would probably be to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. However it is unlikely that you will reach a consensus with anyone if you question people's credentials all the time rather than stick to discussing the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

All my scientific claims are ignored and unaddressed by circular reasoning. I also provided a lot of evidence to prove the reliability of my sources. That too was ignored. How do you explain that? I feel like I'm being treated unfairly because I'm an IP and not an established editor in Wikipedia. Just because they're established editors, it doesn't mean that they're always correct or knowledgeable in an advance topic such as particle physics.14.169.212.232 (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• The dispute seems to revolve around two similar but not identical uses of the term "free quark". Some sources refer to non-confined quarks moving around relatively freely in a quark-gluon plasma (which is physiaclly possible) and other sources talk about single quarks existing alone in space without support (which is probably not). It would be a mistake to conflate these two uses of the term. Reyk _YO! 10:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  Reyk. All my sources support the first interpretation that you got there. In any case, the fact that free quarks have been observed in the quark-gluon plasma. It proves that this statement "they can be found only within hadrons" is scientifically incorrect. The word "isolation" being used in the article means that physicists thought quarks can never exist outside of color confinement. However, recent experiments at CERN (and other places) prove otherwise. When scientists discover things that they didn't know before, knowledge needs to be updated too. For some reasons, my good-will attempt to update human knowledge was thwarted for no apparent valid reason. 14.169.212.232 (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Kingshowman & Passengerpigeon

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

---

Can someone please look into these users edits? Kingshowman has been blocked months ago for vandalism but there has been a recent string of new accounts getting blocked by PP posting them to Wp:AIV without any warning or edits to the new users’ talkpage. I am bringing this here for review because if we automatically suspect every new Editor to be a sock of KSM with a guilty-unitil-proven-innocent attitude It only going to cause more vandalism & socking and we are going to find ourselves blocking innocent users who actually have nothing to do with this vandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.112.78.81 (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I sense a definite boomerang on the way... Glen 14:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot of usage of "we" for an account that has never edited before. Grandpallama (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Special — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.186.250 (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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

CMZT - undeclared paid editing?

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

The user is only interested in two connected articles, which are currently not up to our standards (though notable). They removed {{advertisement}} three times, after which I warned them and asked whether they are a paid editor. They did not respond and instead removed it for the fourth time by their first edit after warning. I blocked them for 31 h for disruption. I will welcome suggestions on whether the block should be converted to indefinite for undeclared paid editing. I obviously only have circumstancial evidence, I have not seen any ads anywhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that

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

got the message about the username but chose to ignore the "promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose" text. I'd say it's UPE. Cabayi (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Even the headshot CMZT uploaded, File:850 1109-Edit21.jpg, "Copyright holder : nancy_coste_photography", "Dr. Susan Saxton on the AUBH Balcony" screams UPE. Cabayi (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a good argument, I have not noticed that. Unless there are very strong arguments not to, I am going to indefblock the account and semiprotect both articles they were involved into. The article for the rector, Susan E. Saxton, is probably eligible for a speedy as a creation of a blocked sock, but I had in the past some issues with deletions according to this criterion, so I am not sure whether this is a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

She doesn't appear to be notable anyway if that's the best sourcing they can come up with. A lot of sources, but none are actually about her apart from the primary ones. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. I re-read WP:NACADEMIC #6, and she does not pass. Deletion as an article about a non-notable individual is probably the best solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I was reading, and CSD'd per Ymblanter "blocked sock". Let's see. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 10:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Deleted. Only the blocked sock had contributed significantly, so it seemed to fit the criteria to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks everybody for reactions. I reblocked the user indef and protected the remaining article for a year.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Status quo stonewalling and misleading undo

Across the six articles Bengal tiger, Siberian tiger, Caspian tiger, South China tiger, Indochinese tiger, and Malayan tiger, the user User:BhagyaMani is disruptively status quo stonewalling and owning the articles without engaging in any discussion!

For example, at Indochinese Tiger:

• I edited the article.
• BhagyaMani undid my change as "Test".
• I said it was not a test.
• BhagyaMani undid it again as "Revised definition".
• I told him on his page that his edit reasons are misleading
• I opened a talk discussion that BhagyaMani did not respond to.
• After one week with no response, I edited the article again with a link to the discussion.
• BhagyaMani undoes it again saying that "no discussion has taken place".

What?! 'BhagyaMani undid these edits 4 times without giving a single reason and neglected to participate in the opened discussion. His most recent undoes are still misleading: "revised" when it just status quo stonewalls to the old version!

Now BhagyaMani claims that the undoes are okay because "Your proposed changes are NOT consensus", but still refuses to give a single reason against any of the edits. Undoing for the sake of preserving the old version without giving a single reason is disruptive stonewalling. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

BhagyaMani still hits undo for other people's edits as "Test" when they are clearly not tests! AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

BhagyaMani is still undoing my edits as "revised" while this ANI discussion is open. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• C'mon, this stuff is ultra-WP:LAME. Just live with whatever the first sentence happens to read right now for a day or two, then implement the result of the talk page discussions. Running to AN/I because of a negligible phrasing issue that is in the process of being sorted out is... not a good choice. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  User:Elmidae: this is not about the sentence in the articles themselves. This is about BhagyaMani continuing to use misleading edit summaries and continuing to not understand that they use status quo stonewalling after he was told these are disruptive. You cannot undo an edit 4 consecutive times without giving any reason and neglecting to participate in the opened discussion.

This also was not being sorted out in the talk discussion until after this ANI was opened. AnomalousAtom (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, it's about tigers! Mystery solved. El_C 16:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

User:El C: Isn't this "objecting to an edit on the basis of no consensus alone" that you said should not happen? AnomalousAtom (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, Aspersions and Canvassing by IZAK

IZAK has recently been edit warring against the scholarly interpretation of The Exodus, [86], [87], [88].

Additionally, they have cast WP:ASPERSIONS by implying that editors that oppose their changes are antisemitic [89].

They have also attempted to engage in WP:CANVASSING of multiple editors not involved in the article to influence its outcome [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95].

All of this is compounded by an apparent lack of understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policies regarding in particular WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and WP:PRIMARY, despite having been on Wikipedia since 2002, see [[96]] for the discussion at Talk:The Exodus#Myth yet again as well as User talk:Ermenrich#WP:NPOV.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Ermenrich: (1) I have not been "edit warring" I made edits in good faith. At no time did I violate the WP:3RR, (2) and at no time did I call anyone an "antisemite". (3) User:Ermenrich displays an attitude of WP:OWN at The Exodus article,and my point was to introduce some Jewish studies content into the lead of the article, which he seems allergic to. (4) At no time have I violated WP:NPOV and WP:RS. (5) User:Ermenrich has an evident hostility to Rabbinic Judaism and marginalizes the Orthodox Judaism perspective.IZAK (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

When you say I "marginalize the Orthodox Jewish perspective" you mean I oppose your efforts to denude the article of its serious scholarly engagement with the topic because it violates your religious beliefs or to label a rival Jewish group a heresy. Both of those things are the very definitions of violating NPOV. You introduced, as far as I can see, no new content to the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: The Jewish religious approach about a Jewish religious text is justified in such an article as The Exodus, you do not WP:OWN the topic or the article. I was only editing a few words in the lead and moved one paragraph. I am not denuding anything, that is what you are doing, denuding the views of Judaism and Christianity to their own texts by inserting latter-day commentaries. You did not give me enough time and you ignore WP:Common knowledge of the Jewish and Christian views on this subject. Modern scholarship has to be put in proportion and chronologically correct order. Don't put the cart before the horse. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

For such a highly experienced editor as IZAK, this blatant canvassing is quite amazing. Zero^talk 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I was asking for help in editing an article which is permitted. It was not a AfD or CfD. It is not a violation of WP:CANVAS to ask other editors for their scholarly help. IZAK (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• [97] edit summary: It's not a myth, millions of Jews and a billion of Christians believe it to be true - believing something into existence is apparently possible. This doesn't bode well for their editing. WP:Competence is required? starship.paint (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

My advice to IZAK is to do the same I do: since I cannot kowtow to WP:RS/AC at abortion and health effects of salt, I generally avoid those articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Those edits are wildly inappropriate, especially for an experienced user. IZAK needs to commit to making edits consistent with scholarly consensus, or needs to avoid those articles. If they are unable to do so, they likely need to be removed from the topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment : I feel this discussion, which immediately preceding the action at The Exodus, where Izak tried to add the category Heresy in Judaism to the article Sadducees ([98], [99]) is probably also relevant to this discussion. It speaks to bias and a lack of understanding of policy.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• Wildly inappropriate is exactly right, per Vanamonde. I've blocked IZAK from The Exodus and its talkpage for a month. If the disruption should move elsewhere, there could obviously be further sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 15:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC).
• Izak is a very experienced editor. In 2005 ArbCom banned him for 10 days for personal attacks.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK He's been blocked for a month from the article and talk page, but this attack: "I have noticed that a number of editors such as User:Ermenrich have been acting in a WP:OWN in articles relating to Judaism and go all out to deny what classical Jewish commentators and scholarship has to say. Very nice that you can quote SECULAR anti-religious profs xyz, but they know beans about Jewish theology and just have an ax to grind against anything Biblical and even Jewish. That's the story for now" is unacceptable, as is his canvassing. I think either may warrant a block for someone who clearly should know better, the two together certainly do. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• I won't stand in the way if Doug's proposal of a sitewide block is supported here, and I certainly agree the disruption was serious. It may be worth mentioning, though, that it's been 14 years since IZAK was last blocked, so I would think even just a partial block will make an impression. Bishonen | tålk 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that IZAK was way out of line, and that this misconduct should not be repeated. But I think that, for now, Bishonen's sanction should stand, if in the interests of administrative consistency and nothing else. So, I'm against adding further sanctions at this time. Note that I've protected the page 4 times this year alone — always about disruption relating to the word "myth," without exception. El_C 16:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
• @El C: my problem is that he still denies canvassing or that saying that someone has "ax to grind against anything Biblical and even Jewish" suggests that they are anti-semitic. Or am I alone in seeing this? Doug Weller talk 17:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• This diff suggests that IZAK may now be editing while WP:LOGGEDOUT. Narky Blert (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Narky Blert: I only edit using my user name. It was not me in any case. I abide by the decision. IZAK (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Narky Blert (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• I believe IZAK. Their English is a lot better than the IP's, for one thing. Bishonen | tålk 15:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC).

• Tons of IPs edit the Exodus like that, so it's probably just a coincidence. The page gets protected occasionally because of the constant fights over the word "myth".--Ermenrich (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Bishonen:, given that he's been banned from the article, what's the appropriateness of IZAK continuing to argue for the changes he wants in this thread at ANI?--Ermenrich (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a topic ban I've given IZAK (you can propose one of those in this thread if you like, Ermenrich — a community ban) — but merely a partial block. He can argue in other places than the two pages I specified. Bishonen | tålk 17:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC).

• • @Ermenrich: The answer is simple. I was NOT given a chance to respond before the block was imposed. I noticed this discussion AFTER the decision was made. So I am speaking in my own self-defence now ex post facto. I am not editing The Exodus article for the near future in any case.IZAK (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
    • You had plenty of time to discuss the article content at Talk:The Exodus before this block was imposed. The only reason that this discussion is still open is to allow people to discuss whether you should just be blocked from editing this article or the block should be wider, not to give you some sort of rights in a court of law. Nobody on Wikipedia has the power to fine you or imprison you or sentence you to death or do anything more than tell you can't edit one particular web site, so such rights are not needed here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban

Since I filed this report, this long string of edits has come to my attention where IZAK has added the category Heresy in Judaism or Heresy in Orthodox Judaism to dozens of articles such as Reform Judaism, Jewish secularism, etc, even other religions such as Samaritanism: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110]. Most of these additions are highly offensive and serve to mark Jewish movements as somehow not truly Jewish.

As seen when confronted with views outside of those held by Orthodox Judaism, (see User Talk:Ermenrich#WP:NPOV, Talk:Sadducees#Sadducees are Heretics according to Judaism), IZAK is not capable of perceiving the fact that they have an obvious POV problem on Jewish topics. Therefore, in addition to their one month block from The Exodus, I propose a topic ban from the topic of heresy in Judaism, broadly construed.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Ermenrich: You are avoiding the obvious: All the edits are valid, they reflect what Heresy in Orthodox Judaism (NOTE, I did NOT write the article!) asserts, not "me". According to you, there is no "heresy" in anything, but in Judaism there is, simply Heresy in Judaism (NOTE, I did NOT write the article!) just as there is an article about Heresy in all its forms on WP, see Category:Heresy with detailed sub-categories in Category:Heresy in Buddhism, Category:Heresy in Christianity, and Category:People convicted of heresy, Bidʻah (Heresy in Islam), likewise I created Category:Heresy in Judaism and Category:Heresy in Orthodox Judaism years ago, and no one ever had any problems with it til you came along, and the purpose of WP is to educate about the subjects it deals with. You can't run around attacking people for stating what exists in the real world. IZAK (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding a category "Heresy in Orthodox Judaism" or "Heresy in Judaism" to Reform Judaism or Samaritanism is a pretty obvious way to attack those movements, one of which is not even really Jewish. As I've stated elsewhere, adding language somewhere to the effect that "this-and-that is viewed as heretical by Orthodox Judaism" isn't a problem, provided its within the bounds wp:DUE. But this category is being used as a covert attack category. As to other "heresies in" categories, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument, and you'll notice no major Christian denomination is included in "Heresy in Christianity," nor is "secularism" or, I don't know, the War on Christmas.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Ermenrich} You are engaging in classical don't kill the messenger responses. Again, it is not "my" view, it is the view of Orthodox Judaism, that is not my fault. You fail to understand how religions functions and you have no clue about the inner workings of the differences between the different streams of Judaism and how they judge each other. That is what I am reporting on WP, not attacking anyone to say that Orthodoxy views Reform as heretical. It is a verifiable statement of fact. IZAK (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeated Page Moves, failure to engage in talk

N2324 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Three times now the above editor has moved Aden Emergency to 14 October Revolution in violation of WP:COMMONNAME, a talk page discussion was initiated by me after the 1st move. Editor has not used the talk page and has simply moved it to his preferred term. Bringing it here largely because I could not figure out whether this was a suitable candidate for the edit warring page? WCM_email 15:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done, user blocked for 48h, page move reverted--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hacked

Resolved

 – Not compromised, see phab:T255179. Mz7 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that my account, User:Prahlad balaji, has been compromised. I cannot login to it. Please block it immediately. Thanks, 67.248.20.27 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I have logged in on two different computers over 20 times, with the correct password.

Please also block:

• Prahlad balaji.public
• Prahlad S Balaji
• Prahlad balaji (RedWarn) 67.248.20.27 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

There are currently server errors. Praxidicae (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me. 67.248.20.27 (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Just had the same issue. Try clearing cookies and turning 3rd part cookies on. I did that after a frustrating 10 minutes and that finally did it, then immediately turned them back off. Heiro 19:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see phab:T255179. Mz7 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Heironymous Rowe I am using a chromebook, how do I turn on 3rd-party cookies? Best, 67.248.20.27 (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you try logging in now to see if it works? Some users are reporting the issues are resolving themselves now. Mz7 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7, Heironymous Rowe, Praxidicae Yep, works now. Thanks for all the help! ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 19:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)