Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:15, 15 February 2020

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

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

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Request from G.-M._Cupertino for unblock/unbanning

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

I am reposting the request made at User talk:G.-M._Cupertino here for a community discussion, as the editor is in effect sitebanned through WP:3X due to numerous block evasions through sock puppets (See the full list here).

"Since the decision belongs now to the Community and not to individual Administrators, I present the previous argumentation to the Community and add that, regardless of having assumed any edit attributed to me until November 2019, even the ones who had little importance in content and no personal attacks whatsoever, and, to make my word my credible, I promise, with the risk of being blamed for making one or another edit, there will not any more edits that can be attributed to me for a given period of time to be defined, even if I do not see any reason for the most recent edits to be attributed to me. Therefore, I ask for this request to be reposted to the appropriate discussion board. There will not be any more personal attacks issues and I will not create any other account. In fact, I also ask to be able to be able to use my user page, the one where I should be making any appeals rather than this one, the User talk page, and, at the same time, to merge all the accounts attributed to me with my main account. I wish to solve this problem for good. I submit an appeal to UTRS and ask an Administrator to post it to the appropriate discussion board. This is a voluntary act and, in order not to use it in excess, I ask for the guidance of the Administrator in order to present it the most proper and least excessive way possible if it is not accepted the first time. About my banning, I believe I should explain to the Arbitration Committee that blocked me that, despite being right in the initial blocking, I was unable to defend myself that time because I've made an edit and only after that I've read that I would be blocked if I did another edit and, since I was blocked, I wasn't able to reply to the Arbitration Commitee. It was not in bad faith that I didn't reply or defend myself, but because of that. I have no grounds to appeal for past mistakes, the only thing I can do is change in Present and Future. Afterwards, though, I have been blocked by an Administrator until today, despite already being unblocked by the sentence applied by the Arbitration Commitee, which makes it strange: how can I have been fred from an Arbitration Commitee blocking and then need the intervention of the Community because of a blocking made by one single Administrator. In any case, whatever I have to do to be accepted back by the Community, I have accepted: I will be peaceful and, again, will not create any new accounts. People who might have been blocked because an Administrator believed it was me without being me is something I can't avoid 100%, it's a risk of using Misplaced Pages, but that will not happen again from my part.

G.-M. Cupertino (talk|TB|) 12:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC) (reply)"

RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, and I suggest the user should be prohibited from making another unblock/unban request until at least one year has passed since their last edit. Favonian pointed out on the user's talk page that they've been evading their block as recently as November 14, 2019 and in my opinion, this alone is sufficient to reject the request. I personally suspect this comment from an anonymous user was an attempt to mislead us and was actually made by G.-M. Cupertino. This user has a history of abuse stretching back more than a decade and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive is a testament to their unwillingness to abide by Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. --Yamla (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - this user has been socking for eleven years. Their unblock request is a jumbled mess of blaming others and avoiding responsibility for their own abuse; I suspect they have not even looked at WP:GAB. I also endorse Yamla's suggestion of a moratorium on unblock requests until one year has passed from their most recent sockpuppet edit. If they can respect that then maybe I'll trust that they can be a constructive editor, but nothing less is going to cut it for me. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 17:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – the editor needs to face up to their past disruptive behavior and convince us that it will not reoccur. The present request fails completely in that respect. Concur with the one-year moratorium. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment. Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of G.-M. Cupertino - 27 pages.

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive - 18 entries from March 2009 to June 2019.

Hmmmm.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. Jer.13:23. Narky Blert (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I did say I would post this discussion to the community and I did. That being said, there is no indication that unblocking the user would be a good thing for the encyclopedia. The one year AT MINIMUM moratorium or requesting unblocks is a good thing in my eyes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry for being late to the party, but since I have been chasing their socks for years I want to comment on the request, and have my comment archived with the rest. They're indeffed/banned not only here on en-WP but also on other language versions of Misplaced Pages, have been socking 24/7 for eleven years (the SPI-page and the sock-category show only a very small part of their socks, since IPs are hardly ever tagged, and the ranges that have been blocked because of them are, AFAIK, never tagged), and were most probably socking even while this discussion took place. So hell no, no unblock now or ever. - Tom | Thomas.W 21:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Incivility help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued bludgeoning from DisneyMetalhead

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

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

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

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

Sock puppet investigation

The sock puppet investigation has been filed.

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

DarkKnight2149 21:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

To note, the users have been found unrelated by a check user. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 23:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment from TheJoebro64

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fun and games at Race and intelligence

There's been some discussion about how this article should be. These major changes have been rejected with consensus in discussions on the talk page. I reverted once, but I'm not going to revert again. Seems like editors are taking this as a green light to gut the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Race_and_intelligence&action=history Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Current discussion this sitch. Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Do_we_like_these_new_changes? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Most recent consensus on whether or not a chainsaw should be taken to the article (answer no). Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Let's_go_back_to_a_previous_version Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• Several editors, including myself, have removed a number of primary-sourced statements from the article. This has been met with a series of strange comments which seem to be based on a nonexistent "Consensus Required" restriction:
  • Peregrine Fisher: "revert, please seek consensus for major changes" (discussed at user talk)
  • AndewNguyen: "get consensus before changes please, see talk page" (discussed at user talk)
  • 2600:1004:b11a:7b56:3cc6:3b68:b761:eab6: "You evidently won't allow your changes to be undone unless other editors can point out what's wrong with each one of them, but I think you know very well that this is an impossible demand.

These objections seem to boil down to "you didn't seek consensus before editing" and "we can't keep up with the pace of your edits", which are not valid reasons to revert. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

My revert is based on WP:BRD, as explained on my talk page just now. Since you seem like an experienced editor, I don't understand why you don't seem familiar with this. Imagine if someone went to the page of Trump or Obama, and then started deleting large chunks of well-sourced material. This would immediately get reverted with a comment to go to the discussion page. Any important page with a lot of attention to it will require some discussion before any major changes are implemented, so one can profitably skip the BR part of the cycle, and go immediately to the D part. I think you are aware of this, so I don't know what to say. --AndewNguyen (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

How do you justify the blanking of the entire section about mental chronometry? Nearly every secondary source that discusses race and intelligence, including the Hunt and Mackintosh textbooks, includes a discussion about comparisons of MC test results.

If you were just removing individual primary sources, the rest of us wouldn't be objecting, but that isn't what's happening here. What we're dealing with is the blanking of entire paragraphs or sections, that have been in the article for most of the time that the article has existed, and demanding a consensus before they can be added back. 2600:1004:B11A:7B56:3CC6:3B68:B761:EAB6 (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The small subsection was based around claims made by Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, and rebuttal from Richard Nisbett. There might be content worthy of the article about mental chronometry, but it wasn't that particular content. Feel free to propose new content regarding that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• I believe that some sanctions against the dynamic IP editor are warranted at this point. They write in the related AfD: I’m writing this from anonymous IP precisely to avoid the kind of “white supremacy” smears exhibited above . Using a dynamic IP to edit in a contentious topic area seems inappropriate since the constantly changing address helps them evade scrutiny by making an entire editing history extremely difficult to trace. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

That other IP isn't me. Please compare the geolocations; we're hundreds of miles apart. 2600:1004:B11A:7B56:3CC6:3B68:B761:EAB6 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The point about avoiding scrutiny with an untraceable edit history remains. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope everyone looking at this knows that the article has a bad history with socks. Some are well-known and caught pretty quickly, but not all. We have at least one open SPI, but the range is big and they've belatedly figured out how to stick to WP:CIVILPOV, so... As for the rest, it's clear to me that some editors are knowingly treating IP editing as a loophole, and are treating the technical details of their ISPs as a form of elevated privilege. Oh, and there are also the Arbcom blocked (or previously blocked) accounts involved... Until the community is willing to start making tough calls and supporting serious change, the topic will remain an embarrassment to the project. (Non-administrator comment) Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the talk page could be an option, Category:Wikipedia_semi-protected_talk_pages shows that this has been done occasionally in the past. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It was done on the fascism talk page, which suffered from pretty constant disruption as well. Nonsense edit requests, forum posting, crying about bias and so on. Looks like it is working quite well there if you look at the talk page history. A lot less volume at least, as to be expected of course. Just to give an example where semi-protection of an article talk page is used. Up to you lot what to do about it obviously. 2003:D6:270E:83AE:A5B0:13A4:AEFE:6F34 (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• While we're at it, could somebody uninvolved please close/collapse this section? It's one long accusation of bad faith and is off-topic for article talk. –dlthewave ☎ 13:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Dlthewave: that section does not appear to exist. El_C 03:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Grayfell Guy Macon collapsed the section and changed the title. Here's the permalink for posterity. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It was actually Guy Macon, but I ain't offended. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't R&I as a topic area still under DS? —A little blue Bori v^_^v 20:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Feinoa again

I had previously mentioned User:Feinoa at ANI earlier (please read the earlier report for more detailed issues). Unfortunately, I don't think stuff has improved since then and the behaviour has continued despite multiple warnings. Here are some recent edits

1. Persistent removal of templates without attempting to discuss
   1. removing tag without any explanation or discussion. After the tags were restored, Feinoa removed them again claiming These tags are not necessary. Discussing on the talk page is sufficient enough. (even though their participation in the talk page discussion was minimal)
   2. Despite being requested to restore the tags, and later warned about disruptive editing, they go ahead and remove templates in another article I was editing with an active discussion (note that once again they did not participate in the discussion). There is no edit summary or explanation for removal.
2. Slow moving edit wars (without no attempt at initiating discussions)
   1. (See the diffs at point 4 in the previous report. This is the same issue ("Malay as a national language")and it has continued in Jan and Feb 2020)
   2. claiming "I think we can make do without this as 4 languages have equal status." Reverted by another editor
   3. Another edit towards similar aims, no edit summary. Reverted by another editor.
3. Ownership issues and edit warring
   1. There are multiple times where they edit/revert without adequate explanation or even attempting to discuss, particularly on Singapore. This is highly disruptive and irritating, given that Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. Other editors have also explained it to them and requested them to self revert but to no avail.
   2. Bad faith accusations questioning my intent to edit the article and a refusal to collaborate . It is interesting that they say "No one seemed to have had an issue with the original lead except for you. I don't understand why you hadn't brought up your concerns during the GA review." I didn't even know a GA Review was going on (and the honestly I still disagree with the reviewer's decision). Interestingly, the last time a GA Review was happening they said " I just don't understand why unfamiliar editors to this article have suddenly piped in to put the lead under scrutiny only just when it's trying to become a GA". It's becoming clear to me that they would prefer to edit without the contribution and reviews of other editors, which is pretty much opposite to the collaborative idea of Misplaced Pages

At this point I don't know whether this is a WP:CIR issue but it is highly disruptive and takes up valuable time which could be spent on improving articles. I have explained multiple times before and good faith can only stretch so far. I believe some admin action is necessary to stop this disruption.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you going to brush over the fact that you've been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for months? You've on numerous occasions reverted my edits with some really weird reasonings on articles with no direction connection with each other such as - , , , , , and . You're clearly doing this intentionally, waiting for me to get annoyed enough to seem like I'm in the wrong before you could make another post on the Administrators' noticeboard to try and get me blocked. I even made a post on your talk page all those months ago to leave me alone, but clearly you didn't. You were still tracking my edits, and would then try to revert those with a good enough excuse for doing so in an attempt to spark up another edit war and then claim innocence and get all patronizing when it gets out of hand, multiple times. Feinoa (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure where have I been "Wikihounding you for months" and reverted edits with "really weird reasonings". Kindly bring some evidence with diffs. You edits and behaviour is problematic and false allegations of Wikihounding do not discount it. Yes, I did revert some of your changes but these were limited to Grab (company), Mukim and Minami-Tori-shima back in September when you were removing references without any explanation. These were the only "unrelated" pages I reverted when I checked your recent edits at that time and I left explanations for them as well. As for the diffs that you have provided

1. Hong Kong protest related articles - These articles were on my watchlist and I took part in multiple discussions and an RfC regarding these. I remember pointing out this edit of yours where you arbitrarily removed some content without any explanation for which I warned you and explained the issue. I would note that many other editors since then have also pointed out problems with your edits/behaviour on Hong Kong related articles on your talk. As for this edit, it follows the citation and I would note that you were involved in an edit war with other editors regarding this same point.
2. Grab - As explained in the previous ANI you have been involved in removing information and a long running edit war. I note that another editor had reverted you for arbitrarily removing content and warned you on your talk (which you deleted citing "ill founded claims"). I left a note on your talk about Grab as well. I opened a discussion on the talk in on 23 November 2019 as well. Despite all of this, you never responded to any dispute resolution and simply redid the edit again on 31 January 2020.
3. Mukim - You removed content saying the references is dead. I found an archived version and restored the information. I also explained our guidelines regarding WP:PRESERVE to you.
4. Minami-Tori-shima - Same issue. You removed content without any explanation including categories, I reverted. I started a discussion explaining my edits in which you did not take part.
5. Singapore Island I have a bunch of Singapore related article on my watchlist. I admit I reverted your changes based on a mistaken assumption. However I self reverted and restored your changes about 20 minutes later
6. Colony of Singapore Same here. I disagreed with your edit since it was adding unnecessary information and was not an improvement. If you really preferred your version, per WP:BRD you could have opened a discussion and I could have participated.
7. Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak Umm, I edited some content on this article . Then you came and edited after that . So who's Wikihounding now ;) By the way, your first edit on this article was removing a maintenance template without any explanation.

I don't see any evidence of Wikihounding. I have tried to open discussions for many reverts and got no response. If any of my reverts above was unjustified, I would be happy to get feedback from the community and work on it. --DreamLinker (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Feinoa: your edits seem concerning. Would you please explain them? One should not remove maintenance templates if issues remain. Also, when in content disputes, it is important to discuss differences and seek resolution-- WP:BRD.-- Deepfriedokra 05:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Per @Oshwah: in the prior thread linked above, Then, stick to that ultimatum. I think that this will give Feinoa one final chance to stop the behavior (like you said, Feinoa seems to be attempting to edit in good faith - this will be an appropriate next step to take without jumping too far), and if this doesn't succeed and if it continues, he/she knows exactly what is going to happen. So I guess it's time to block. Now as to "sparking an edit war," that's nonsense. You just stop reverting and discuss. WP:BRD. And @Feinoa and DreamLinker: if I may be so bold, I would suggest that neither of you revert the other. Discuss instead, seek an third opinion, 'cause TBH I can see how Feinona might feel hounded.-- Deepfriedokra 13:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand you point. That said, I have tried opening a discussion multiple times without any response, hence I never proceeded to 3O.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I would like just to weigh in that I feel both sides are at fault here. @DreamLinker:, I wouldn't like someone breathing down every edit I do either. While many people edit the same popular articles, especially on topics within the same country or of international interest, I doubt Grab and the two Japanese island pages are within the same common denominator in this case. When I do see an edit by a frequent and reliable editor that I disagree with, my strategy is usually to let the matter rest and allow someone else to revert or improve it instead of doing it myself. DreamLinker, I would concur with the admin's advice to simply back off. For @Feinoa:, I do regard the person as a positive contributor to the Misplaced Pages, but with a tad of obsessiveness and unnecessary over-protectiveness of content. Feinoa's latest revert at Singapore on the basis of a "stable version", with accusations to DreamLinker as "disruptive" is completely unfounded, especially since consensus was achieved on the Talkpage between two editors. If Feinoa declines to discuss the matter out of (perhaps) legitimate irritation, he or she should too, step back, and respect the BRD process. Seloloving (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As I explained, the changes to those "unrelated" pages were only done in September and are limited to those 3 pages, for which I also offered an explanation on their talk. I have never even looked at their vast majority of edits. The bigger issue here is that Feinoa's edits are clearly not following Misplaced Pages's guidelines like removing templates, removing citations and refusing to offer any explanation or discussion.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Well, it has been several days and @Feinoa is still unwilling to communicate or answer Deepfriedokra's question, and as they have received warnings in the past over questionable edits in the past, I don't there's much to say here except that the user is unwilling to entertain the idea that the Wiki is a collaboration. The removal of maintenance templates, reverting of @DreamLinker edits without proper cause (other than citing a return to a stable version) and recent reverting of another editor edit without a edit summary, seem to hint at WP:OWN. All three are not demerits in itself, but taken together, hint at a user unwilling to communicate. Seloloving (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

As Deepfriedokra pointed out above, I suggested in the previous ANI that Feinoa be given a detailed final warning on their user talk page regarding the concerns and behavior that were found and listed in that discussion, and hold the user to this ultimatum. Looking at the edit history of Feinoa's user talk page, it appears that this warning wasn't left. Holding someone to an ultimatum or final warning isn't very much possible if no ultimatum is left in the first place... ;-) In most situations, for an administrator to be able to justify applying a block to a user following a discussion and where he/she appears to be editing in good faith but is causing problems and disruptive behavior, the user needs to be sufficiently warned. My definition of "sufficiently warned" in this situation means that they received a message on their user talk page with a detailed description of the issues they're causing (with diffs to edits showing the behaviors and links pointing to relevant policy), a request asking that they stop engaging in the disruptive editing or behavior and that this will serve as a final warning due to repeated attempts in the past to talk to them, and instructions on how to ask for and receive help, properly discuss the issue or dispute at-hand, and resolve things. Edit warring blocks starting at 24 hours and applied at an increasing duration for subsequent violations of policy are fair game to be applied to any user and at any time when such a situation warrants it (assuming that the violation is active and in-progress or occurred recently or only moments ago, and following a 3RR notice and the engagement in edit warring by the user despite the warning), and any administrator, of course, has the freedom and the discretion to take the actions they deem to be necessary and appropriate. However, it is my objective personal opinion and belief that, in this situation, we haven't done enough to try and warn the user, stick to the ultimatum, and put an end to these matters without administrative enforcement first (as I suggested before). Hence, a long-term or indefinite block isn't justifiable yet. ~Oshwah~ 05:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Denisarona's repeated rollback misuse and failure to communicate

I've recently had a perfectly reasonable edit of mine rolled back by User:Denisarona. Unexplained removal of sourced content happens to the best of us, not a big deal. As per usual, I went to the rollbacker's talk page and gave them a chance to explain themselves. Imagine my surprise when instead of taking me up on my offer, they deleted my message off their talk page like it's cool.

"Surely, they must've just had a bad day," I thought and went on to search through their contributions to confirm my suspicions.

Almost immediately, I found five additional examples of rollback misuse, all from February 2020, where Denisarona rolled back

• a good-faith edit, possibly just a good edit;
• a misguided but nevertheless a seemingly good-faith edit;
• a good-faith edit;
• yet another good-faith edit,
• and a seemingly reasonable red link addition, there's apparently even a very early stage draft for a potential article.

I wouldn't necessarily object too vigorously to the idea of any of these good-faith edits being undone, other than my own edit of course, but it's not what the WP:ROLLBACK tool is for, is it?

With so many examples from just the last seven days, looking for additional ones seemed pointless so I decided to instead find out if anyone had attempted to discuss Denisarona's rollback misuse with him/her before I did. Sure enough, at minimum two such attempts had been made. I say "at minimum" because to find what I did find, I had to plow through Denisarona's talk page's history as none of these made it to the archive. Let's take a look.

• In April 2019, we had this message from User:Sunmist, a fairly experienced editor and clearly not a troll/vandal, which Denisarona summarily deleted from his/her talk page with no response and a blank edit summary. The issue was quite tricky and I can't really fault Denisarona for using rollback in that instance; it's the complete lack of acknowledgement of stated concerns that rubs me the wrong way. At minimum, an embarrassed "whoops" in the edit summary would've been in order.
• In June 2014, we had this message by an IP user clearly editing in good faith, which reads as follows: "Abuse of the rollback tool can lead to its removal. Do not use rollback to revert good-faith edits." Needless to say, it was deleted with no response. I had a very cursory look at the situation there and it seems the concerns were legitimate; it would seem that Denisarona was restoring copyright violations. The IP tried to discuss the issue earlier in a separate section but to no avail; his/her concerns were wiped off the talk page just one minute after they were posted.
• And here's a special bonus to lighten up the mood. Found it in one of the previous ANI threads discussing Denisarona's editing habits. Here's hoping this one will be the last.

To summarize, just in February 2020, we've had six examples of rollback misuse, and, since the time Denisarona acquired his/her rollback rights, at least three separate instances of good-faith editors attempting to communicate legitimate rollback-misuse-related issues to him/her only to have their concerns deleted off his/her talk page without even a pretense of a response. Something needs to be done. Either we revoke Denisarona's rollback access (courtesy-pinging @Acalamari: the admin who enabled the rollback flag on the account) or we have them recognize their mistakes at long last and come up with a way to move forward. As a bare minimum, we have to communicate to him/her and have him/her acknowledge that: 1) although editors have every right to remove messages from their talk pages, one must not use that right to discard legitimate concerns regarding his/her use of advanced permissions, and 2) rollback must not be used to revert good-faith edits. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a clear misuse of rollback. The edits in question may or may not have needed to be reverted (I haven't checked that) but they were clearly not vandalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the reversion of your good faith edit without comment was bad, and have restored it.

The message you left on the user's talk page ought, in my opinion, to have been a little more friendly and a little less confrontational. In my experience, if you're friendly and assume good faith you're more likely to get an explanation and/or an apology. By saying this I am not excusing the rollback. --kingboyk (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

It's true enough as a general rule, but I will note that the friendly approach was tried in 2019 and generated the same response from the user as my direct approach, i.e. a summary deletion of the message. Iaritmioawp (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone with advanced permissions, such as rollback, should be able to cope with robust questioning of their actions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Just curious, Iaritmioawp, but why are you editing logged out, from an IP account? Liz 01:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Simply put, it's convenient. Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is an appreciable concern, though while the deletion of concerns from 2014, that is a major gap, so I've somewhat discounted that. However, the burst in February alone plus the lack of response (well, one very specific response) in your case is sufficient to require an explanation. The community has been pretty clear that tools require a willingness to answer to queries about their usage. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• As a vandal-reverting rollbacker, I'm moved to agree with the concerns expressed here regarding the February rollbacks being pointed to, along with the Talk page deletions. I'd suggest pulling the permissions asap unless there is a prompt explanation/contrition/understanding and agreement to improve expressed. Jusdafax (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

  The urgency may be exaggerated. Let's just wait for an answer, unless the user resumes editing without providing an answer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think the urgency is exaggerated. And I find reverting talk page comments about one's edits as "cretinous" unbecoming. @Denisarona:, I think it best if you not edit further without responding here.-- Deepfriedokra 05:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  The 'cretinous' edit summary is certainly unbecoming, but it was from 2014 so is probably a bit stale. However, this is a clear misuse of rollback, and Denisarona ought not to be removing legitimate queries about reverts from their talk page without a response. My advice to CVUA trainees is that mistakes with reverting vandalism do inevitably happen; when they do, and a good faith user comes to your talk page to complain, you should engage with them politely even if they are rude. Check the edit and, if your revert was a mistake, apologise quickly and profusely. Denisarona - I'm sure it would set people's minds at ease if you were to state here that you understand what people are saying, that you have refreshed yourself with WP:ROLLBACK, and that this won't be something we ned to revisit. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Damn. 2014. Didn't see the timestamp. (need new glasses). But as Girth Summit says, back when I did a lot of RCP, I'd make the occasional mistake with rollback and apologize, 'cause to be blunt, it really pisses people off and rightly so. I'm inclined to just pull the tool and ask them to reapply after 6 months, 'cause their error rate is too high. I don't know if anyone still likens overzealous rollback to playing an active shooter video game, but one must take care to not give that impression. (When I was a lad, we had to carry our templates on our backs through the snow, going uphill both ways.)-- Deepfriedokra 13:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  On the other hand, 2014 suggests chronicity if the problems persist today. If we are going to hand out tools that once were available only to admins, we need to hold accountable those using them.-- Deepfriedokra 13:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Last edit 2020-02-10T17:57:34-- Deepfriedokra 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  +1 to removing rollback - give them a day or so to communicate (as far as I can tell they last edited before this thread was opened), and if no explanation is forthcoming, pull it. Speaking as a fellow rollback-equipped editor, this doesn't look like appropriate use of the tool (fails WP:ROLLBACK's appropriateness criteria), and I'd encourage Denisarona to consider using Twinkle's rollback and providing an edit summary instead of using the built-in rollback tool. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra that would be WP:MMORPG. Creffett I'm with you on recommending Twinkle rather than standard rollback in most circumstances - the ability to choose one of the options that allows you to tap out a quick edit summary, which is much better practice when dealing with anything but obvious sheer vandalism, is very convenient. That wouldn't help with the refusal to communicate when questioned about a revert though. Looking back through the history Denisarona's user talk page, I'm seeing a great deal of trolling and abuse going back a long way - that comes with the territory if you do RCP, but it isn't pleasant, and it might have affected their ability/willingness to discern between good faith editors questioning a revert, and trolls coming to harass them. Removing the perm won't help with that - it might even make things worse (I take all this abuse for years and this is the thanks I get?). What I'd like to see is for them to log in, see this discussion, re-read the relevant guidance, and make a statement to the effect that they understand the concerns and will strive to improve their practice moving forward - a driver awareness course, rather than revoking their licence. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I mostly use twinkle so as to explain my revert. I have little use for the revert button that comes with the tools. As to the trolling, it goes with the territory-- one must take it as an indication of a job well done. The vandals aren't happy with being reverted. We still need to look at what we've done and fix our mistakes. And that's what I hope to see- a willingness to take responsibility for the inevitable errors and not a shrug and dismissal of concerns. -- Deepfriedokra 16:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I was obviously hoping for Denisarona's engagement here, but they haven't edited since this thread was opened. I don't think that this should be archived and forgotten about, so with a heavy heart I am inclined to default to your suggestion that the rollback perm be pulled. I'm not sure we need to wait 6 months for reinstatement - personally, I'd be happy to see it restored via an application to WP:PERM indicating that they understand why their use of it was inappropriate, and an undertaking not to do it again. Your thoughts would be appreciated. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Make it so. Permalink to this thread with explanation of conditions for reinstatement. Any opposed? Speak now.-- Deepfriedokra 23:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I'm going to add now that my laptop just died, my charger is at work, and I'm not going to attempt to do any of that on mobile. I support your proposal, but will leave it to someone else to implement, lest I make a total hash of it. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, now that we have clear proof the user isn't interested in discussing, or even recognizing, their mistakes, we need to consider also removing their pending changes reviewer flag. Such blatant unwillingness to be held accountable for one's use of advanced permissions as displayed here is incompatible with holding advanced permissions of any kind. I'm not opposed to their regaining the rights as soon as they commit to addressing constructive feedback going forward of course, but not until then. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I think removing pending changes would be punitive rather preventive of misuse.-- Deepfriedokra 03:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like they haven't used it a single time despite having it for 10 years so I don't see how it would be "punitive" at all. Then again, I suppose there's little enough harm in letting him/her keep the hat that I won't insist. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Iaritmioawp, actually the log for pending changes reviews is "review log", not "pending changes log" (no idea why, it's confusing). Schazjmd (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess the pending changes log is for admins applying the setting to articles then? Very counter-intuitive. I suppose with the new knowledge, I'd be inclined to insist on revoking the right as it is being actively used but it seems to me the ship has sailed. I'll keep an eye on Denisarona's use of the right going forward instead. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Iaritmioawp, I suggest that you don't keep an eye on anything Denisarona is doing. Leave them be and go do your own thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If you'd rather do it yourself, just say a word. Otherwise, I suggest you assume good faith and move on. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note I've removed Denisarona's rollback and left an explanatory note per Girth Summit's recommendation.-- Deepfriedokra 03:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Devi2003

Devi2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Devi2003 is a relatively new user whose edits seem to largely consist of linking major country names such as United States or Germany. These edits are contrary to the Manual of Style, and he has been subsequently warned and reverted several times. As he continues to make similar edits, even after receiving their latest (final) warning, I suggest that a short suspension of editing privileges may be required in order to stem additional clean-up requirements. Loopy30 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Welp, I've left them another message. Just between you and me, I hate MOS related disputes. I certainly don't want to bite the new user. I'll rely on our collective wisdom to see us through.-- Deepfriedokra 05:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been involved in Devi2003's edits, and while some of them are WP:MOS issues, not all of them are. For example, this edit (which I warned them about) introduced a significant factual error into the article and this edit is highly problematic. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

wow. cyrillic?-- Deepfriedokra 05:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Lovely. Final warned them on what looks like vandalism.-- Deepfriedokra 06:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Last edit 2020-02-10T15:22:17.-- Deepfriedokra 13:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not "just" an MOS dispute either, it's a total absence of communication from the user that is off-putting. In their five-month history, they have edited across 20 projects with an immediate understanding of Wikidata entries and Wiki-markup, but not once posted to a talk page on any of the projects. They have been warned a couple of times for copyright infringement on other wikis, but no other problems noted. Loopy30 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

More of same. Please block. WP:CIR is the most generous interpretation. JNW (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked As they have not responded here or on their talk, I must reluctantly block them from editing. To be unblocked they will need to address concerns about incorrect linking, puzzling edits, and an inability to communicate.-- Deepfriedokra 07:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Harassment of editors by User DBigXray

Editors involved-

• DBigXray (talk · contribs)
• Soman (talk · contribs)
• Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs)

First of all I have no involvement in this. I am just concerned with Xray's conduct.

Soman- There seems to be some dispute in AFD between these two parties. Xray templated Soman for Personal attacks per this AFD. Soman made these entries here and here to that AFD. It can not be construed in any way as a personal attack. They threatened to take Soman here.

I disputed there being any personal attacks and asked Xray for differentials at both their and Soman's talk page. He has evaded these requests multiple times. See here and here.

Yappy2bhere- Xray is claimingYappy made a personal attack here[https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Yuva_Morcha#frontal_org. I don't see it.

What I see is Xray biting/harassing two editors unless they prove otherwise....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not evading anything, I have been travelling for the last 4 days , ...William seems to be imposing some sort of unmentioned deadline to give him all the diffs of attacks, and when I asked him to clarify the deadline . he threatened to drag me to ANI and then promptly posted here , without even waiting for my response . I will respond on the meat of the matter later, but just wanted to clarify on the accusation of evasion.  DBigXrayᗙ 13:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note that Xray made over 40 edits in the last 24 hours and after my first request for differentials....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Jokes
Well if it's differentials you want... :${\displaystyle \partial \left({\frac {u}{v}}\right)={\frac {\partial (u)\,v-u\,\partial (v)}{v^{2}}}}$ EEng 14:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC) EEng, a divisive one though. Could you find one for unity? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I believe we’ve struck a particularly rich vein of low-grade math/science puns. EEng 15:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Harassment of DBigXray by User Soman

• Soman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User had been alerted about the Discretionary sanctions on the topic area.
• Please see his comments on recent Afd .
• *Keep, this is slightly ridiculous.
• Spams the AfD with 78 links and then says,
• Why don't you spend a few minutes extra and review the posted links? You seem to have little problem in wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs
• I posted an NPA template on his talk page for the above WP:ADHOM comment.
• Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate.
• Templated again for this WP:ADHOM
• he replied to the above template stating "Look, I've been along long enough here to detect empty postures. If you have an example of a personal attack, please bring it up in the relevant forum. I stand by the comments I made in the BJYM AfD, which were directed at your actions and behaviour and not your persona or person per se."
• Inappropriate canvassing at a user's talk page about an article on AfD.
• ... If you have concerns over the contents of the article, edit. AfD is not the place to address content issues.
• Inappropriate canvassing at WP:INDIA with accusations against AfD noms stating There is a number of ongoing AfDs that break all logic and a wider community involvement would be of interest. A number of articles on entities ... are being nominated for deletion supposedly based on WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which is really weird ... Regardless of how one feels about political events in India today, arguing that organizations ... are non-notable defines common sense.
• After successfully mobilizing Carrite to vote keep in the previous AfD, he made another inappropriate canvassing for another AfD
• On Talk:Priashevshchina (which is on AfD) he attacks the AfD Nominator stating, DBigXray, whose googling skills aren't particularily impressive, has tagged four reference in this article.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, those dif's certainly seem snippy and rude. Do we give new users a bye on WP:CIVIL on WP:AGF?-- Deepfriedokra 13:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone gets a bye on WP:CIVIL. The reason Misplaced Pages is in the mess it's currently in with regards to civility is its lack of consistent enforcement. The other shoe needs to drop.--WaltCip (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra and WaltCip I have said all I had to say on this thread. It is over to admins and ANI to decide on the issue now.--DBigXrayᗙ 14:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to respond in the table below;

For me, the bigger issue, which I feel was an expression of WP:HOUND was the fact that DBigXray tagged 4 other articles created by me for AfD (edit diff on talk page ) in one go, seemingly without respecting WP:BEFORE. I'm not going to elaborate on the merits of each article here, but I fail to believe that he came across these 4 articles by coincidence. All 4 AfDs followed accusation of personal attack. I find this behaviour disturbing and unconstructive. --Soman (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is ever advisable for one editor embroiled in a dispute to issue a civility warning to a fellow disputant, it certainly wasn't necessary for Xray to jump from an initial warning to a final warning. The added snippet of "since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the content and not attacking others" could, without much difficulty, be construed as a personal attack. When you also consider that Xray nominated four of Soman's created articles for deletion in between the two warnings, it all begins to come across as a bit heavy-handed. Lepricavark (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I have made 2 comments in the table above. The rest is quite easy to understand so I dont feel the need to respond to them. Lepricavark, They were given 2 warnings, on NPA, you can call it with whatever names one would prefer to. They have been editing here for more than 16 years, and if they still decide to disregard first WP:NPA warning, I dont think a second warning was really needed, but I gave it anyway. Now we are here, so hopefully this will be addressed and no more warnings needed. I have already given enough diffs where this user despite being warned about NPA continued attacking others on AfD. Accordingly my line in the warning where I said, "since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the content and not attacking others" is appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 19:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's how I see it. You can either nominate four of an editor's created articles for deletion or you can issue that editor a final warning for incivility. Doing both is very ill-advised, especially since you are not an admin. Your line in the warning may seem appropriate to you, but it was an unfavorable personal comment uttered during the course of a dispute. In that sense, it's not so different from the comments made by Soman to which you took offense. Lepricavark (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, I don't agree with any of your opinions you shared in the last comment above. I would leave it at that. DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I don't see any point in leaving this subthread open. Neither your nor Soman has done anything to warrant further action, although I do hope you will reconsider your tactics as they do come across as heavy-handed IMO. Could Soman have handled this a bit more graciously? Absolutely, but there's no need for sanctions or any sort of formal warning. Lepricavark (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, That is again your opinion with which I disagree. I have given clear evidence of issues here. Being in content dispute does not give you licence to breach civility and attack/harass the other editor. Soman's replies above shows that the problem still exists and needs a resolution at ANI. DBigXrayᗙ 05:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

To be blunt, if someone gave me a civility warning, took four of my created articles to AfD, and then gave me another civility warning, I would feel like I was the one being harassed. Remember that after Soman's first so-called personal attack (accusing you of bad faith), you responded with an accusation of trolling. You also said the following: Based on scores of deletion notices on your user talk page. is obvious that you have trouble understanding our WP:Notability criterias specially WP:ORGCRIT . At the time that comment was posted, there where a grand total of four deletion notices on Soman's talk , two of which were for files and thus had nothing to do with ORGCRIT. So much for the scores of deletion notices that served as the basis for your personal comment about Soman. As for Soman's second personal attack, it was bit more blatant and might have merited a remonstrance from an uninvolved administrator, but you couldn't have expected that a final warning from you would be well-received. I'm sure you still disagree with my opinion, but at this stage it's not you that I'm trying to convince. Lepricavark (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

if someone gave me a civility warning, took four of my created articles to AfD, and then gave me another civility warning, I would feel like I was the one being harassed - I wholeheartedly concur. There seems to be a vendetta here. starship.paint (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, Please point me to the thread where I have been banned to nominate any article (that I assess as non notable) created by Soman to AfD asking community feedback on those articles ? Soman does not WP:OWN those article. Those articles belong to me as much as it belongs to him or Jimbo.--DBigXrayᗙ 07:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray - - I have warned DBigXray for harassment and battleground behaviors. Any admin should block if the behavior continues. - you were unhappy with Soman, and took a look at his created articles to propose AfDs. That's at best battleground behavior, if not harassment. Soman had to rescue five of his articles at the same time from AfD. Yet you persist in thinking you can do no wrong. starship.paint (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, That line no where states that I am banned from AfD. "Battleground behavior" is your own opinion here and not a fact. I have repeatedly said that it is not the case. I asked you to present the thread where I was prohibited from nominating articles to AfD. IF you are unable to find one then stop claiming that nominating article is some sort of offence. No it is not. I assessed them as non notable and asked community feedback, on their notability. If you think there are glaring problems with my AfD noms, then point it out. As I gave evidence above, Soman employed WP:ADHOM and inappropriate WP:CANVASSING openly on Misplaced Pages through their user talk pages, Since there are evidence (diffs) of open canvassing, that I presented above, one cannot deny the possibility that more canvassing had been done. I remember nominating 4, not sure why you are calling it 5. DBigXrayᗙ 08:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

overall I would like to remind everyone that The WP:ADHOMs and personal attacks came first without any sort of provocation from my side. Nominating the AfD does not in any way justifies further continuing with these personal attacks and insults. Clearly attempts of distractions are being made by Starship to take focus off the offence of personal attacks towards non issues of nominating AfD. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm taking Deepfriedokra's advice on conciseness. WP:BLUDGEON above and below. (the 5th AfD was BJYM's) starship.paint (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

BJYM was 20 days back. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Harassment of DBigXray by Yappy2bhere

• Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User had been alerted about the Discretionary sanctions on the topic area.
• This user was involved with me in a minor content dispute over copy editing a text, where something was added that was not supported by the source. I raised the matter on article talk and accordingly a std template on WP:OR and a std DS alert on WP:ARBIPA (which covers all Indian articles) was given .
• He responded to the template stating Don't waste your time, son -- you're not in the right, you're not an admin, and you either don't understand WP policy or cynically contort it to achieve your own ends. Whether it's stupidity or audacity, you'll need more than chutzpah and a template to bully me.
• on the talk page thread he responded calling me a "A diller" ( defined here as "The word 'diller' is a Yorkshire term for a boy who is dim-witted and stupid ")
• I posted an NPA template for the above comment.
• doubled down and continued his personal attacks on me on his user talk telling me You're a WP:BULLY with a big axe to grind. Take care that it doesn't fall on you, friend.
• Calls me a boy, stating "Don't cry wolf, boy. You've not been attacked, neither there nor at AfD."
• fed up with his personal attacks, I warned that continued attacks on me will be reported at admin boards.

As I have clarified in the diffs and the quoted comments, my warning were not frivolous and I have been needlessly harassed in the middle of my trip in real life. I hope an admin takes some sort of action on these diffs as the topic area is covered under WP:ACDS and the users were already alerted about it. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any kind of problem in DBigXray's behaviour toward Yappy2bhere. Putting a DS notice on someone's talk page is standard practice, it is not an attempt to bully them. Yappy2bhere's response was condescending and unambiguously rude - if anyone's behaviour needs examining, its theirs, not XRay's. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Concur with Girth Summit. I think Soman and Yappy2bhere need to address these concerns before editing further. I think the next incivil edit should certainly result in a block. Not averse to blocking now.-- Deepfriedokra 16:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Soman has reponded. I think we should give Yappy a chance to respond to Xray's side of the story before any sort of block is meted out. Lepricavark (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• yes, wait we must. No problem in waiting to hear back. But I would like to note that looking at their sparse contribution history, and the fact that they did not edit in last 5 days, there is a good chance that we might need to wait for 5 months to hear back again from them.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit and Deepfriedokra: - do you see any kind of problem in this comment by DBigXray: Yappy2bhere, keep yapping. That's the full edit. Definitions for yapping: barking / yelping / talk noisily / talk foolishly. The way I see it, the incivility is not one-sided. starship.paint (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, under normal circumstances, I'd see that as an innocuous joke (a play on the editor's username - a bit like me telling you to keep on painting). Given that an atmosphere had already developed, I'd say that it probably wasn't ideal, but look at the comments that preceded it - Yappy2bhere is condescendingly mocking his choice of words, aggressively telling him he's guilty of fabrication, and making the 'a diller, a dollar' remark. Even if the incivility isn't entirely one-sided, it certainly isn't evenly balanced. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Googling yapping gives "talk at length in an irritating manner." And obviously you have to see its context to decide on the meaning. It was a response to this comment by Yappy that was zero on content and all about accusations. DBigXrayᗙ 09:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Girth Summit, while I do not see Yappy2bhere's approach as optimal, I see some reason to be aggrieved and frustrated. The actual cause of the dispute between DBigXray and Yappy2bhere is due to DBigXray making this edit, resulting in the text: According to Poonam Mahajan BJYM hopes to play a major role in taking Narendra Modi Government's policies to the grassroots level, with the edit summary per source. Unfortunately, that's not what the source said: Poonam Mahajan presided over the workshop. She said the BJYM will carry out campaigns at the grassroots level and on the social media. <end of article> DBigXray added an inaccuracy leading to Yappy2bhere's accusation of fabrication.
  • DBigXray then tries to explain his edit, and gives a questionable statement: It was there before I arrived. I merely tried copy editing it. So please do not blame me. First, if he was copy editing, which on here means correcting for grammar, spelling, readability, or layout, why did he need to write per source - that seems to be ensuring WP:V is followed, instead of a copy edit. Second, his copy edit changed the meaning of the statement, from the original BJYM ... now playing a major role to Mahajan ... BJYM hopes to play a major role.
  • The icing on the cake is that after DBigXray adds inaccurate information, he goes on to warn Yappy2behere that no original research or novel syntheses is allowed. Surely, you can see how that would not have been well received. starship.paint (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Starship.paint, I dont remember if I had ever interacted with you, and I am puzzled why you are fabricating lies falsehoods against me. Though, ANI does not discusses content dispute but here you are accusing me of adding inaccurate information. To rebut this falsehood I would need to quote the source and my edits. The article before I arrived stated this in Misplaced Pages's voice

    BJYM has been the frontal organisation for BJP since its inception and now playing a major role in taking Narendra Modi Government's policies to the grassroots level.

    The source never mentioned frontal and actually said this

    BJYM's national president and BJP MP Poonam Mahajan presided over the workshop. She said the BJYM will carry out campaigns at the grassroots level and on the social media.

    I removed frontal and attributed the quote to Mahajan instead of stating it as a fact in wikipedia's voice.

    According to Poonam Mahajan BJYM hopes to play a major role in taking Narendra Modi Government's policies to the grassroots level.

    Yappy reverted me and restored the unsourced frontal part, made the content back as fact stated in Misplaced Pages's voice and accused me of misrepresentation of source. It was removed with an appropriate edit summary and a template on OR. Since this was a content dispute, sensing an edit war, I then moved the entire line to the talk page for getting a consensus version following WP:DR with a neutral tone comment where I was attacked again and called a diller ("dim wit and stupid".) DBigXrayᗙ 08:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    DBigXray, I realise that having this thread open is likely stressful, but please don't start using phrases like 'fabricating lies against me' - it won't help your case. By all means put your side of the situation, but adding to the heat will not help us arrive at a solution. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    They are lies and have been called out appropriately. I am fine with striking it off and replacing with falsehoods. You still get the idea. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    DBigXray a lie is a deliberate falsehood, and is an outright accusation of bad faith - it doesn't allow for the possibility that the other person has the wrong end of the stick, or that there has been some miscommunication or something that they've overlooked. TBH I don't think that 'falsehood' is much better, I think that your case would be better served by trying to bring down the heat rather than crank it up. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Girth Summit, this is indeed an open display of bad faith on his part instead of AGF. If someone has the guts to fabricate lies against me to throw some muck on me, on an open and public noticeboard, I reserve the right of response to call out what it is. Ask Starship to strike of the false accusation and I will strike off mine. DBigXrayᗙ 08:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    Starship.paint I don't have time right now to read through the edit history and the sourcing closely, but on the face of it I can't really see what was so wrong with XRay's edit that it should attract the level of scorn that it did. In the diff you provided above, the initial version was vaguely written and ungrammatical - at least XRay's version of it was written in decent English. If there was a shift in meaning, which meant that XRay's edit had moved our content further away from the sourcing, I don't see why that couldn't have been raised in a civil manner. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

    • Girth Summit - Yappy2behere twice raised the concerns without incivility Misrepresents the cited source and "hopes to play a major role"? Nowhere does the article say that , albeit in edit summaries an revert war. DBigXray also reverts, this fragment is correct but it misses the point The source nowhere says "frontal" org ... Do not add WP:OR, while making an inaccurate statement that is her statement. Yappy2behere attempts to fix the situation, , but probably introduced a different inaccuracy, in my view. DBigXray then deletes the entire sentence despite Yappy2behere's efforts. Essentially, we have an edit war where both sides feel aggrieved and wronged. starship.paint (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

      it is ok to have content dispute, it is ok to make mistakes, it is not ok to call someone dimwit in the discussion that was started to resolve the dispute. is this simple expectation so hard to understand ? DBigXrayᗙ 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray:, I do remember interacting with you, without any problems between us, so I have no axe to grind. I'm here as a neutral party - Soman or Yappy2behere are not my friends. Unfortunately, you apparently still cannot see how your edit is inaccurate. The source does not explain what the campaigns at the grassroots level and on the social media that Mahajan talked about are. What you added, According to Poonam Mahajan BJYM hopes to play a major role in taking Narendra Modi Government's policies to the grassroots level is not in the source. What is in the source, which if you read it may have confused you, is this earlier part which you haven't quoted: Jaitley added. He emphasised the need to publicise the work of the Modi government at the grassroots level. I would say one learning lesson for you in this whole story, is to be more careful, especially when you edit war, and definitely especially when others are telling you that you have misrepresented the source. A second lesson would be to avoid warning templating long-term editors - you can read that on your own. starship.paint (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Harassment of DBigXray by Starship.paint

Starship.paint, if so then I am still puzzled why you are going to lengths in painting me as a villain here (may be you are hiding something). What are you actually inferring here ? Are you saying the content that was before my edit was correct ? are you claiming that Yappys revert where he restored the inaccurate content in wikipedia's voice was appropriate ? Are you claiming that my edits left the article in a bad shape ? if one had issues on content there is a way and place to discuss it , where i started a thread and instead of a wP:CIVIL discussion on the issues, I was called a "dimwit" and stupid and what not. but that is all irrelevant for you. I used the word "yapping" there (which means "talk at length in an irritating manner.") and for that you deemed fit to give me a level 3 warning on Personal attack including a threat for blocking immediately complete with a well phrased finishing line that said "Not so fun when you're on the receiving end, huh? , and of course nothing to the user who actually attacked me calling me all sorts of insulting names. You claim that you are neutral and uninvolved here but in fact as I showed above you are clearly biased against me. You are (deliberately) closing your eyes to the main issue here and are aggressively harping over a "trivial" content dispute, ( which you were not even a party to). And this is the reason why I am questioning your motives in coming to my talk page and then on this ANI and throwing muck on me. I would advise you not to advice me and force your personal opinions on me in a condescending manner. You may not like templates, doesn't mean you will go around asking others to not do it bcuz you hate it. Go start an RFC get consensus and I will be glad to follow it. The templates are here for a reason and should be used whenever and wherever necessary. If you feel I wrongly templated someone point it out and I will discuss. You have no right to ask me not to template someone. DBigXrayᗙ 09:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, while you probably did not intend for this to happen, your actions, as well as Soman and Yappy's, have perpetuated this conflict. You control your actions - by all means, continue templating other long-term editors, but know that templating can come off as heavy-handed, abrasive, dismissive, and even threatening, which may worsen conflicts - I templated you in an attempt to make this very point apparent to you. The thing is, even after William and I called you out, you don't seem capable of admitting error in this situation. You also utterly rejected Lepricavark's criticism above. That's as villainous as it gets for you. The content before your edit was wrong. Yappy's revert was half-right, half-wrong. Your edits on the article were partly right and partly wrong, but you can't seem to see or acknowledge the part that is wrong.starship.paint (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I never asked anyone to call me dimwit or attack me (and other noms) over AfD and content disputes. They chose to do it and despite warning continued repeating it. But you sir are here for victim blaming using contorted and False equivalence. your methods were useless in resolving the situation in any way and you are here on this ANI to add fuel to a fire. I have pointed out above why and how I consider you non neutral and that is all I have to say to you.DBigXrayᗙ 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, my methods failed in making you see the light. Therefore, that must have been a mistake of mine. My apologies to you, DBigXray. Finally, I hope that you will ask yourself, is this a massive conspiracy against you including me, William, Lepricavark, or is it possible that you have made a mistake? Good day to you. starship.paint (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

you too. DBigXrayᗙ 10:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I am requesting that an admin takes a look at this inappropriate harassment by User:Starship.paint done on my user talk (explained above with diffs diff) and comment on it. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC) updated on 06:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  To clarify, when you refer to inappropriate harassment that is explained by diffs (multiple, according to you), are you to referring to the singular diff of Starship.paint issuing an NPA warning template on your talk page? Or are there other diffs as well (in spite of the fact that Starship.paint has only edited your talk page once this year)? I would like to think that you wouldn't call for admin scrutiny against Starship.paint over a single warning after an admin said several hour ago that you "probably ought not to template people quite so readily." That same admin saw nothing requiring sanctions here, so you can't possibly believe that admins are going to do anything to Starship.paint over a single warning. You really need to acknowledge that you aren't 100% in the right here. You've been digging in your heels and refusing to listen, so I don't really see why you keep asking for more people to weigh in. Lepricavark (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Carrite

Soman is an outstanding encyclopedist. I have no idea if DBigXray is stalking him or not, but it certainly looks like there is some sort of personal axe being ground. Soman appealed to me to take a look at a couple AfDs as a subject expert, asking in a neutral manner. I had a definite opinion about one, which seemed to me a pretty easy GNG pass; no opinion about the other. Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no personal axe to grind here. Having a content dispute with others does not entitle anyone to badmouth and attack others on AfD and article talk pages. There are accepted ways to address disputes, and surprise, surprise, "calling insulting names" and WP:ADHOM are not one of them. Being an "outstanding encyclopedist" (whatever that means) does not mean you will get a pass and escape after making such personal attacks. DBigXrayᗙ 11:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, where did I call you 'insulting names'? --Soman (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

listed at #Harassment of DBigXray by User Soman--DBigXrayᗙ 13:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Au contraire, there are ZERO instances of name-calling in your collection of diffs. Lepricavark (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

here are the insults, thrown on me (diffs at #Harassment of DBigXray by User Soman), "this is slightly ridiculous.", "Why don't you spend a few minutes extra and review the posted (seventy five) links? You seem to have little problem in wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs", "The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate.", "Look, I've been along long enough here to detect empty postures. If you have an example of a personal attack, please bring it up in the relevant forum. I stand by the comments I made in the BJYM AfD, which were directed at your actions and behaviour and not your persona or person per se.", "There is a number of ongoing AfDs that break all logic and a wider community involvement would be of interest. A number of articles on entities ... are being nominated for deletion supposedly based on WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which is really weird ... Regardless of how one feels about political events in India today, arguing that organizations ... are non-notable defines common sense.", "DBigXray, whose googling skills aren't particularily impressive, has tagged four reference in this article."--DBigXrayᗙ 06:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

As I already said, there's no name-calling there. Those remarks were certainly rude and I won't defend them (although it is slightly ridiculous that you think "this is slightly ridiculous" counts as an insult), but you shouldn't claim that there was name-calling by Soman when there wasn't. Do I think Soman needs to work harder at being polite and assuming good faith? Yes, and I hope they will take this feedback on board. Lepricavark (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I never used the word "namecalling" I used "insulting names" (consider it insulting phrases if you want) . Among the long list of examples, you choosing the weakest example and then commenting over it does not make the entire list any less insulting than they already are. DBigXrayᗙ 16:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If you meant 'insulting phrases', you should have said that. And if you don't want me to pick on a weak example, don't use it. Nor did I attempt to use one example to invalidate the entire list. You're ignoring the part where I said that the remarks were rude and that I wouldn't defend them. I also called on Soman to work harder at being polite and assuming good faith. Lepricavark (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

well, I just said 'insulting phrases', be happy. I will use all examples of personal attacks against me. I am not here to waterdown the issue. I am ignoring nothing. The entire summary of your comment on this ANI thread (as I see it ) is that conduct of others is rude while DBX's is sanctionable. This inference is quite the opposite of what the diffs presented in this thread say. But you can keep doing what you are doing here. DBigXrayᗙ 16:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll try once more. The reason I floated the idea of a sanction for you is that you have repeatedly doubled-down and refused to hear any feedback that wasn't fully favorable to you. When this thread was first opened, you were not in sanction territory. Realistically, you probably still aren't in danger of any kind of sanction. But since we are in the business of summarizing one another's comments, you seem to be making the case that unless something (in this case, templating) is strictly prohibited by the rules, it's fine for you to do it regardless of whether it's a good idea. And if you're still trying to make the case that This is slightly ridiculous is a personal attack, then I give up. Lepricavark (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There is an entire list of personal attacks and not just one example. Templating with WP:NPA for its violation is not sanctionable, it is not even an offence. Whereas, using personal attack frequently is a sanctionable offence. DBigXrayᗙ 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Mr. Vernon

There is an AfD discussion involving the Priashevshchina article (about a newspaper) which DBigXray nominated. After some discussion about whether posting announcements about the AfD in WikiProjects pages consisted of WP:CANVASSING, I noticed that he hadn't posted about the AfD to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Journalism. I asked about it on his talk page, and he was glad that I notified him as he didn't know about that project, and eagerly took me up on my offer to post it there. I think it says something about his character as an editor, especially a level of detachment and concern for the quality of Misplaced Pages over their nomination; in essence, it was more important to get people who were knowledgeable about journalism and the notability of the newspaper in question involved, then it was for the editor to be "right" and score one article down for the count. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC

Comment by S. M. Nazmus Shakib

Its very large now. But, typing my name I have found that I have mentioned here twice. As there mentioned I am an associate of user:DBigXray I strongly opposed this allegation. Though I am relatively new user among other veteran users present here, I have to say here I am regular in AfD in recent few months. Even, I have to mention posting 78 links on AfD and saying WP:IDONTLIKE in AfD are not a good things.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Though no diff was added but S. M. Nazmus Shakib seems to be referring to this AfD where Soman added 78 links. And this AfD nominated by S. M. Nazmus Shakib where Soman attacked him saying, Keep, clearly a notable organization. The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: I have forgotten to put diff here. Sorry for this. And thanks to DBigXray for putting diffs. These diffs are put by him are correct.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. DBigXrayᗙ 06:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the recent editing patterns, it certainly appears that S. M. Nazmus Shakib and DBigXray are well in sync in deletion discussions on the Sangh Parivar. see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/BJYM Karnataka, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Muslim Rashtriya Manch, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Party, Sikkim, K. G. Marar, etc.. Notably, DBigXray even goes to the extent of deleting 'keep' votes from one of S. M. Nazmus Shakib's deletion nominations (). Now, I'm not saying that the two users had coordinated their deletionist drive, but there is a pattern of behaviour in which both seem happy to validate each other's pro-deletion argument and refuse to listen to opposing views. If 'associate' as too negative connection connotation, I'd be happy with replacing it with 'buddy' or 'fellow traveller'. --Soman (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Soman, I had already answered about these baseless acusations in the table above. I note that you continue your WP:ASPERSIONS without any evidence. The diff you added already links Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#User_attacking_AFD_nom in the edit summary for context.

@Bishonen:, You had asked on that ANI to "Go ahead and revert, Blame me if you get flak. Well, I reverted them and now I am getting the flak above from yet another editor, who had been attacking others, simply due to his disagreement on AfD. Just thought that you deserved to know.--DBigXrayᗙ 12:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, DBigXray's removals of XeroxKleenex's personal attacks in AfDs are on me, and I'm happy to take responsibility for them. See for context. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC).

@admins, The diff Soman added clearly refers the ANI thread in the edit summary. I hope you are all watching and reading this nonsense and I sincerely hope an appropriate action will be taken on User:Soman for throwing these kinds of WP:ASPERSION on fellow AfD contributors, simply because he disagrees with their opinion. This bigotry must not be allowed to go on unchecked. DBigXrayᗙ 11:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As it was mentioned that validate each other's pro-deletion argument and refuse to listen to opposing views. Can I get some prove from @Soman: that I refuse to listen to opposing views. And I want to say just K or D votes are not enough to judge a person/persons. And in AfD I see comments like vendetta and WP:IDONTLIKE were made against me. Its totally false allegation that I refuse to listen to opposing views.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Look, I don't pretend to say that I know your role in Misplaced Pages particularly well, my impression stems from 8 AfDs over the past days, in which we've had opposing views in each one. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but I don't get the impression that you elaborate your rationales for deletion particularly deeply. It also seems to me that you, along with DBigXray, routinely refuse to recognize any reference added by an editor with an opposing view, and go through a lot of mental gymnastics to disqualify any reference that could prevent a deletion. I.e. deletion for the sake of deletion. --Soman (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Its very large now. I have to say about @Soman: in short words that he/she should not make allegations against any person without giving any prove and/or according to his/her personal point of view. And this is a serious allegation without any prove.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Note to admins

Soman has already made his point and yappy2behere doesn't seem to be responsive. As I noted above, this thread is now being used to settle personal scores against me. I would request admins (instead of users who jump on a word and trivial content disputes) who actually have time to investigate this complex issue in detail and to review the case and diffs and decide on this . --DBigXrayᗙ 10:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no score to settle with you and I'm the one who started this discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, did I take your name? In case it was not clear to you, I wasn't referring to you DBigXrayᗙ 21:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Xray, I suggest you back off = maybe apologize too = then take a rest from WP. In light of what Razer brought up, this thread could turn very ugly for you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, no, and no and no. You don't need to worry about it. DBigXrayᗙ 21:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

WilliamJE, You brought this thread to ANI claiming i wrongly templated them, inspite of me telling you that that the templating was appropriate. Now that you have your diffrential, how about you apologizing me for wrongly accusing me of wrongful templating ? DBigXrayᗙ 19:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray has been warned enough times before

DBigXray has been warned enough times involving the very same issues that have been described above. Some examples include an ANI from November 2018: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive996#DBigXray where DBigXray was warned over same incidents of harassment. Then he was warned by an admin on his talk page on December 29 2019 from Bishonen, that he would get topic banned if disruption continues. Other ANIs from last year include:

Apart from these incidents, DBigXray's conduct on this very thread speaks for itself. He believes that group of users are engaging in a conspiracy against him and "fabricating lies falsehoods". In the light of past warnings, one thing is clear that DBigXray is likely to remain unrepentant and we should no longer expect community to make a new report every time something happens and continue to expect others to tolerate this narcissistic disruption. Some action is surely needed to resolve this long term problem. I would recommend a topic ban from anything related to India since DBigXray lacks the temperament to deal with other editors. Razer(talk) 20:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Without any provocation I get called insulting names like dimwit, bully and what not and when I post warning templates on those personal attacks, I get dragged on to ANI where you appear and propose no less than an entire Topic ban. {slow claps}. I must note that you and your coterie have been trying to pull this off multiple times in the past and clearly you are not stopping and you consider this thread just another opportunity. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Razer2115, Just as I noted in the section above, you are here after a 2 weeks break simply to settle your old scores with me. DBigXrayᗙ 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

about the layout of the hueg table

What... what... what's that hueg table for? I mean that very narrow table above, I think posted by Soman, six screens long from top to bottom on my 27-inch monitor — say 170 cm, the average height of an adult American male — with very little information sparsely deployed over it and accompanied by an endless wasteland of whitespace running down to the right of it? It would probably have taken ten or fifteen lines of text to give the actual information in the table. Plus the mysterious connections between the cells could have been made a lot clearer in text. Please use text on ANI. Ordinary text. Not tables. Not interpretive dance. Sheesh. And now tell me it's all my own fault for not reading ANI on a phone or something. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC). I want interpretive dance! El_C 21:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, on my screen it looked quite ok. But point taken, I'll stay away from using tables in the future WP:ANI discussions for now. Soman (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC). Bishonen, El C, I believe that huge table is called the "Table of harassment", the one where people are tied and umm, you know.. harassed. What is the point of spending time in creating a Table of harassment, if the reader does not feel truly harassed? You won't get the feeling of hellish harassment with the boring ordinary text nor with fancy dances. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC) User:RickinBaltimore, Bishonen isn't calling it a typo so I guess, you will have to abandon your sanity and continue being nuts--DBigXrayᗙ 17:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Excuse my refactoring ... but I agree with 'Shonen. Putting a narrow (500px) table with a quadruple indented left margin alongside a floating image is disruptive and discourteous to anybody working on a small screen or with larger than normal zoom levels (e.g. old folk like me). I've demonstrated how to fix the table - perhaps Soman will want to revert me and fix it themselves. All it needs now is for them to move the floating image away from the table in a place they are satisfied with, please. --RexxS (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Somebody should just chuck the floating image. It's far less relevant to our purposes here than the table. Lepricavark (talk) 16:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving on

Earlier, I said I didn't have time to read through all the article histories and sources, etc - I was literally about to go and do some actual IRL job stuff. Since then, every time I've looked back at this thread, the reading list has got longer :(. For what it's worth, here is my take home summary - I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed anything...

• DBigXray probably ought not to template people quite so readily. The ideal outcome for any content dispute is to have a civil conversation - templated 'No OR' warnings for a long-standing editor probably aren't helpful, and giving a templated warning immediately prior to giving a DS Sanctions notice probably makes the DS notice feel like an extra layer of warning - that's not what they're for. I'd advise XRay just talk to the person politely, and explain their point of view.
• Yappy2bhere definitely ought to realise that addressing people by words like 'son' and 'boy' is unacceptably condescending (especially given the potential racial overtones of the word 'boy'). If DBigXray's contributions have been a bit pointy, Yappy's have been downright rude, and they ought to be warned that that style of discourse is not acceptable, even if someone has just given you an unnecessary template.
• Soman needs to realise that the only effective arguments at AfD are those supporting or refuting the notability of the subject of the article. There is never any need to question the motivations of the nominator, or of delete voters - simply say why you believe the subject is notable, and leave it at that. I realise that AfD is a often a cesspool of incivility, and Soman may well be following the example of many others in that arena - but disagreeing with someone is never an excuse for questioning their motives.

Have I missed anything? Probably. On balance, I don't think there's anything requiring sanctions here - rather, everyone needs to think about how they can better interact with other editors, especially those they disagree with. My remaining concern is that Yappy2behere has not shown up here to account for their words - they're not obliged to, of course, and I recognise that their editing is very sporadic, so they may well be unaware of this thread. Nevertheless, of all those involved here, I see their conduct as perhaps the closest to crossing the line, and I think that at least a formal warning for incivility would be appropriate. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Girth Summit: - I concur with what you said above. You did miss something though - it wasn't brought up by me, but by Lepricavark: if someone gave me a civility warning, took four of my created articles to AfD, and then gave me another civility warning, I would feel like I was the one being harassed. Here is a user contribution search of DBigXray on Soman's talk page, which took about 2 minutes to load for me. It tells the following story. starship.paint (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Past situation, in 6 years, DBigXray has taken 2 of Soman's articles to AfD . This isn't a common thing.
• Current situation, late January 2020 : DBigXray takes 1 of Soman's articles to AfD. They have a dispute there. DBigXray warns Soman, then in 6 hours takes 4 of Soman's articles to AfD. DBigXray does not nominate any other article by other editors to AfD on 3 February (UTC) , so this is clearly targeting Soman.
• In light of Razer2115's provision of information that in November 2018 , that an admin closed an ANI thread that warned DBigXray for harassment and battleground behaviors. Any admin should block if the behavior continues - I propose a second warning for harassment and battleground behaviors to DBigXray, in light of the time elapsed since that incident. starship.paint (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  Struck in light of bludgeoning, lack of remorse and lack of responsibility taken. starship.paint (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply by DBigXray

• User:Girth Summit you did not explicitly state, that you have read and investigated the entire case, along with the diffs. Please state it explicitly. From your comment I get an impression, that you have not. As I noted above, the expectation is that an admin, without prejudice, investigates this case in entirety and comes out with some conclusion and resolution that will resolve the issues pointed here. Indeed there are several problems and missing points that have not been addressed in your comment above and I will mention them in points below.
• GS says "'probably ought not to template people quite so readily" why not ? Please point me to a policy that states this ? Are you enforcing or suggesting some kind of template ban on me ? This thread was brought to ANI by the OP, claiming that I had given inappropriate templates, and templating them inappropriately was harassment. I have already explained above along with the diffs, that none of the templates given by me were inappropriate and all the templates were appropriately posted in their std form. If So then why should I avoid posting templates ? I do often use a personalized message (instead of templates) addressing the concern (if I find it necessary). This was a situation that in my judgement, merited a std template and if this same exact same case ever came in front of me in future, then I will repeat the same template again. It is not pointed what is wrong with this template and I don't see any reason why I am being asked to avoid templates, without an RfC to this effect. Are you claiming that the "No OR" template was inappropriate, if so then I expect a clarification, if no, then please mention it explicitly. WP:ACDS alert templates are not warnings, it specifically mentions this in its text and if someone sees this template as some kind of warning then it is their problem and not mine. WP:ACDS "demands" that the template is given in the same format that I have and no tweaking is acceptable by ACDS. If someone has issues with the templates, no one is stopping them to delete them from their user talk, responding to them with insulting name calling is unacceptable and an offence that needs to be penalized. Instead of doing the expected, point fingers on me and asking to avoid templates, is problematic because there are editor on this thread who I am sure will return in a few days to ANI claiming, "In the last ANI thread DBX was asked to avoid templates and use 'personalized messages' and look at these diffs, he has given more than 50 templates since then, how dare he, he "MUST BE BANNED INDEFINITELY" from Misplaced Pages."
• The elephant in the room and the "Real offence" here is "Personal Attacks" meted out to me at the AfDs, User talk and article talk. Accordingly I had given appropriate and "Standard" WP:NPA templates. And now suddenly the offenders and (some others above) have turned the tables on me and are claiming that NPA templates and DS alerts that I gave are the real issue here and that me giving them is harassment of these users. This is a clear example of whataboutery and False equivalence. The real issue of insults and personal attacks, is not even an actionable offence for them and they are baying for my blood for templating them. Quite clearly this is Victim blaming and it is unfortunate that User:Girth Summit appears to have ignored this.
• As I mentioned with diffs on #Harassment of DBigXray by Yappy2bhere in response to standard templates, I got called insulting names such as "son, you're not in the right", "you don't understand WP policy" "you cynically contort it to achieve your own ends." you are "stupid", "audacious", "you need more than chutzpah", you are "bullying me", You are "A diller" ("The word 'diller' is a Yorkshire term for a boy who is dim-witted and stupid "), "You're a BULLY with a big axe to grind", "Don't cry wolf, boy". What Exactly did I do to deserve these personal attacks ? Are these not offences ? And note that I did not respond to them in kind, although I am capable of responding to them with some very well thought out words. User:Girth Summit claims that "DBigXray's contributions have been a bit pointy" please point out what pointy thing are you referring to. I have clarified above that I never attacked yappy2behere and it is wrong to claim a False equivalence between his attacks and mine.
• Soman has been editing here for 16 years, and yet he is struggling with WP:CIVILITY. He had been warned twice by me and yet he continued attacking me on AfDs and ANI with WP:ADHOM, (see diffs). This is completely unacceptable behavior and something that needs some kind of resolution to make sure that this is not repeated. 2 Warnings have clearly failed to achieve that end thus far. "AfD has been a cesspool of incivility", yes it is, and it is so, because we have more than a few incompetent and insecure admins, who are scared to issue warnings and blocks, for breach of civility and personal attacks, just as we are seeing in this case here. This situation is only going to get worse going forward, since other AfD contributors, get encouraged by inaction of admins. Other afd contributors think that these breach of WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA is acceptable at AfD, and is something that they can get away with without issues. No it is not, these are offences and repeating them despite multiple warnings need to be addressed appropriately, or else the vicious cycle will continue.
• There are multiple other concerns pointed here, that are still unaddressed. Soman's WP:ASPERSION of connivance, needs to be addressed, he has been going on and on about it with falsehoods, and yet no admin has commented on this bigotry.
• Inappropriate canvassing by Soman, also needs to be addressed.
• Finally although I was the one attacked, I did not bring this case to ANI but someone did, and I along with others have spent considerable amount of volunteer time and efforts on this thread. Something actionable has to come out of this thread that improves and solves the issues pointed here. It is still lacking.DBigXrayᗙ 06:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1,000 words without admitting any fault. Even when you took 4 of Soman's articles to AfD in 6 hours right after a dispute with Soman, taking no other articles to AfD in that time ... apparently that is whataboutism, while you are the real victim, we are engaging in victim blaming, and at the same time, shame on you incompetent and insecure admins at AfD?! starship.paint (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint I am trying to ignore your relentless attacks on me, but you just wont shut up. Before moving forward Please point me to the thread where I have been banned to nominate any article (that I assess as non notable) created by Soman to AfD ? Soman does not WP:OWN those article. Those articles belong to me as much as it belongs to him or Jimbo. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I propose blocks for all concerned for giving me a headache.' All these words, and no mention of conciseness. PS, I thought the table was nice. Now where's the bloody tylenol?-- Deepfriedokra 07:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Deepfriedokra I propose a nice head massage and a strip of tylenol, all you need is to come to my city. PS, you should see the table in its original form (before it was tamed by Rexxs) to be able to appreciate Bishonen comment. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray This thread has become massively unwieldy, I'm struggling to keep track of it - every time I look at it there seem to be several more pages of text, and a bunch of new diffs (which may or may not already have been linked to) - so no, I cannot claim to have read through everything exhaustively. I didn't want to go into too much detail above about the issues I see with how you've behaved, but since you've asked me to expand on them, I will do.

I said you ought not to template people so readily because I think that you ought not to template people so readily - I'm not invoking any policy here, I'm not saying that you must not template anyone, and I'm certainly not applying any sanctions to you - I'd like you to try to exercise better judgement when entering into what should be effective, collegiate communication. A templated message is a quick way to bring certain policies to someone's attention - they're quick and easy to apply, and useful if you genuinely think that the person doesn't know this stuff already. As a means of communication between experienced editors though, they're almost never helpful - all they achieve is to piss the other person off. I template vandals and spam merchants, but I very rarely template editors with significant experience, and when I do, I always leave a personal note explaining why I've done it. If you are engaged in a content dispute with someone, I would strongly recommend that you actually talk to them, in plain English, about your concerns. Example: "I can see what you're saying, but I'm a bit concerned that the way you've worded that is string into OR territory. How about we put it like this...". I put it to you that an approach like that is far more likely to end in an amicable resolution than giving them a template about OR. Sure, it takes a bit longer to type, but it's time well-spent in the long run.

That's what I meant about being pointy - I think that excessive templating is a bit pointy. However, I don't believe that I am drawing a false equivalence - I was actually contrasting your behaviour with that of Yappy. I believe that I was pretty clear that, if your templates were a bit pointy, their response was excessively rude and uncivil. One could also argue that nominating four articles authored by a single editor in quick succession is pointy - I would be spitting feathers if someone did that to four articles I'd written. Sure, none of us own our articles, but we take pride in them. Surely you can see that would elicit an emotional response?

I would also urge you to look back at the things you have said about others in this thread. You've been quick to accuse people of lying, of bigotry, of administrative cowardice - I suggested earlier that it would be good for you to cool it here, and I still think that would be a good idea.

Again - I'm expanding on this because you asked me to. I do not think that your behaviour is the worst discussed in this thread, and I am not proposing or supporting any sanctions against you, but I do think that there are areas where you could do some self-reflection. I hope that's not offensive to hear, I certainly don't mean it to be. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thanks for confirming that that you have not investigated the entire case. This thread has become lengthy but I have frequently seen much longer threads on ANI and those on arbcom are whole another level in terms of length. I do hope you or another admin finds time to do it sooner. As I noted above, I do use personalized comments but it is simply not possible to use it all the time. The point still remains that posting a template is not an offence responding with insults to the template is one. This along with unprovoked personal attacks on the talk page and AfDs are the central issues of this long thread that remains to be addressed . DBigXrayᗙ 14:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply from Soman

• I recognize that my tone in debates can come off as sarcastic or snippy. Whilst this may be unconstructive at times, I don't think it constitutes a breach of WP:CIVILITY. That said, noted that in the debates leading up to the ANI thread some of my comments weren't helpful. (For example, I stated that DBigXray had poor googling skills on Talk:Priashevshchina, after he added 4 'verification failed' tags in the Priashevshchina article on details that were easily verified . )
• At the same time, the usage of terms as 'trolling', 'bigotry', 'falsehoods', 'offenders' (used by DBigXray in relation to me), is in my textbook much stronger statements than a snippy comment over someone's google skills.
• " Soman does not WP:OWN those article."... yet somehow you managed to target 4 quite disparate articles, all initially created by me, in one go? I think many of us has difficulty to believe that your decision to send warning templates plus 4 AfD nominations in one go would be completely unrelated to the debate in the BJYM AfD.
• Point taken on not debating editors motivations within the AfDs themselves. In retrospect, I should have brought DBigXray and S. M. Nazmus Shakib's deletion drive on Sangh Parivar-related subject to ANI rather than debating their motivations within the AfDs.
• Moving on, for me there are essentially two problems here. One is the motivations and one is the lack of real dialogue;
• I do, and I think this is the apt platform to express this, strong question the motives of DBigXray in the Sangh Parivar-related AfDs. In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha he writes: "A wing of a political party that fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable media. This subset of a political party is not independently notable and no content to expand. Article had been created with the sole purpose to WP:Promote its office bearers" ('created' later changed to 'updated overtime'). As DBigXray is familiar with Indian context, I'm absolutely sure DBigXray knows that BJYM is notable well beyond the minimum threshold of Misplaced Pages and that there would be a scope to rewrite the article with more sources and complying with NPOV. Likewise, in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, he states that the article had been created for PROMO purposes. I must say, that I can't say I fully understand his motives, whether its mainly a political POV issue or if the deletion process in itself is some sort of a weird power game.
• In terms of the interaction with other editors in the AfDs, I'm quite frustrated with DBigXray's lack of respect towards other editors. He begins either the deletion nomination or the first delete vote with sweeping statements about ORGCRIT, PROMO, etc.., but when other editors provide arguments to the contrary he bluntly refuses to acknowledge any other input than his own. Notably no source or reference is acceptable to him. In the case of BKS, the article has now been expanded, including references on how the organization managed to impact state-level policy making in the 1980s. It seems that once DBigXray has taken the position to nominate/vote an article for deletion, he will seek to 'win' the deletion process regardless of the merits of the sources and articles presented.
• I'm not sure what the path forward is, but for now I would leave it at asking DBigXray to respect WP:BEFORE and show greater humility towards the arguments of other editors in deletion processes. --Soman (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In regards to my comment above, I note now that in the Priashevshchina AfD , DBigXray did actually partially retract one of his comment on one source in response to comment by Spokoyni. --Soman (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Your response is basically more of your accusations against me so I will have to respond.

1. Without any provocation you used the words such as "ridiculous", "wasting other peoples' time by posting bad faith AfDs", hater, lacking common sense, lacking googling skills". That is not sarcastic but downright insulting personal attacks and as per wiki policy of WP:NPA and repeating them despite warning is an offence.
2. Posting 78 links in an AfD is textbook example of 'trolling', Accusing 2 different editors of connivance just because those editors had a difference of opinion with you in an AfD is text book example of 'bigotry' and wP:ASPERSION, Saying something without basis is 'falsehoods', folks violating Wiki policy are called 'offenders'
3. All 4 articles were Political newspapers by political parties. I assessed them as non notable and asked community feedback, that is not an offence by any wikipedia policy.
4. Almost all of those article were deleted and should not have been created in the first place, you clearly don't see creating them in violation of WP:N as a problem, but you see them deleting as a problem. This is a problem in you.
5. These are again more accusations of Bad faith simply because you disagreed with the AfD. Several of those articles have already been deleted by the community after AfDs. Are you claiming that the Misplaced Pages community that deleted those articles is anti BJP ?
6. If you are not familiar with our WP:N policies, "then you should go read them instead of blaming me for your lack of knowledge.
7. Again you are wrongfully accusing (without evidence) me of not following WP:BEFORE, You are the one who made unprovoked attacks on me and Shakib and other AfD contributors and yet you are asking me to show humility ? I find this very ironical.
8. These comments by Soman above are further evidence which proves that this thread needs a formal conclusion and closure and leaving it like this is not going to help the ongoing situation --DBigXrayᗙ 11:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1. I've never used the term hater.
2. The evidence of lack of respect of WP:BEFORE is in the edit history, where at least twice you issued unfounded accusations of WP:PROMO in AfDs.
3. I didn't say you lack common sense, I implied that the AfD drive lacked common sense. Apologies if that wasn't expressed well on my behalf.
4. ...""then you should go read them instead of blaming me for your lack of knowledge.", this I think underscores the difficulty here. I cannot criticize your googling skills, but you are free to comment on my supposed 'lack of knowledge'. You repeatedly expect others to adhere to standards that you yourself ignore
5. "All 4 articles were Political newspapers by political parties. I assessed them as non notable and asked community feedback, that is not an offence by any wikipedia policy." That's not the question. The question is the process on your behalf, in selecting the 4 articles? None of them have any connection (except Golos Pravdy/Trud, Zemlia i More), apart from sharing the same creator. None of them were previously tagged for notability concerns or anything similar. Are you, on the record, saying that on February 3, 06.33 am UTC when you nominated Trud, Zemlia i More for deletion, 16 minutes after having posted a NPA notice on my talk page, that you were unaware/indifferent to the fact that the article had been created by me? I'm not saying that it is statistically impossible that among 6,000,000 articles on English wikipedia you encountered Trud, Zemlia i More on random just in the middle of the BJYM AfD dispute, but I don't find it very probably. If you could at least be a bit more transparent and open to a minimum of self-criticism, the process would be much more smooth for all involved parties. --Soman (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Yes, you did not say "hater" instead on the AFD you had said "...The fact that you might dislike the organization is irrelevant in an AfD debate."
2. The article had WP:PROMO issues in most cases it was the creator while in some articles updaters caused it, WP:BEFORE was done. DBigXrayᗙ 16:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Nice way to reformulate 'dislike' into 'hate'. And, as a role of thumb, if there is a problem with PROMO/POV material in an article, we try to edit the article and improve it, not go for deletion. --Soman (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1. that is an unacceptable WP:ADHOM in whatever way you look at it. But you had continued attacking the AfD contributor inspite of being repeatedly reminded.
2. The articles were nominated as they had issues with notability which was the primary concern. That they had other issues as well does not mean that notability wasn't an issue. DBigXrayᗙ 04:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions for User DBigXray

I feel some action needs to be taken against this editor. His recent behavior warrants it and he was warned in the past. So do you support a website ban, topic ban, block, another warning, or no action at all....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I earlier proposed a second warning, but I will strike that, because since then, the continued WP:BLUDGEON-ing is too much. DBigXRay has made 41 comments here already, and the 42nd is surely coming. I'm tired, someone else propose something. starship.paint (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

...William you brought the case here on false premises that the templates were inappropriate. You were proved wrong and now you have moved on to this. Let an admin handle this case and decide accordingly. Both of you have already shown your immense love for me on this very thread and you are not neutral by any long shot. Let a neutral admin handle this and propose anything after going through the case. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Starship.paint, you are not a neutral admin to decide on the sanctions or propose one. let an admin do this. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

1) The templates were inappropriate, as an admin has indicated above (if you want admin input, don't ignore it when you get it). 2) One need not be an admin, neutral or otherwise, to propose sanctions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark, Can you point me to the line or the diff where an admin said that the templates were inappropriate. It is strange that I have missed it. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's the one where an admin said you probably ought not to template people quite so readily. If you wish to argue that the admin in question didn't explicitly call your actions "inappropriate", I will respond that he certainly didn't say they were right either. In other words, WilliamJE has not been proven wrong about the templates. Several of us have agreed with him, although you have seen fit to disregard our advice for reasons that are known only to you. Lepricavark (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Girth Summit Please see the comment above, do you agree with such an inference of your comment as Lepricavark is making above ? that my templating was inappropriate ? To me it appears that Girth Summit is saying that I ought to make personalized messages instead of templates, as personalized messages have better result than template. And IMHO this is not the same as inappropriate. In any case User:Girth Summit must confirm this as a reply below, if he considers my templates inappropriate. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, I don't think that this is a binary situation, where something is either appropriate (and therefore fine), or inappropriate (and therefore sanctionable). I told you what I thought on my talk page, but since you've asked me to comment here, I think that some of your use of templates has been unnecessary and probably counter productive. What proportion of your use of templates is unnecessary and counterproductive is not something I have done a survey of, but some of it clearly is. I am sure that it is difficult to be self-reflective when there are people calling for you to be sanctioned, but I think you would be doing yourself a big favour if you took a bit of time to think about this before replying - you are digging a hole for yourself with some of your comments here in this thread. I'll repeat, for the benefit of those calling for XRay to be sanctioned, that I do not believe their use of templates is the worst thing shown in the diffs presented above, and my views on the correct course of action have not changed since I commented earlier in the 'Moving on' section. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your points are well-taken and I don't actually expect that any sort of sanction will be enacted against Xray. However, I will note that Xray had plentiful opportunities for self-reflection long before any of us began to discuss sanctions for them; in fact, it is their continuing refusal to self-reflect that prompted my suggestion below. Lepricavark (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• In this very discussion, I stayed silent on DBigXray adding a section header Harassment of DBigXray by Starship.paint only after I had stopped responding in that thread.
• Now, DBigXray continues similar behaviour, by removing a section header Proposed sanctions for User DBigXray added by WilliamJE. starship.paint (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• I've been reticent to propose any sort of sanction against DBigXray, but in light of both the above discussion and this spill over to User talk:Girth Summit, perhaps we might consider a restriction against issuing templated NPA warnings. Xray is in IDHT territory with regard to the repeated criticism of their warnings and it seems nothing sort of a formalized restriction will be efficacious. After all, Xray keeps saying 'point me to x discussion that says I can't do x', so I guess that means he is unwilling to adjust his behavior unless he is forced to do so. We're not in block or ban territory, although the refusal to take any negative feedback on board is worrying and I think it has become clear to the rest of us why so few admins have been willing to weigh in here. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The IDHT that you seem to be referring here is DBX is refusing to not give templates. If you had read my replies you would have found that I dont give templates on all 100% the issues that I find during my watchlist patrolling. Obviously there are situations where a 1 line message works better than a template. And so If someone is asking me to do something that I already do, then how is it a change ? This was a case where I used a template, Girth Summit believes that a personalized message would have been more effective. In his reply above, he never said that my templating was inappropriate. I would have readily apologized had my templating been inappropriate, but it was not. I was attacked without any provocations on AfDs and for that I gave the templates and for that I am not going to apologize. Enough evidence was given above on the behavior of these 2 editors and yet we only have a thread for sanctions on DBX, where Lepricavark, WilliamJE and starship.paint are baying for the blood. But it is kind of expected since they were doing it right from the time this thread was started. Just a cursory look at their signature in this entire thread shows that they have been continuously speaking against me, completely ignoring the offences by others. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am in no way baying for blood, nor have I completely ignored the offense of other editors. I originally became involved in this thread because I wanted to make sure that Soman's edits were properly placed within the surrounding context, not because I had any kind of axe to grind with you. However, I have been frustrated at every turn by your refusal to bend at all on any point. If you think sanctions should be proposed against other editors, you are free to do so yourself. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

If you aren't baying for my blood, then why are you even commenting in this subsection ? No, I am not going to propose any sanctions. Unlike you three, I am not here to get editors, I don't agree with, banned/blocked. I am here, only to make sure that their personal attacks, and unprovoked name calling, at the AfDs are brought to a complete stop. The NPA warnings did not help and the attacks continued so I am glad that it was raised here. How they stop those attacks is upto the reviewing and closing admins, they are far more experienced than me and I trust their admin discretion in being able to handle this case appropriately. DBigXrayᗙ 16:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You do realize that you just personally attacked me, right? Lepricavark (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

He also stole the cookie you personally taunted me with while you both bayed for my blood here last month. Then he used it to bribe me into throwing the fight. Then you all killed me. The part of me that enjoyed historical anniversaries, anyway. The point is, we're all to blame for something, and working together, we can silence anyone for anything. Community standards are amazingly flexible that way. No hard feelings, though, I deserved to die for mildly annoying DBX. I can admit it in hindsight. I propose we Delete Tiger Squad as a friendly reminder to follow the mainstream. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support': (Girth Summit @ moving on): (NB: Involved editor): Basically try to avoid templating when in discussions at AfD. I'd also give a suggestion to try to comment at most once a day at AfD and at most 3 times per relist. That is a target not a requirement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

More evidence of Personal attack by Yappy2bhere

where Yappy2bhere stated, Really? You comb through my edit history looking for dirt, whine that you haven't found it, then accuse me of hounding you? You're one sick puppy diff found by SharʿabSalam▼DBigXrayᗙ 13:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, another non-admin comment is probably the last thing you want to see, but here it is anyway. This being a volunteer project, not even an admin is obligated to investigate editor complaints, not least when one admin has been generous enough to do so already and failed to satisfy the parties. This thread has gotten so messy due mainly to a myriad of repetitive comments (including yours) that I wouldn't bet on any admin delving into this just because you ask. Some editors you think should be sanctioned, some editors think you should be sanctioned. In all, everyone probably could have conducted themselves better and a subset should have conducted themselves better, but none of it rises to the level of warranting sanctions, especially since sanctions are preventative, not punitive. There is no ongoing disruption, I don't think, except in this very discussion from which everyone had better slowly back off at this point. That leaves Yappy2bhere who is the only one whose conduct rises to a level worthy of ANI. But they have not edited for a week. Again, GirthSummit has already indicated that a formal warning on civility would be appropriate. Since we don't block to punish, they would have to return to editing and continue the pattern of behaviour, then you could begin a concise new section summarising the issue with diffs you presented here, the analysis by GS that endorsed a formal warning, more old diffs you found after that, and the diffs of new instances of the editor persisting upon their return despite this discussion here. If this discussion wasn't such a mess, and looked at the conduct of single editor, Yappy2bhere, it's possible it would have yielded an outcome you'd be satisfied with. That not having been the case, and per the rest of my observations herein, I don't think continuing to add comments here is likely to make admins want any more to go through the mountain of text that is this section. At this point, the single diff at an admin's talk page that Sharab/you has/ve left is your better chance than this lo...o...ong section here; that diff is coincidentally the worst one anyway, IMO. I advise that you stop responding here until a new uninvolved editor/admin queries you about something. The subsection above this one is probably concerning to you, but the only way that is gonna go anywhere is if you don't take a break from all this and end up making an unfortunate edit or two. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, your are wrong in the beginning itself. Please read my last comment , I am not here to get folks sanctioned. I want these personal attacks and insults to stop. DBigXrayᗙ 16:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Djm-leighpark

I am a non-neutral contributor to this thread. It will no doubt strike people that I am present on some of the pages referenced in this thread. I have been following it for some days, given a few talk pages of users/articles related to this thread are on my watchlist. It will likely not surprise DBigXray that I currently finding them a pain in the backside with continued badgering after nearly entry. Unfortunately this particular spat is but one of a number on AfD's related to the subcontinent of India ongoing recently with users beyond this ANI thread at this time and I have concerns various sides (country/region/politcal/religion) taking potshots at each other with what I would regard as attempts to get articles deleted, articles tag shamed, users tag shamed, users blocked and use of socks also involved (I am not accusing DBigXray here ... well perhaps I am a little and I have examples that can be thrown at me as I am not angelic ... the general problems are beyond that and this simply by impression from taking 3 steps back). I intend to add some specific comments at intervals ... on the road with less capable device at the moment and I likely won't be pointing to policies/guidelines as much as I'd like. I am aware several admins are watching this like the Gods from Olympus, perhaps wryly smiling, but also concerned about the effect on the project. AfD's lie as one of the key sources of issues here. They result is article deletion which is a serious matter, and once done results in a loss of history. I have perhaps concerns actors with COI's, perhaps even government sponsored, may initiate AfD's to censor information; perhaps that is why I dont like to see media outlets removed and political parties removed. Yes there is a risk minorities get over coverage; but we should be able to have partisans within articles without deletion. (This is a general statement I have no belief or evidence here say DBigXray is involved). Afd's are devisive ... especially "borderline" ones. They are wasteful of time and energy. The system can easily be swamped. They can be easily swamped. Nom's can easily get away with skimped WP:BEFORE, one indicator is a sending long standing articles relatively to AfD when not previously tagged for problems (recently introduced is a separate issue). While the above is a more general ramble I'll deal with some specific points raised in this ANI below.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• with regards to Yappy2bhere: I believe there is a possibility my edit on an article myself and Yappy2behere previously were at odds on the merge of 28 April 2018 may have led to out spat on Stop Funding Fake News and may have following my contributions to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha and decided to engage on Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha. (I present this as a possible explanation of how Yappy2bhere got here out of the blue as it may ease some peoples wonderings).Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Regarding: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions and alerts. My talk page carries Template:Ds/aware/blp/ipa/tpm/tt indicating I claim awareness of these sanctions. Per Template:Ds/alert this alerts for blp and ipa should not be issued in this circumstance and a warning should have occured as a reminder not to it it, however thus alerts were given on . Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• WP:CITEBOMB. I wish people would read and apply WP:THREE rather than WP:CITEBOMB. If all else fails quality not quanity. Please think of most closers and admins who won't try to beyond 3 before giving up. Full cite embellishment is really useful, the provenance of the source should be proudly displayed. For foreign language particularly important and ensure trans-title is set, most cite parameter fields filled in and quote provided if necessary. I am also of the opinion the same principle applies to ANI/diffs. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

End of comments. Could probably do more but have rambled enough and I need to read the Daily Mail as I can't use it here.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Djm-leighpark calling themselves non-neutral is an understatement when just 2 days back, they had openly avowed to " take revenge on anyone they consider a friend of DBigXray". diff and the full quote "DBigXray: Assume for the moment that I am finding you a pain and I determine that I will take revenge on any that are friends of yours. I might then decide to make things awkward for CASSIOPEIA. In that case leading me here would do CASSIOPEIA no favours. Now while that would be incredibly wrong of me there are some on here who might do that. I don't think I can explain it more clearly than that. Thankyou. - Djm-leighpark"
• I must note that there has been no spat between Djm and me recently and the only interaction that I remember with them was on their talk page after they had used WP:ADHOM in an AfD. So it is quite surprising that they are reacting in the manner they are doing.
• I did mention in my #Note to admins above, that folks are using this thread to settle personal scores against me. DBigXrayᗙ 06:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring on K9 Thunder and T-155 Firtina, Uncivil behavior by Progressive288 and not contributing to discussion

Hello, an edit war between User:Kadrun and User:Progressive288 Recently started on the pages about the K9 Thunder and T-155 Firtina artillery systems. No direct 3RR rule violation happend within 24h but over multiple days. However seeing the users revert each other time after time with only using the edit summary for talk I decided to request both users to discuss the matter on the talk page, this took some coordination but I got it going at Talk:K9_Thunder#K9_Thunder_and_T-155_Firtina. While both users and myself responded no other editors have comment yet at the issue at hand. A brief summary is that In my opinion Progressive288 disagrees with the reliably sourced information that the T-155 Is a variant of The K9, claiming that sources from Turkish officials are also needed, and that since there are only Korean and International sources used this is unconfirmed. He provides no supporting sources for his claims and they seem to be purely based on personal opinion and a mis understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. I would suggest to read the arguments brought up by both sides on the talk page and also read the edit summaries of both pages. Unfortunately Progressive288 seems to not care about any of the points brought up and so meaningful discussion has so far not been established. I asked both users and tried myself to be civil so far, but Progressive288 called my arguments bullshit without going in to any meaningful detail and called me biased. I have asked Progressive288 for more explanation but the aren't providing any meaningful help in my opinion and that coupled with the uncivil comments made against me I feel the need to report. Redalert2fan (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Shortly "IN MY OPINION" :DD I see you're crying, yeah Keep continuing this way, Misplaced Pages will be blocked in Turkey again, I'll send a letter to Center of Communication of the Turkish Presidency about the public anti-Turkism against the Turkish people and non-based biased claims against Turkey by Misplaced Pages admins on Misplaced Pages. Don't think that you're God because you're Admin on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progressive288 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC) ~~~~

Progressive288, Redalert2Fan is not an admin... also please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end. LakesideMiners 15:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It's ok, I thought he was. Progressive288 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC) ~~~~

Progressive288, you don't type the nowiki tags as part of it. You have signed before. You put the four tides WITHOUT the nowiki tags to sign posts.LakesideMiners 15:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't think we allowed legal threats against Misplaced Pages here. --Elkman 15:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The comments once again made against me are misinformed, call me crying and include some form of legal threats... I feel I have only been trying to encourage discussion but once again I am insulted again, all this on ANI itself. Further I have provided requested RS at the K9 talk page Redalert2fan (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A link to any legal threat would be helpful. And whoever made a legal threat needs to withdraw it before an admin blocks them.-- Deepfriedokra 16:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the threat is the statement above, " I'll send a letter to Center of Communication of the Turkish Presidency about the public anti-Turkism against the Turkish people and non-based biased claims against Turkey by Misplaced Pages admins on Misplaced Pages". 331dot (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

331dot, I would agree that is what Redalert is talking about by legal threat. (One of the more odd ones I have seen tbh)

This is what I was referring to, and to be clear I have no intention to make false claims or be biased against turkey or their government for that matter. Honestly I fail to see why RS information about whether a military vehicle is based on and a variant of another military vehicle constitutes to that, for that matter, as I shared on the K9 talk page even Turkish sources exist that support my claim. Redalert2fan (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified what I said. The legal threat I was calling out was Progressive288's comment: "Misplaced Pages will be blocked in Turkey again, I'll send a letter to Center of Communication of the Turkish Presidency about the public anti-Turkism..." And Progressive288's comment, ":DD I see you're crying" is a taunt, and I thought we were supposed to be civil here. --Elkman 16:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

So what I'm seeing here is Progressive288 needs to be indeffed for WP:NOTHERE and bullying. Frankly, anyone who brings in this short of nationalistic, "I'm gonna tell the President on you" nonsense 'needs to be blocked indefinitely. Redalert2fan's point is well taken.-- Deepfriedokra 21:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I am a little bit surprised that this conversation seems to have fizzled out. Please read Block of Misplaced Pages in Turkey, which documents that Misplaced Pages was blocked in that country for well over 2-1/2 years by the government headed by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and access was restored only a few weeks ago, on January 15, 2020. Under these circumstances, the comments by Progressive288 seem utterly unacceptable to me, and functionally equivalent to a legal threat. In this case, the threats have an ominous level of credibility that is unusual in situations like this. I do not see how this editor can be allowed to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages while this threat stands. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It 100% sounds like a legal threat to me, so a block is probably overdue here. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

2019 Novel Coronavirus Move Requests

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Requested_move_11_February_2020

I like ask for multiple Misplaced Pages Administrators intervene on this "somewhat major" requested move issue about the virus. Giving users non disciplinary notices about the required waiting period making another RM. Thanks. Regice2020 (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Psychologist Guy

Disclaimer: this was filed as edit warring, closed as the pages having been protected with this editor's changes already in place. It was also filed under the NPOV board and rejected since it was about an editor not an article. Do not take this as a criticism about the process or those involved, Misplaced Pages has a process and I believe in that process, but I do not think it would be right to not mention this.

The user in question appears to have a conflict of interest with respect to certain types of diets. Of note:

• Editor has been involved in heavy editing of Carnivore diet (now all but edit gore) which is now a redirect to Monotrophic diet.
• They added the section on the carnivore diet to Monotrophic diet, referring to it as a "fad diet":
• Articles created by the editor include more positive worded ones such as Richard Dean (curate) ("an Anglican minister and early animal rights writer"), Humphrey Primatt ("an English clergyman and animal rights writer"), Robert Cook (eccentric) ("an Irish eccentric farmer and early veganism activist"), Audrey Eyton ("an English animal welfare campaigner, journalist and writer. She is best known for creating the F-Plan diet." - oddly enough not a fad diet), Louis Rimbault ("promoter of simple living and veganism"), William H. Galvani ("a civil engineer, vegetarianism activist and writer"), Wilmer Ingalls Gordon ("an American osteopathic physician and vegetarianism activist"), Edward Hare ("a vegetarianism activist" in the lead), Josiah Oldfield ("promoter of fruitarianism"), Charles W. Forward ("a British animal rights activist and historian of vegetarianism"), etc.
• Editor has also been involved in such articles as Animal welfare, Lacto vegetarianism, Vegetarian Society, etc.
• Editor has interests on their sandbox page which include "Animal rights by country or territory", "Animal protectionism", "Animal welfare", "Veganism", "Anarchism and animal rights", "Animal-free agriculture", etc.

WP:DUCK makes me strongly wonder whether this editor has a conflict of interest in writing more positive articles on animal-free diets and removing articles that discuss diets that include animals. Bringing up concern about the edit warring brought this response which included accusations of bringing the concerns about edit warring in bad faith, accusations of being a meat puppet, and that I was a "high-up friend on Misplaced Pages" roped into trying to get this editor banned (which is, as far as I know, not one of the generally handed down punishments from edit warring, usually that is just a time-out at worst.) There are other accusations which I think are unfounded and in violation of WP:GOODFAITH. I do want to be clear, I don't think the editor in question is a bad person, I do think they are letting their bias show which is not good for Misplaced Pages. I avoid articles that I have a non-neutral POV in, specifically for this reason, even if it's obvious vandalism. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Related: Off-wiki canvassing by User:User2083146168 / User:BecomeFree:

• Vegans have deleted the carnivore diet Misplaced Pages. 46
• Vegans attacked and deleted the carnivore diet article on Misplaced Pages
• Misplaced Pages Article Creation for Carnivore Diet
• MARXIST-VEGANISTS CENSOR FREEDOM LOVING CARNIVORE DIET WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE
• Vegans attacked and deleted the carnivore diet article on Misplaced Pages (/r/ketoscience)
• Wikidpedia
• Carnivore diet deleted by vegans on Misplaced Pages

Sources that discuss the carnivore diet movement and its main proponents:

• They mock vegans and eat 4lb of steak a day: meet 'carnivore dieters'
• Here's what you should know about the latest carnivore trend.
• What I Learned from a Month on the Carnivore Diet
• Rational Wiki: Carnivore diet

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

And just to add to the "weird connections" file, [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne74nw/inside-the-world-of-the-bitcoin-carnivores Inside the World of the 'Bitcoin Carnivores':

Why a small community of Bitcoin users is eating meat exclusively.] It will be interesting to see if any of our editors show a keen interest in both topics... --Guy Macon (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, is this the new Rule 34? If it exists, there is crypto of it? Guy (help!) 09:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr Vernon was recruited by these carnivore diet cranks to harass me and get me banned, although he will never admit that in writing it is easy to prove. Vernon's last activity was 25 November 2018. He came back out of nowhere to edit Misplaced Pages again on 6 February 2020 to file a failed edit-warring request against me and a ridiculous SPI, accusing me of being Zefr. The 6 February 2020 was the same date the above Reddit threads went up advertising my Misplaced Pages account. Indeed, his very first edits in nearly two years of silence were to post about me. Odd, right? Before that nobody new my Misplaced Pages account or took interest in any of my edits. I am a nobody, yet overnight on the 6 February became some anti-carnivore celebrity on Reddit. Sad.

Vernon has copied the above criticisms onto several admin boards, every time it has failed but he does not give up. He filed a failed SPI case against me accusing me of being a well respected user who has been on this website for ten years, a failed edit warring request and a failed criticism of me at the Neutral point of view noticeboard, before that he had put the same criticism of me at the conflict of interest noticeboard. This is continued harassment, four filings? He was recruited by carnivore diet cranks off-site to harass me, the idea is to get me banned and he will not stop until he gets this. He has been on Misplaced Pages less than a week, his last activity before that was from 2018. He came back onto Misplaced Pages, the same day nonsense was posted about me on Reddit by a banned sock-puppet. His complaints about my account are not being done in good faith and he fails to understand what NPOV is.

I have been harassed on and off site by these carnivore diet cranks, funnily enough the vegans have also attacked me for criticizing John A. Mcdougall. I am not a vegan. I have written articles on animal rights people and vegans from a historical perspective, but those are not the only people I have created (I recently created an article on a historical individual, Arnaldo Cantani who recommend a meat diet for diabetes). Those are all deceased historical people and I have not just added vegetarians, I have added all kinds. I am not writing articles to promote these people from any POV. My edits are in accord to neutral policy on Misplaced Pages. Anyone can check my edits. I have criticized food fads, including veganism. I created the list of food faddists which includes many vegans. Check my contributions to the John A. McDougall article for example, and the talk-page. I have no conflict of interest, yes I did join the Wikiproject Animal rights which reads "The aim of this project is to ensure that Misplaced Pages's coverage is not informed by those strong feelings, but by disinterested, neutral, and reliable research." The articles I create are always supported by academic sources. I do not create articles for living people. I am not trying to promote any ideology. I have been attacked by carnivore dieters and vegans and these filing of Vernon are getting tiresome. Lastly Vernon seems to have a poor understanding about nutrition or science. He seems to think it is a violation of Misplaced Pages NPOV policy to call the carnivore diet a fad diet. This is despite the fact it is a fad diet that has been heavily criticized by dieticians and physicians, as potentially dangerous to health. We do not give equal weight to pseudoscientific diets on Misplaced Pages. There is scientific evidence to support vegetarianism and many systematic reviews report its health benefits, any dietician would agree. But if you look I have not made any modern health claims about vegetarianism, I only add the history of people who proposed it to Misplaced Pages which is non-controversial. Vernon's claims are totally unfounded about me and I request that this be closed like the others. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:POINTY behavior from User:Stricnina

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

• Started with my reversion of his deletions that incorrectly stated that the statements were unsourced (they were).
• Started discussion in talk page (Talk:Babaylan#Introduction: some statements and the relevance of given sources) saying that my use of primary sources are inappropriate because they didn't have the "keywords" and because they were primary sources. I replied and told him why I used them, and why they should be retained.
• Despite my appeal not to make it personal, and objecting specifically to it, they call me "Dear" in all their responses.
• Started tag-bombing the article for impossible/unrelated requests ("excessive citations"; ""specify", "request quotation", etc.) purportedly to "stimulate improvement".

I've had enough.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have properly explained the use of inline tags in the "reasons" provided in the talk page section of Babaylan. For example, regarding the particular specify tag I have added and then subsequently removed by Obsidian Soul, I have explained in the talk page that the purpose of adding such tag is to harmonize the article with the related Katalonan Wiki article and pave way to inclusion of more sources, including the Fluckiger source which makes distinctions between katalonan, babaylan, maganito, etc., which apparently the article Babaylan failed to address. Also, I have sufficiently explained my reasons regarding the unnecessary use of primary sources when secondary sources were already provided in the Wiki article itself, as I have explained in the talk page. About the use of "dear", well... it's not used maliciously, I have used dear many times, even in my own talk page, to several fellow Wiki editors. Stricnina (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, regarding the "excessive citations" tag I have added, I have added it in the spirit of Misplaced Pages policy regarding citation overkill, which clearly states that "two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided; if four or more are needed, consider bundling (merging) the citations.". Also, citation overkill makes the verification a hard process to do, and as the policy itself states, two or three sources are enough. As to most of the inline tags I have added, I have provided reasons of adding them, which I believe are valid concerns and not just for the sake of being WP:POINTY. Stricnina (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Re-reading Obsidian Soul's replies like this, said editor appears to be taking my interventions in the Babaylan article as direct personal attacks against them. I repeat, the use of "dear" is not an insult. I have addressed many editors in that way, even in my own talk page. This non-assumption of good faith is ruining any attempt at collaboration with this particular editor and possibly reaching any kind of consensus. Stricnina (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you miss this part: "Babaylan (also balian or katalonan, among many other names) were shamans of the various ethnic groups of the pre-colonial Philippine islands"? Or this entire section: Babaylan#Terminology? The article is a general overview of the shamans in precolonial Philippines, not the shamans of a particular ethnic group (like in Katalonan). "Babaylan" is used as the title since it is the most widely used among most ethnic groups and the most recognizable term when referring to Philippine shamans.

I've linked WP:DRIVEBY in my very first response when you added a highly unnecessary large "more citations needed" tag at the top of the article after removing two sources out of 78. And you went ahead and did more of it anyway. None of them are constructive, and none are related to our discussion in the talk page. You seemed to be adding them just out of spite. If you think there's a problem, fix it. The statement you tagged with "excessive" for instance, has a lot of sources because that is a very controversial part of the article that kept getting removed. I'm not even sure if I was the one who added those references. You could have fixed that easily by bundling the single-use references. The statements you tagged with more citations needed are sourced to the next nearest reference or the end of the paragraph. And so on. These aren't "valid" tags. This is literally WP:OVERTAGGING.

Having you add more and more tags while we are still in the talk page is extremely infuriating. No I am not WP:OWNing the article. But I did write most of it two years ago, so it falls on me to answer your requests for verification since I was the one who added them (and some of the sources aren't even accessible anymore). It would have been fine if it was reasonable like your initial removal of the meaning of *balian per Blust & Trussel (since the url doesn't directly link to the *balian page). But when you start questioning every single reference you can find and expect me to run around providing you with direct quotations (or worse - list ALL the ethnic groups with shamans), that is not WP:AGF. Especially since as you yourself said, you aren't even disputing the actual statements, you just want exact "keywords" or "direct quotes" (at the same time contradicting yourself by saying "I should reword the statement quoted", which is exactly what I did in the first place). You are not helping. And you know damn well you aren't.

I admit I may be mistaken in your use of "Dear". I simply do not like being addressed that way, and made it clear I don't. I assumed you were being sarcastic by continuing to use it. Nevertheless, stop saying it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

By reading your replies, it appears you don't even know what I am even trying to say. I don't want to explain myself again, I believe my explanations above and in the talk page are sufficient. I have tried and I myself am continuing to try to resolve possible issues I am seeing there, however that is becoming impossible as any contributions that I have added there are interpreted as personal attacks by you, which is a sign that you are not assuming good faith anymore and that you are even owning the article itself. Even the few tags that I have added unrelated to the dispute that we had in the talk page, complete with reasons as to why I have added them, are just being interpreted as WP:OVERTAGGING and as being done "out of spite" (Obsidian Soul's own words), without directly addressing the main issues that needs to be addressed. It appears that at this point, no one else will be editing that article other than you since any attempt at collaboration is now being ruined by your personal whims and malicious interpretations that are completely unfounded. Stricnina (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Like your most recent change? Despite what I said above? Despite the fact that the entire article clearly talks about Philippine shamans as a whole, not merely the Visayan ones? And you're the one accusing me of not listening to your explanations?

You don't "resolve possible issues" with tags. Tags are for identifying issues that you can't fix. And yes, the fact that they were unrelated is precisely why I lost my temper. I literally just told you not to overtag, but you went ahead and did it anyway. What's more, as I've explained above, none of them are constructive. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That kind of edit is born out of the presence of sources that make distinctions between babaylans and katalonans made by people working in the academic field. You think I just did that to spite you? Wrong. Read the sources. Interpreting that kind of edit, complete with citations, as "born out of spite" is just you personalizing the issue and attributing it to malice and abandoning assumption of good faith. Your uncollaborative behaviour and malicious interpretations of every contribution that is not yours makes any attempt at improving the article very difficult. Stricnina (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

LOL. The source you are bandying around is McCoy 1982, which I have used ten times in the article. Including to specifically say that baylan and cognates are merely the most common terms, and are not the same terms used by other ethnic groups. For the last time, this is explained very clearly in the article itself. If you read past the first sentence, that is. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I have read the article, and it clearly states that babaylan is a term mostly used in the central Philippines. And most examples of babaylan or baylan listed in that article were from the Visayas region. I don't see why you keep ignoring the point I am making. Have you read the source yourself? Stricnina (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you really not understand the concept of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES and how only a single name (the most common one) can be used in the title? Alipin is an overview of the Philippine precolonial serf class, even though the title is Tagalog. Aswang is an overview of the mythological demon-like creature throughout the Philippines, even though the title is Tagalog. Agimat is an overview of all Philippine talismans and charms, even though the title is Tagalog.

Babaylan is an overview of all Philippine shamans, even though the title is Visayan. Do you understand this? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The name I don't call into dispute, I dispute the definition. Or at least the wording of the heading (of course, any of my attempts at rewording this with sources to strengthen my contributions will just be undone by you). I don't propose changing the name of the article whatsoever. Maybe if you read the provided sources instead of maliciously interpreting all of my comments by calling them as "born out of spite" and abandoning all assumptions of good faith and professionality, then maybe you'll understand. This is also why I am calling the attention of other possible experts to give their input to this discussion by using the "RfC" function of Misplaced Pages. Stricnina (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me repeat that since you clearly still don't understand this is not about the name: do you dispute that the article Babaylan is an overview of all Philippine shamans, even though the title is Visayan?

Your wording refuses to acknowledge that babaylan is being used as a generic term for shamans. And makes it so that it seems like the Tagalog katalonan is special and different "in contrast" to all the other shamans of the dozens of other ethnic groups that by your wording, can just be lumped under "Visayan".

The original wording already makes it clear that babaylan are known by other names in other ethnic groups, including katalonan. The specifics of what those terms are has its own entire section (which also clearly identifies the origin of the term babaylan as Visayan). Do you want to move the list of names to the first sentence as well? After all, if you specifically identify the terms as Visayan and Tagalog, you have to mention the Itneg term, the Maranao term, the Sama term, the Yakan term, the Manobo term, and so on.

I resent your continued allusions that I do not read my sources or use them properly. Sure, just because I wrote most of the article certainly does not make me WP:OWN it. But it also means that I spent a lot of time researching this topic and know when what you are trying to do is simply mistaken. Your "improvements" have now ranged from:

1. Deleting a sourced statement;

2. Deleting sources for no reason other than they were primary sources;

3. Adding a ton of tags for all the things you can nitpick but can't be bothered to check or fix;

4. Disputing the actual lead sentence.

And you expect me not to assume malice? None of that is WP:AGF about my contributions. It's not my article, but the edits you are challenging are mine. Worst of all, you've managed to tick off two of the things that make me lose my temper here in Misplaced Pages: WP:Wikilawyering and WP:Overtagging. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Then I think I understand what the problem here is. No one here is forcing you to do anything. No one here is attacking you directly. Yet my contributions in the Babaylan Wiki page you have interpreted as personal attacks against you, calling my contributions as mere provocations to irritate you while getting worked up at non-malicious words such as "dear", interpreting whatever edits I commit as just committed out of spite. Stop taking things personally as I have never meant to demean your valuable contributions whatsoever. Stricnina (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I have sufficiently presented my reasons as to why those primary sources are redundant (and their use alone there to support the statements as I have quoted in the talk page constitutes original research) and I don't want to repeat myself. You already have the secondary sources at hand, yet this little innocent suggestion you interpreted as malicious personal attack against you? I did not mean to demean your work by challenging the inclusion of those two primary sources. Stricnina (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to give some context to your accusations of WP:OWNERSHIP. I've written 620 mainspace articles for Misplaced Pages in the past 10 years, not counting expansions like this one. You think I monitor every single one of them and revert all the changes when they happen because I WP:OWN them? I am reverting you because I genuinely think your edits either do not improve the article, actively make it worse, or are just so nonsensical they seem malicious to me. Acknowledge that first instead of just accusing me of WP:OWN.

The primary sources thing wasn't what made me angry (and I have answered that with actual quotes in the talk page on why I was using them and how they supported the statement they were attached to). What made me mad was the fact that you kept editing the article and adding the most infuriatingly inane tags even when I specifically told you not to do a WP:DRIVEBY. I could not continue assuming good faith after that. More than that, when I objected to your overtagging, you jumped to another issue and are now challenging the lead sentence based on a pedantic view that babaylan is a Visayan term and should not be applied to Tagalog katalonan. What's next? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are not constructive. I am tired of re-explaining myself why excessive tagging or wrongly using primary sources that do not support the statements aren't allowed under Misplaced Pages policy. And yes, maybe I'll perform more edits in the future when the necessity arises. The article requires improvement like addition of more citations, adding new content, making statements align to the given source, analyzing the source itself as part of the verification process, etc. (What, are those not allowed too?) You are just here getting worked up and picking negative vibes at whatever I do in that Wiki article, interpreting them as insults or provokations. And of course, the disruptive editing. Stricnina (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

But believe it or not, adding tags to nitpick the tiniest of issues (arguably imaginary) is not a friendly thing to do when we are already discussing a different (also arguably imaginary) issue in the talk page. That is borderline edit-warring. I suggest you read WP:DRIVEBY and WP:OVERTAGGING in full to understand why it made me so angry. Especially this very important aspect of it (emphasis mine):

"Placing tags is, in itself, not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself."

I do not like disputes and I have a temper. I am an article creator and I generally avoid the social aspects of Misplaced Pages. This is why.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

That specific portion of the paragraph is formatted in a way that seems like the primary sources are not being used in the proper way, which is to testify that the primary sources themselves "actually, directly say what the article says it does". See WP:PRIMARYCARE and WP:PRIMARY for more details. In other words, if you're going to use the primary sources, mention what the primary sources actually say. The two sources at hand didn't say anything about "how often" the babaylan "are being maligned" and "falsely accused" as a witch or about the second statement regarding whatever their role they have in modern society (those primary sources are from ages ago, how could they be used to fortify statements of the shamans' modern status?). Use secondary sources for these kind of claims, because the policy here is clear: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

How I placed the tags are constructive, as I have always mentioned the rationale in the templates themselves when placing the inline tags and never did I resort to repeated redundant tagging of statements. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're WP:DRIVEBY. I've explained my rationale for adding specific tags below so I'm not repeating myself. Stricnina (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

My POV: Obsidian Soul's disruptive edits

Hi, this is Stricnina and if it is allowed, may you allow me to present my POV, by showing a series of disruptive edits committed by the user Obsidian Soul such as the ff:

• Restoring an edit regarding potential misuse of primary sources that do not support the preceding statement. I have explained my argumentations in the talk page to justify the removal of the superfluous primary sources, proving that they are being used to support statements that are not specifically mentioned in the primary sources themselves, thus violating the policy regarding careful use of primary sources. Yet said disruptive user ignores many points and dismisses the importance of properly using primary sources;
• Unjustified removal of the "excessive citations" tag even when the Misplaced Pages policy is very clear regarding the citation overkill policy and the recommendation that "more than three" sources "should generally be avoided. Obsidian Soul's justification for undoing this edit is basically that "those aren't valid tags" and just constitutes WP:Overtagging. Also, that citation overkill of over seven sources complicates the process of verifying the content that those sources are supposed to support;
• Unjustified removal of the "Specify" tag even when a valid reason has been stated. The only reason he can muster as to why the tag is unnecessary is because "those aren't valid tags" and that particular tag is just there "out of spite". When actually resorting to fixing the disputed statement with relevant sources instead of just leaving a tag deemed not "valid", said user resorted to just undoing it again. Basically, any kind of intervention is being prevented here, even when said contribution is actually sourced;
• Just generally consider any edits in the Babaylan page as personal attacks, calling my contributions as mere provocations while getting worked up at non-malicious words such as "dear", interpreting whatever edits I commit as just committed out of spite. All of this creates an atmosphere that prevents either collaboration or even reaching consensus. It's as if said user is owning the article itself while interpreting the abovementioned edits as personal attacks;

Stricnina (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It's actually amusing to me how you are now adding quotes to the sources I've used. As if it was my fault all along that you couldn't be bothered to read them beforehand. I hope you keep in mind the reason why I didn't use quotes for references that are used multiple times for different statements (you could consider using {{RP}} not full quotes to avoid WP:INLINECLUTTER). But here's the crazy thing: I'm not reverting them, because unlike your earlier edits, these are actually constructive.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The addition of quotes is part of the verification process to ensure the Wiki article Babaylan is following Misplaced Pages standards. It means another contributor (which is me) is trying to understand whether the sources are being used properly and not being used for original research. Just normal procedure that everyone should do, and that is what I am doing. Stricnina (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Must be nice being a "verifier". Did I pass? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Obsidian Soul and Stricnina, you both ought to be ashamed about engaging in this lengthy back-and-forth argument about the intricate details of your trivial content dispute here on a very high visibility page. Don't you both know that ANI does not adjudicate content disputes? I feel like I have wasted my time reading all of this crap but I will give you both some advice. Stop all your passive-aggressive give and take, and return to the article's talk page with a renewed dedication to building consensus, which requires compromise. But I need to speak directly to you, Stricnina, about your inappropriate use of the term of endearment "dear". Stop using that word to fellow editors. Throughout much of the English speaking world, that word is reserved for intimate friends or lovers or spouses, and is condescending, insulting and patronizing when used outside the context of such a relationship. As for you, Obsidian Soul, you have told us repeatedly what you find "extremely infuriating" and what makes you "lose my temper". This reflects very poorly on you. Do not edit Misplaced Pages when you are enraged. Walk away from the keyboard and wash some dishes or do the laundry or read a book or take a long walk when you are in that state of mind, and return to editing only when you have calmed down. Enraged editors get blocked. Be careful. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for this shameful arguing and I am sorry for using "dear" as I am not a native English speaker, and I was always writing messages here to other Wiki editors as though I am writing a formal mail or email, with "Dear" as introductory greeting and with a signature in the end. Sorry for not figuring when not to use "dear" and when to use it. Stricnina (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll take a break. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption by Darkknight2149

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other threads that have persistent hostility from this user:

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

Other particularly disruptive/hostile diffs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments and proposal by Darkknight2149

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

Block review

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

Kiwikiller41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just blocked this account because the user name choice popped up on my watch list. While I'm not that sensitive, the choice didn't seem to fall within the guideline. I could be wrong. Y'all let me know. The first few edits were in the medium disruption range and being executed in rapid succession. That's the reason for the disruptive editing note in the block notice. I've posted to their user talk regarding the disruptive nature of their initial edits and will copy here any response. Tiderolls 17:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would block such a username. And if there's vandalism/disruption . . . . Will check edits for sake of thorouhness.-- Deepfriedokra 17:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• We'll see how they respond about our messages. Even if those were "test edits", they need addressing.-- Deepfriedokra 17:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
• If you use Twinkle, you can select "VAU block".-- Deepfriedokra 17:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

From the edits and the userpage, I suspect that this is a relatively young editor whose username reflects a focus on wargaming rather than anything more sinister. That being said, the username obviously isn't suitable for Misplaced Pages. Given that the account has made only a handful of edits, none of which are to brag about, I think suggesting that the user open a new account if he/she ready to edit constructively after the block expires would make more sense than putting everyone through the "paperwork" of a username change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing "Tax avoidance" sections to many articles; WP:POINT/WP:SOAPBOX?

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

User:OldandGood2876 has been canvassing "Tax avoidance" sections to numerous (at least 50) articles on US companies based on a CNBC article on companies that had effective tax rates of 0 in 2018. While the source itself is fine, this kind of canvassing seems soapboxy to me, but I'd rather bring the matter here before taking further action. OhNoitsJamie 19:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

When you raised these concerns on the user's talk page and discussed the matter with them, what was that user's response? --Jayron32 19:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Rather than answer a question that you already know the answer to, I'll note that user had already reverted someone's else's objections to them, so asking them to stop and/or reverting all of the changes seemed pointless without soliciting additional input from the community. OhNoitsJamie 19:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not the "solicit input from the community" page. This is the "block someone because they won't listen to the community after we already tried that" page. You're looking for WP:DR. The issue is that this should never be the first stop in a process of helping out a situation like this. It should be the absolute last. There are many other options, the first of which should always be "just talk to them". I note that they were hastily blocked, which is always bad, even if they were later unblocked. This didn't all have to happen. --Jayron32 13:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to Misplaced Pages. I can see how these edits can be viewed as canvassing. However, I viewed it as a simple fact that is important enough to bear inclusion in each company's wiki page. I used the 2008 Universal Studios fire as a template of sorts, as most affected music artists have a sentence on their associate pages that reads "On June 25, 2019, The New York Times Magazine listed Sheryl Crow among hundreds of artists whose material was reportedly destroyed in the 2008 Universal fire"; Sheryl Crow#2016–present: Be Myself and Threads, Buddy Holly#Legacy, Bobby Darin#Legacy, Supertramp#2015–present, et al.OldandGood2876 (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Where is the canvassing? I see someone adding the same source to multiple pages, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Calidum 19:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• These edits are inappropriate for two reasons:

1. Their actual addition to these articles seems incorrect. They have been adding the sentence: In December 2019, CNBC listed Goodyear Tire and Rubber along with 378 additional Fortune 500 companies that "paid an effective federal tax rate of 0% or less" as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.. However, the actual fact is that they are one of 91 companies that were identified amongst 379 of the Fortune 500 companies (i.e they did not analyse all 500), who had an effective federal tax rate of 0% in 2018.

2. They are adding this sentence in a new section titled "Tax avoidance". However, this is not tax avoidance. This is simply applying the new tax rules of Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), and getting 0% as the answer. Tax avoidance is what Apple or Google do when they legally abuse the rules in ways that were not indented to reduce tax bills – E.g. the Double Irish system. (Note, tax evasion is where rules are illegally abused, which is very rare for a Fortune 500 company to be found doing). Simply applying the TCJA rules (which are very beneficial for some companies), and getting 0% as your effective tax rate, is neither tax evasion or tax avoidance.

Misplaced Pages is full of crazy notions on corporate taxation (I spend weeks cleaning up Tax haven and Tax inversion), and this is one of them. It is misleading as stated. If they want to add a section saying "Impact of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" and with a sentence saying that "as a result of the TCJA, their Federal Tax bill was 0% in 2018", then that is at least correct. However, I am not sure it will be that notable, as it could be back to 20% next year for many. Britishfinance (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• This needs a bulk rollback - the only source is a listicle at CNBC. Guy (help!) 19:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Blocked 31h to stop the disruption, please engage on the user's talk page. Guy (help!) 20:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. My gut was to rollback all of them and warn the user to stop, but I wanted to get second opinions as to whether or not the community agreed that the additions were inappropriate. ANI may not have been the best venue for soliciting that initial input. OhNoitsJamie 20:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikiproject Tax is largely dormant, so given the scale (and POVness) of what they were doing, ANI was a good way to get input. Britishfinance (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• What's with all the blocking with no prior warning or discussion? User:OldandGood2876 was blocked without ever having been told what they're doing is wrong (except via edit summary of a blocked IP user, which probably led them to believe the stuff they were adding was OK). The IP who originally reverted all the edits (User talk:24.30.32.182) was blocked (and is still blocked) for vandalism, again with no warning. I'm unblocking the IP because these were useful edits, not vandalism, and I'm unblocking OldandGood2876 because we warn/discuss first, not block first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• What's with all this unblocking with no prior warning and no discussion? The blocking admin explained in their post above why the block was administered. FFS Tiderolls 21:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I appreciate JzG's quick intervention, but also agree that the block was perhaps a bit hasty given that User:OldandGood2876 hadn't been given a final warning (or much of any warning), and that User:OldandGood2876 was likely emboldened in their actions by the also-hasty block of the first IP that reverted them. I suggest we close the matter for now and resolve not to do it again, whatever it was we did. OhNoitsJamie 21:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

  Ohnoitsjamie, it's a short "stop here" block. It can be lifted once the risk is gone, no need to ask, just do it. Guy (help!) 23:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am new to Wiki and I was not expecting the rather judgmental responses but such is our society today. I admit the CNBC source was more of a listicle but I believed sufficient given the controversy and backlash the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 created in the U.S. That being said, I would be more than happy to do additional research and list a wealth of sources, as well as reword the statement to remove any hint of WP:SOAPBOX or canvassing. Here are a few to consider:

• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-paying-zero-taxes-trump-law-155944124.html
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-taxes-some-of-americas-biggest-companies-paid-little-to-no-federal-income-tax-last-year/
• https://www.huffpost.com/entry/60-biggest-companies-paid-no-taxes_n_5cb01f75e4b0ffefe3ae2626
• https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/these-91-companies-paid-no-federal-taxes-in-2018/ar-BBY3oL1
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html
• https://itep.org/corporate-tax-avoidance-in-the-first-year-of-the-trump-tax-law/
• https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-tax-billions-profits-no-tax-bill-822428/
• https://money.com/tax-day-2019-amazon-netflix-pay-no-taxes/

Thoughts?OldandGood2876 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Since we don't usually discuss content here, I suggested to OandG on their talk page that they ask at WT:BUSINESS. Does anyone have a better idea where to seek consensus on this? (I also told him I thought consensus was unlikely, FWIW) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You have used a reference above "https://fortune.com/2019/04/11/amazon-starbucks-corporate-tax-avoidance/" but the actual title of the article is "How These Fortune 500 Companies (Legally) Paid $0 In Taxes Last Year" – E.g. this is not "Tax Avoidance", but corporates paying 0% tax as a result of the 2018 TCJA (which they had no control over). Please don't use the term "Tax Avoidance" with this aspect of the TCJA, or create sections in US corporation articles titled "Tax Avoidance" from this. It would be better to go to the TCJA article, and add these refs as a follow-up to the actual effective tax rates that many large US corporations earned in 2018 as a result of the TCJA. However, it is not a "Tax Avoidance" issue. If Trump cut your personal federal taxes to 0%, nobody would be writing articles accusing you of "Tax Avoidance" (maybe of good luck). Britishfinance (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Tax avoidance is the legal practice of minimizing one's tax burden. Tax evasion is the illegal act. That said, the terms are similar enough to the lay reader that adding that header could be seen as intentional sensationalism—and that's a behavioral issue that we need to consider. I agree that WT:BUSINESS is the best forum to get more input on this. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

While this isn't the place for such a discussion I agree with C.Fred. From my experience, tax avoidance is generally used to refer to any legal practice of structuring affairs to minimise someone or something's tax burden. Britishfinance's claim that it only refers to "legally abuse the rules in ways that were not indented to reduce tax bills" is not the way the term is normally used, even if we put aside the obvious typo. For starters one person's abuse is another person's smart practice. And it gets into unnecessary complications of "intended by whom?" It's clear Ireland in part intended their laws to be used that way, even if other countries didn't. It may be true if the US simply changes the US federal personal income tax rate to 0%, people wouldn't be said to be avoiding tax simply because they had such a rate. But if the US kept a federal personal income tax of 35% (let's ignore progressive taxation) but allowed someone to set up a corporation and use this corporation for all personal expenses without a fringe benefits tax, and a person chose to set up a corporation and receive no personal income, this would likely be considered tax avoidance. I find it quite likely that the reason why these companies have a 0% ETR is not simply because of the TCJA but also because they're structure their affairs either now or in the past to ensure they benefit in this way. Note that I don't think the addition of that section is helpful, but if we are going to discuss it we also shouldn't do so in ways which goes against how terms like "tax avoidance" are normally used. Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

We are almost saying the same thing - "tax avoidance" is legal (we both agree), tax evasion is illegal. However, most of the use of the term "tax avoidance" involves using the rules in ways they were not expected to be used (but legally). Nobody calls filling out your tax return correctly "tax avoidance", however, the term "tax avoidance" is commonly used in relation to say what US firms have been doing (legally) for decades. The TCJA is the reason why US corporate tax rates fell to 0% for some in 2018. The TCJA delivers effective federal tax rates in the high single digits for many large US multinationals going forward. Many got rates of 0% in 2018 (and will do in 2019, 2020), because additional reliefs are offered under TCJA for repatriating assets/intellectual property back to the US (which is why US productivity is spiking). The TCJA is profound legislation that has dramatically changed the US tax system. It effectively removes any tax-driven incentive for a US corporation to base themselves outside of the US (many will pay more tax if based in the Cayman Islands than the US under TCJA). Google's repatriation in December was a historic moment (which I need to update many articles for). Britishfinance (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree that it would have been better to talk to the editor about concerns before opening and ANI thread. And the editor should have been given a clear warning 'you need to stop or you will be blocked' and gone against that warning before they were blocked. But whatever, I guess the main issue was resolved even if not in ideal circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Based on Tax avoidance#United States, I thought that was a proper term to use. Sorry. I am a little alarmed at how quickly WP:BITE took place, considering the topic.OldandGood2876 (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Tax avoidance#United States covers the tax schemes that have been legally used by corporates to avoid/lower their US corporate taxes, in a way that the US tax rules were not really meant to offer (e.g. Double Irish, which it mentions). The 0% federal tax rates you have been reporting on above is not "Tax Avoidance". The 91 US companies in question didn't have to do anything to achieve the 0%, they just had to fill out their US tax return under the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. That is their good fortune, and an effect of the TCJA, but not "Tax Avoidance". It seems taxation is not a subject of yours. In such situations, you should seek consensus/ask first, before making large amounts of changes. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

User:OldandGood2876, if you would like to come to my Talk Page, I would be happy to discuss with you how this information could be best used. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Gravedancing by User:Nishidani

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

In a discussion at Talk:Donald Trump peace plan, User:Nishidani took the opportunity to deride a now-banned editor, User:Icewhiz, with the comment Unfortunately I can't act on this patent violation, since Sandstein has banned me from appearing at AE (for calling the permabanned and off-wiki inciter of outing people, Icewhiz a POV warrior). Diff. Italicization added.

The action and comment Nishidani referenced is from last April, where he was banned from AE for the following remark about Icewhiz: Your remark underlined that, in your POV , mainstream scholars and thinkers in Israel who are critical of the occupation are representative of ‘fringes of the Israeli radical left’. This means that anyone with a liberal concern for human rights is a fanatic. That betrays an extremist ethnonational intolerance of dissent in the ranks. Link. Emphasis added.

I have requested that this user redact this comment, which has gone ignored. Nishidani's continuing to beat a dead horse and strike out at a user no longer on WP is a clear violation of WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED and reeks of WP:GRAVEDANCING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow, this is obvious WP:BOOMERANG.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920 and SharabSalam: I've redacted it myself. ミラP 01:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's unfortunate that Nishidani could not be relied on redact their own comment or acknowledge the problem, despite having been warned and sanctioned for the same behavior in the past. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

And I've undone it. It is not your place to decide what's an NPA and this ANI is far from closed, so wait for consensus before you try and act like an admin. Valeince (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: (edit conflict) And Valeince has undone it. ミラP 01:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Miraclepine but I agree. I appreciate the gesture, but the purpose of this thread was to request admin review, not solicit another non-admin to do something I could've done myself. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, the reported user has been notified. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Nishidani, I don't know what your current status is, whether you are under what restrictions and why and for how long, but sheesh, there is just no point in ... what's the word ... I really can't find the word. What you were doing there, please don't do it. Nothing good can come from it. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

User Oknazevad. Again.

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

A little over a month ago, Oknazevad was reported by Locke Cole with regards to his personal attacks in The Mandalorian and Lightsaber articles(1). In addition to the clear edit-warring violation, the reporting user called out Oknazavad on their confrontational behavior and personal attacks on users. As the discussion was very likely going to result in him getting blocked, Oknazevad pledged to avoid the articles and discussions and specifically the behavior that had brought him the EW noticeboard:

• "I am willing to walk away. Frankly, I was getting too hot headed, and drifting into bad territory. I'll stay away from editing both articles for the next couple of monnths (SP). Not all Star Wars articles; the final season of The Clone Wars premiers next month and I'd like to contribute to our coverage of that, and as a life long fan I've had dozens of Star Wars articles on my watchlist for the better part of a decade, so it's ansignificant (sp) area of interest for me, but I can see how that is getting in the way of my editing clear-headedly. A block is unneeded, as they're suooosed (SP) to be preventative not punitive and I pledge not to edit the contentious articles. I remain unhappy with the pattern of edits I sought to undo, but I can also understand that my behavior i shutting collegiality needed for the project, so I just have to live with it. Of course, if I break my pledge a block will be warranted"(2)

Furthermore, Oknazevad posted on the Lightsaber talk page less than 5 hours after that, affirming his intent to not post on the page again.(3)
That pledge seemed to content admin Bbb23, who simply locked the page for 3 days, which led to a consensus and an end to edit-warring. However, less than 5 days later, the user again posted to The Mandalorian.(4).

I am guessing that Oknazevad felt emboldened, as his pledge to allow himself to be blocked wasn't acted upon by anyone. He just began posting in Lightsaber again (5), posting material that he was fully aware was of a contentious and contested nature. Further emboldened, he then made a ranting personal attack against me in The Mandalorian talk page:

• " I'm beginning to find your tendentiousness on this matter rather intellectually dishonest."(5)
• "...you pedantically mischaracterized the sources..."(5)
• "...your entire behavior has been wrongheaded..."(5)
  
  

I submit that User: Oknazevad offered his pledge to stop being contentious and edit-warring in order to avoid what would have likely been a block for edit-warring. I further submit that, he tested the waters to see if anyone would notice if he broke his pledge and block him. When nothing happened, he went back on the attack a little over a month later, possibly assuming that an old pledge made in a now-archived EW complaint was too stale to block him on.
I conclude that User: Oknazevad's participation in Star Wars-related articles has been corrosive in article discussion, and his willingness to edit-war his personal interpretations into articles indicates he has zero intention of stopping. I know blocks are not meant to be punitive, but a person's word is their bond. He has allowed us clear permission to block him should he edit in the articles or return to his attack-laden posts.
I say we follow his wishes. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC) :User:Oknazevad notified of the discussion (6) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I never said I would not post on talk pages. Isn't that what one is supposed to do? Please, the only corrosiveness is his WP:IDHT attitude and unwillingness to concede that continues to engage in WP:POINTy behavior with logical fallacies and misrepresentation of sources. Jack only posted this because I called him out on his intellectually dishonest position on Talk:The Mandalorian. For which I was thanked by other editors, by the way. Frankly I should have made such a post a month ago and not edit warred, but the facts of the issue have changed and the error of Jack's position is now plainly visible. That's why I made the edit at lightsaber today, because it has been a month and things have changed. One cannot continue to allow the article to misrepresent sources as it had. Jack needs to be told plainly to stop lying in article space to prove an erroneous point. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your previous statements are contradicting your current ones. Nothing has changed, either in the article or in your behavior. More's the pity. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oknazevad blocked 31 hours for personal attacks and incivility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't have made this block myself. They're meant to be preventative, not punitive. That there's an RfC in progress on Talk:The_Mandalorian#The_Darksaber_Confirmed suggests that the situation has changed. Mackensen (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As I previously noted Mackensen, the threat of a block was enough to make the user promise to make certain promises and abstain from corrosive behaviors. For most users, they try very hard to make those changes. Others make those promises disingenuously, and wait to run out the clock. Not even a week had passed before the user began editing the articles they said they would not. Not even a month after pledging to adjust their behavior, they were back to unprovoked attacka upon other users.

Blocks are meant to protect the articles, and that includes the collaborative spirit that makes far better articles than corrosive apprehension. Sometimes a user needs that blocking "wake-up call" when the threat of a block fails to promote change. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, a month ago he was edit-warring, which isn't the case here. If he's blocked based on that past promise, about which nature there's some dispute, then I'd say he should be unblocked immediately, but that wasn't the cited justification. I don't know that I would have characterized Oknazevad's posts as a "ranting personal attack"; accusing an editor of tendentious behavior may well be justified by the context. I think it would be useful for NinjaRobotPirate to fully explain why Oknazevad was blocked, if only so that it's clear to him (and everyone else) which comments crossed the line and justified immediate action. I wouldn't normally block an editor in these circumstances unless their participation was actively disrupting the talk page, and that's definitely not the case here, or if their behavior was so over the line that it was ipso facto out of bounds. I'm not seeing that here either, but perhaps I overlooked something. Mackensen (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes other admins will handle situations differently than you. In this case, I think that calling someone a liar and intellectually dishonest is a personal attack. If you disagree, it's not necessary to ping me just to complain that I don't share your opinions and act like you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for clarification in this case, especially given the comments by Jack Sebastian concerning Oknazevad's January declaration. Such feedback is useful for editors so that they know the standards by which they shall be judged going forward, and any administrator has to be ready to provide it. In any event, no, I wouldn't have blocked an editor of sixteen years' standing for characterizing someone's position "intellectually dishonest", nor for saying that they "pedantically mischaracterized" sources, which I guess is what's being equated to calling someone a "liar". I certainly wouldn't expect such a block to stick, given that far worse violations of WP:NPA (if they be that) go by with nary a shrug. I would note that Jack Sebastian has now accused a second editor in that discussion of "making personal attacks", with an implied threat to bring them to this noticeboard, apparently because that editor accused Sebastian of "misrepresenting policies." I have no stake in that discussion, but I would say that this broad interpretation of NPA has the potential to chill discussion and is not of benefit to the article nor the encyclopedia. I've no intention of reversing your block, though I think you should give some thought to unblocking for time served. The message was sent. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe its just me, but just because some NPA goes stale before it can get addressed is not the same as being accepting of it. Precisely no personal attacks should be allowed; its corrosive to collaborative editing, adds a boatload of dramahz to article discussion and makes arriving at a meaningful consensus even harder than it has to be. If I may be so bold as to speculate, the user in question made the pledge to avoid a block for edit-warring and personal attacks (not just on me but others); it worked, and the user was not blocked, but with the caveat from the admin was that if the nonsense continued, further action would be taken. The user either forgot their pledge, depended upon others to forget it or would argue about 'stale complaints' when they resumed editing the articles in contention less than a week later - considerably less than the two months they promised. They even argued here that they didn't say what they provably did say.

I think that Misplaced Pages is a Good Thing, and the best good is accomplished when people can disagree without poisoning the well of good faith. Accusing people of being dishonest accomplished nothing, except for making it more difficult for everyone to get the job done. Yes, a thick skin does go a long way here, but not turning a blind eye to bad behavior goes a lot further. I know admins have a full enough plate without having to deal with toxic folk, but I'd argue that they would have a lot less on their plates were people simply nicer to each other whilst editing, and a lower tolerance for attacking the editor (instead of the edits) be a guiding principle. I don't want people to be blocked; I really don't. But if some people make coming to spend their free time editing in Misplaced Pages simply dreadful, it chases good editors and new editors away. That leaves these toxic people in place - a net detriment to the Wiki. If someone is making personal attacks (to me or someone else), I'm going to first counsel them on being more polite. When that doesn't work, I then warn them that their behavior is unacceptable. If they disregard that then yes, I am going to report them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this linkspamming?

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

74.195.105.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who just got off a one-year block, has been adding Template:TitanTV to a lot of pages. This looks a lot like linkspamming a commercial website, but the template has been around since 2007 and is on many pages. Before I list the template for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion, I want advice: is adding this to hundreds of TV stations legitimate, or is it spamming? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It certainly looks like link spamming. Plus, at least some of the links are dead. It also looks like block evasion, based on that IP's block log, and their early edits to talk pages of sockpuppets of User:Dingbat2007. @Ponyo: seems most likely to know the story here. ST47 (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As a television articles editor (formerly WP:TVS, now merged into WP:TV as a task force), I wanted to revert this myself. These links can easily be changed at will by TitanTV and are 100% American-focused, are easily expirable (a common problem with drive-bys sourcing 'hey this station airs (inane show nobody cares about)' and they shouldn't be a part of any articles; most of all it may be WP:COPYVIO as these links are intended only to be used as custom URLs by stations who pay them money to subscribe to their services (which is why the WTOV link is 404ing; they use Tribune Publishing listings on their website like most of their Sinclair brethren, so the custom link won't work no matter what is tried). @Guy Macon:, I'd support a TfD nom, and I agree some kind of long block is needed, as a short CLUE block will not work. Nate • (chatter) 14:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's obviously the same editor that has been blocked repeatedly for block evasion since 2017. That's one sticky IP! I've reblocked; revert whatever you need to. -- Jezebel's Ponyo 16:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Mrschimpf, that sounds like a great reason to delete that template. Guy (help!) 17:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. See Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 13#Template:TitanTV. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There are nearly a thousand links to that in this run by this IP alone. If the template gets deleted, is there an automated way to remove them or do I have to spend hours doing it manually? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

TFD employs some bots listed at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Holding cell to do cleanup jobs, so if the consensus is to delete they'll get rid of transclusions. Non-template links will need to be removed manually, I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

User:NickOEG, paid editing, and violating copyright

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

On January 20, this editor created Draft:Marc Oswald. It was a copy/paste dump from this source. I tagged the draft for speedy deletion under G12, and so notified this editor. I also placed a {{uw-paid}} notice on his talk page, as well as leaving him some custom written advice regarding copying and pasting content from the OEG website. About an hour later, the draft was deleted.

On February 2, this editor again created Draft:Marc Oswald, once again copying/pasting the material directly from the company's website. I have tagged the draft for deletion under G12 again, and have so notified the editor. If it is deleted again, this will be the third time it has been deleted as a copyright violation, and the fourth overall (the fourth as a stale draft, which EranBot marked as a potential copyright violation as well). The logs of the draft are here.

This editor appears to be in violation of our policy on paid editing despite being warned and is willfully violating our policies on copyrighted materials. I am requesting a block of User:NickOEG and deleting/salting of the draft as a repeated copyright violating attempt. I have notified the editor of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am seeing an odd contribution history for the user. Are they creating a new account every time they add info? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's possible. But, any checkuser would be stale at this point. The issue is this particular account is willfully violating our copyright policies and editing in violation of WP:PAID. The draft has been deleted under G12 and salted, and the account blocked, so I'lll close this. Thanks everyone! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Can we cut the drama short on moving the Coronavirus outbreak article from using "Wuhan coronavirus" to "COVID-19" or similar ?

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

Hello everyone, the topic has been tedious for weeks now, but now that the permanent name has been decided on, could it be made clear that policy does not allow for a problematic name (ie one that enhances xenophobia) when equally or more popular names are available? Current discussion is here. Kind regards, Sean Heron (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S.I've pointed out to the non-admin that closed the discussion early that that decision is highly unlikely to remain standing.

I agree with your intent, but must point out that attempts to cut the drama often result in even more drama than there would otherwise have been. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) A different editor has made the point more clearly and eloquently than me at the move discussion. (the bottommost addition is the comment I'm referring to) Sean Heron (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think that the "no consensus" NAC RM closure at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Requested move 11 February 2020 was fair. It followed the previous "no consensus" close at Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak/Archive 7#Requested move 2 February 2020, which was also fair, and there have been three speedy closes of new RMs in-between. A large number of editors have now considered and expressed an opinion on these RMs (which are all variations of the same RM, namely taking the name "Wuhan" out). I think that we should have a moratorium on RMs for this article for a few weeks, rather than the current repeated RMs, which I don't think are getting anywhere, and are a drain on editing time. Consensus will become much clearer in the months ahead, but it is not there now. Britishfinance (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• It needs to have at least a 14-day quarantine period before making any more RMs. Lugnuts 15:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Per the Talk Page, I count at least 5 RMs in the last 10 days (4 closed and one open), all with variations of removing "Wuhan" from the title. I think the article could do with some kind of enforced break on RMs (particularly ones that involve removing "Wuhan" from the title for a few weeks). Britishfinance (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I kind of assumed people would address the issues put forwards. What's not clear on the current title being a) a highly problematic name, as it is stigmatising and b) nowhere close to being the WP:COMMONNAME? This whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't effectively xenophobic obstructionism (I'm not saying that users opposing the move are xenophobic, but in sum, that's the outcome that is being achieved).

I'd also like to point out that a large proportion of the "not-votes" in the first closure Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak/Archive 7#Requested move 2 February 2020 (which was biased if you ask me, but somewhat acceptable), were for "wait until the official name is decided, which should be in a short period of time". Which returns me to my first point - the official name is out. So tell me again, what are the arguments for the xenophobia encouraging name? (All I can think of is inertia, and the notion of not wanting to appear anti-racists ). Regards, but with little understanding for some of the points put forwards here, Sean Heron (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. !Votes are not assessed by number, but by weight of argument.

Give it a rest. What's the WP:DEADLINE? Why the rant about xenophobia and anti-racists? Some of us are just trying to build an encyclopaedia.

An awful lot of time can be wasted on trying to get pagenames exactly right during ongoing events. It really is a waste of effort. Just make sure above all else that readers can find what they're looking for, and worry about the fine bureaucratic details later. I've seen futile arguments about whether an article about a recent demise should be titled "Death of", "Killing of", "Shooting of" or "Murder of". Just leave the damthing alone until matters are more clear. Narky Blert (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, I agree that !Votes should not be assessed by number. But I'm still to hear the weight of one argument to be made for keeping the current title - and I mean it, I can't think of even one! So that is precisely the problem here! And no - the point is not getting it "exactly right". I don't care whether the article is called "2019-20 outbreak of novel Coronavirus" or "COVID-19 outbreak" or "2019 Coronavirus epidemic" or whatever (at least not that much). But as per WP:COMMONNAME (to quote "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. ") move it away from the one that so obviously is stigmatising (oh - and I'll point out here again - the current name is not the most common one!)

And regarding the ranting - to be honest, its absolutely disgraceful that the article has had its current title for the better part of three weeks already. No deadline? Are you suggesting I pretend that the title a couple hundred thousand people a day read on that article has no effect? Regards Sean Heron (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Still waiting for anyone to actually address the issues I pointed out...

The RM closure yesterday was not done correctly by a non-admin, so just start a WP:MR before the discussion gets archived, and leave it at that. There should really not be any more RM discussion for at least a couple of weeks after that. Hzh (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

P.P.S. Done - I've put the closure up for review. Sean Heron (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

How on earth is the name stigmatizing? It's just the location where the outbreak started. Also, this looks like a content dispute to me. My advice is to just wait until all the drama settles down, and you can discuss a name change then. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

I am in content dispute with highly disruptive page where employees edited the page in past. User:KartikeyaS343 is accusing me for bad faith and calling me POV pusher repeatedly. , , and here is on the complete another page. I have warned him not to use this type of comments but he did these repeatedly. I am not going to argue with the editor who had called my good faith edits as POV pushing but this is blatant violation of WP:NPA policy. If he had problem then he could have put rationale first rather than accusing me as POV pusher on multiple pages. I have corrected myself and my edits as per his explanation in last. But he deserves strong warning for these accusations!-- Harshil 14:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

My first edit on the article was this where I clearly mentioned my rationale in the edit summary. I didn't call him a POV pusher. Then my talk page message was this where I explained the reason again without calling him a POV pusher. This was my last message to him on the talk page. It is good that he corrected himself based on my last explanation and this should prove how frustrating it was to explain a simple LEAD to an experienced editor like him.

I only mentioned "POV pushing" in this edit summary due to my frustration when he accused me with other editors to Yamla without even commenting anything on the content. I would not even call his edits as POV pushing but his contribution and talk page discussions show such patterns in different communal pages.KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

A strong warning is not due in this case, but here's my advise: it probably isn't the most civil thing to describe someone's edits as "pov pushing" (though it is not a personal attack). Still, let's try to aim at more moderate language when it comes to editing that one feels stray from neutrality. Anyway, there ought to have been an attempt at resolution at the user's talk page first — not every slight belongs at ANI. Please aim at an amicable, or at the very least, collegial interaction that is devoid of unnecessary innuendo, but also please try to resolve minor disputes yourself before bringing it to this noticeboard, which is meant for truly intractable disputes. Thanks and good luck. El_C 16:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Rafe87 (again)

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

Rafe87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Personal attacks:

• This is an absurd interpretation of the controversy. Make a greater effort to stay true to the spirit of WP NPOV, WMSR.
• Are we going to keep pretending this user is objective, honest, and is not interested in the improvement of the entry (which he tried to destroy just two weeks ago)?
• Also, a warning that WMSR is lying about The Intercept, the Nation, and perhaps other sources he listed.
• Stop misrepresenting wikipedia policy for once.
• User:MrX is now in the business of deciding, on his own, when a controversy discussed in reliable sources is simply "manufactured controversy" and is therefore not worth mentioning in this entry...None of this is based on Misplaced Pages policies; this is nothing but POV-pushing.
• ou're cherry-picking which reliable sources are reliable enough for you, in violation of Misplaced Pages policy, and choosing to shrug off controversies amply discussed in reliable sources as mere "manufactured outrage", in what is an ad hominem attack either against said media sources or editors here.

Several consecutive 1RR violations (at least 17 by my count):

Previous ANI thread (in which several admins suggested that Rafe be indeffed for engaging in any PAs moving forward, and also suggested a page ban for the article in question):

As a note, this user has previously been blocked twice for 3RR violations, and once for PAs. --WMSR (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside all the other allegations, Rafe87 has blatantly violated 1RR on the article and should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Even without 1RR and 24-hr BRD cycle, 16 reverts in four minutes of another editor's 80 minutes of work without any edit comments or discussion smacks of vandalism. O3000 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems that you have already arrived at a consensus, so defending myself is useless. I don't see how any of the sentences pulled out by the WMSR dude warrants warning, let alone blocking. Saying that another editor's contributions are arbitrary and violate policy is not "trolling", and if it is, then WMSR is guilty of it himself. Do as you please. I take consolation in the fact that I'm not the only one who's up to WMSR's bad faith editing and efforts to shut down discussion on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, which is illustrated not only by his dogmatic, combative, and sophistic writing, but also by his (overruled) attempt to have the article deleted — an effort which would have canceled out much more than 80 minutes of work. Bye, I'm done with this place. — Rafe87 (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would like to add User talk:Objective3000 and MrX are clearly part of the same ideological effort in the entry under discussion, which consists entirely of sabotaging other editors and ban any discussion of media coverage of Sanders other than saying that maybe the media likes him too much. That User talk:Objective3000 is joining forces with WMSR is to be expected, and it wouldn't surprise me if this had been coordinated between the two outside of Misplaced Pages, as many Wikipedians are known for doing, especially those with neocon, pro-Israel views. As you can see, I don't care to convince anyone that I will be nicer to these trolls in the future. I won't. So do as you please. — Rafe87 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Am I allowed to {{rpa}} on this page? --WMSR (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

No, and it's better to leave them anyhow. O3000 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a good example. Rafe87 just accused me of having “neocon, pro-Israel views”. A few months ago I was painfully accused of anti-Semitism and I have been accused of being anti conservative numerous times. Point is, that if you spend your time arguing for NPOV, you will be attacked from both sides of any argument. Let their rants expose their thinking here. O3000 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked Rafe87 for one week for personal attack. El_C 23:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this of concern?

• Special:Permalink/940481835 —— 01:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Some people use their sandboxes for what seems to be fanfiction or live action roleplaying. (For example, administrators recently deleted a series of pages about fictional countries, wars, etc. that were stored on sandboxes. I am hoping that that is what this is, since the date given is 30 years in the future. In any case, though, this is misuse of the sandbox system and should be deleted. Michepman (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the time travelers are getting bold...Well its not constructive, and the IP should have been warned. But the edit was made two days ago, and they haven't followed it up, so not much to be done. I don't see any reason to email it to the emergencies list either, as it just looks like someone writing alternate history for fun. CaptainEek ⚓ 01:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That IP geolocates SUMMIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Probably a kid trolling. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 04:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

GameMaven using Misplaced Pages to promote his books: WP:NOTHERE

GameMaven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – account is being used only for promotional purposes. This editor's only participation appears to be attempts to get mentions of the strategy guides he has authored added to numerous video game articles with links to the Amazon.com page to purchase them., . , , . He made it clear he is the author here after being warned about WP:COI.

After being told he's not supposed to do that, he's hit the talk pages , which is relatively good, but unfortunately this editor hasn't made any edit other than to promote his strategy guides or argue for their inclusion in articles. I have to conclude WP:NOTHERE. Toddst1 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sirlanz and their editing of BLPs

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

Sirlanz (talk · contribs)

On Sirlanz's talk page, I noted the following: After this edit was made to the Rose McGowan article, Sirlanz made this edit. I asked Sirlanz, "In what way do you think it is appropriate to add this pointy WP:Synthesis? And by 'pointy WP:Synthesis,' I mean you (not sources) essentially stating, "But look, everyone, she didn't give Harvey Weinstein the same pass. Hmmm." I told Sirlanz, "And, yes, I reverted both additions. I see that you were blocked by Nick-D just last year for a BLP violation. This latest edit by you further shows your lack of competence editing BLPs."

Sirlanz's response was the following: "First of all, there is no need to get all worked up about this, so relax for starters. Yes, it was pointy - no question about that. What was the point? Balance. If the heroism went in, (and I have no objection to your deleting it altogether), the factual material I provided gave readers the opportunity to make up their minds about its value for themselves. I'd like to see how you frame your suggestion that it was WP:BLP, though. What was not factual? And you are out of line questioning my competence. Don't make this personal."

They later started this section at Talk:Rose McGowan, arguing that McGowan's comments about Kobe Bryant are controversial regardless of if text in sources have called them controversial and that we should therefore retain the material in the "Controversies" section of the Rose McGowan article. I stated, "We do not decide what a controversy is ourselves. We go by whether or not WP:Reliable sources have called something a controversy. It's that simple."

And so I have to ask: Why should Sirlanz be allowed to continue to edit BLPs? Can we get some admin eyes on this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit, basically stating that McGowan had no response to a report from Weinstein, has no place on her bio. First, it's unnecessary to state that someone had no response (people don't respond to many things in life) and, plus, this was a recent comment and who knows if she may choose to comment on it in the future. This was a wise revert. I think this is an unusual focus for an editor, looking for controversial statements to make about a living person, and should be watched. Liz 06:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just blocked Sirlanz for a week for making stuff up about a living person. They may be eligible for a discretionary sanction given that they have been previously blocked for BLP violations, but I struggle to understand how the DS system works and will leave this for another admin. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have strong concerns about Sirlanz continioun to edit BLPs. The problems highlighted by Flyer22 Frozen were enough, yet their unblock requests raise even more doubts. That said, I don't see that any discretionary sanctions sanctions are possible at this time. I assume the alert given just before the block (with no other edits since the alert other than the unblock requests) was how Sirlanz became aware of the BLP DS regime. And while their unblock requests are concerning, I question if they are enough for a DS sanction. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sirlanz' editing history and the current clueless unblock requests make it evident, to me, that they should not be touching BLPs once the block expires. -- Jezebel's Ponyo 16:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I obviously feel that Sirlanz shouldn't be editing BLPs, Ponyo. If editors feel that it's too early to propose a topic ban, though, I guess WP:ROPE applies. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

But then again, WP:ROPE states in its introduction, "If they are pleading to be unblocked and swearing up and down that they understand and won't repeat whatever it was that got them blocked, rather than arguing the finer points of the original block or demanding further explanation, it may be better to just unblock them and make it clear that this is their last chance." Sirlanz isn't stating anything about understanding or that they won't do something like this again. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've just extended Sirlanz's block to indefinte duration as comments they've made on their talk page since the block was imposed indicate that they will continue this kind of conduct after the block expires. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is resolved now with the indef. Silanz will either need to demonstrate commitment to respect BLP policy to convince an admin for an unblock, or maybe will be subject to a topic-ban as an unblock condition. I should clarify in case there was some confusion I had no objection to a topic-ban. I just felt it would need to come about via a community process rather than DS given the alert was only given very recently. In fact I was thinking of proposing one if nothing further happened. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:141.161.133.29

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

This user has shown a persistent pattern of POV editing using unsourced allegations, weasel words, original research, misrepresentation and deletion of sourced content with weak or no justification. The user has been given an abundance of warnings but has not shown any acknowledgement of them and continues to make POV edits that are unhelpful, go against article consensus and appear to me and other editors to advance a political agenda.

Here is a collection of problematic edits by this user:

• Michel Foucault – 02:30, 26 January 2020
• Camillo Berneri – 12:30, 26 January 2020
• Left Democratic Front (Kerala) – 13:08, 27 January 2020
• Socialist Party of Albania – 15:17, 27 January 2020
• Bunkers in Albania – 15:33, 27 January 2020
• Religion in Albania – 16:51, 27 January 2020
• Sino-Albanian split – 03:21, 28 January 2020
• Cayman Democratic Party – 03:12, 29 January 2020
• Suharto – 01:29, 30 January 2020
• Sukarno – 01:49, 30 January 2020
• Embedded liberalism – 03:09, 30 January 2020
• Fred C. Koch – 03:16, 2 February 2020
• Winfield Scott Hancock – 17:24, 2 February 2020
• Walt Whitman Rostow – 14:49, 4 February 2020
• Alberta Non-Partisan League – 04:02, 6 February 2020
• Cambodian People's Party – 23:12, 6 February 2020
• Keith Ellison – 03:43, 8 February 2020
• Party for Freedom – 18:06, 8 February 2020
• Freedom Party of Austria – 18:24, 8 February 2020
• Alliance for the Future of Austria – 18:38, 8 February 2020
• Podemos Perú – 15:55, 9 February 2020
• Alliance for Progress (Peru) – 15:55, 9 February 2020
• National Solidarity Party (Peru) – 15:56, 9 February 2020
• Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) – 01:40, 12 February 2020
• Alexander Swettenham – 12:45, 13 February 2020

Tdc42 (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, this is puzzling. Maybe a potential block is in order? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP user for two weeks for long-term disruptive editing and despite the multiple warnings left on their user talk page. ~Oshwah~ 11:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User 199.66.69.88 accusing multiple people as disruptive

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

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

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

xinbenlv 05:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Thank you! I left a message there User_talk:199.66.69.88#Addressing_issue and let's see how it goes. xinbenlv 06:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Regice2020: If I read between your lines correctly, are you suggesting there could be a possible WP:SOCK of this user? xinbenlv 06:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see no need to address spurious accusations on the terms of such an accuser. By what right should any of you control the direction of this discussion?Perhaps you find it amusing that I've leveled complaints at the other participants to this thread, but the most basic look at those participants will show that everyone who has participated in this thread (with one exception, against whom I naturally have no complaint) has been a participant in the discussions at the talk page (and specifically those who have so desperately demanded a pagemove). Nobody has had a chance to participate, and as has been the modus operandi of the talk page since the "no consensus" RM, it has been filibustered by those in favor of a pagemove. None of you has given a chance to any ANI participant—administrator or otherwise—to really review this case, which in my experience is par for the course.At its core, this is a content dispute that those who have brought this complaint seek to cast as a behavioral dispute. Those experienced in ANI dealings will recognize this as a very common stratagem. I urge you to look beyond the claims made above by xinbenlv, Regice2020, and Sleath56, who have not provided a single diff of the claimed misconduct on my part on the talk page. Look at the diffs I've provided. Thank you. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Oh by the way,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One, the timing between the RMs, and

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

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

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

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

My thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An extremely fair response and assessment. I endorse your post. I maintain that any disruption I may have caused is purely incidental and harmless. The only thing they might rightly criticize is my immediate move to close one discussion (though I stand by my statement that the anti-name change views were being misrepresented in that table). But I rightly disengaged from that discussion to permit other participation. I have not filibustered that (or any) discussion, and I challenge anybody to give diffs showing misconduct on my part (I note that few if any have been posted despite the claims of OP and his associates).The other complaint, that my comment at the MRV “misinterpreted” the nominator’s response, is pretty spurious. He said, I now agree that simply reopening the RM will likely not lead anywhere. (diff) By agreeing that relisting or overturning is not the answer, he had conceded that there was no outcome for MRV to reach other than endorsing. The remainder of his comment was dedicated to “other things that could be done” in a future RM, which is entirely outside the purpose of MRV. It’s like talking about page cleanup in an AFD: It belongs on the talk page. And in fact, he promised just that in his edit summary! There was nothing left to review about the RM under discussion. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

199.66.69.88 may have connections with Wired Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Koinaki

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

Possible legal threat in edit summary here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon, No this is not a legal threat. Not every phrase that has the word "legal" in it is a legal threat. This is one such example. They are trying to say that since they belong to the tribe in question and are their legal representatives they have the right to edit the article in the way they seem fit. Please feel free to template them about using WP:RS--DBigXrayᗙ 07:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I used the "article ownership" template to remind them that this is a wiki as well. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You did not tell them that you started this thread, however. Please do that – it's mandatory. --bonadea contributions talk 07:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yep, not a legal threat. I count at least three potential issues in their edit/summary (RS, COI, ownership) but those should be talked over, as opposed to the suitable action in the case of a legal threat. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. this does not constitute a violation of NLT. ~Oshwah~ 11:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Алексей Густов and linking

Hi there. I have been repeatedly trying to tell Алексей Густов (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi) that linking multiple times in an article is not acceptable and they have continued to cite reasons such as it was "added/edited by much more competetive curling-En-Wiki-people than me". Examples of warning, in chronological order are: , (I do apologies, this wasn't "disruptive editing" and I shouldn't have used this template), , , .

Please note that I stated that it was their "last chance before I take action" in the final link. The action that prompted me to take this to ANI was the creation of Jørgen Myran which occurred after the final warning was sent. I believe that this user's inability to follow MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:REPEATLINK require action. Also, it appears as if they know they are doing something wrong (they never say that I am wrong, suggesting they have admitted this; they also say "it was my mistake" at ), appearing to simply pass it off as other user's fault. I don't understand why a user knows that something they are doing is wrong and yet continue to do it. Either they don't understand/agree or are here in bad faith. I hope it's the former. Regards, Willbb234 (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This issue is with repeating links in team lists, right? WP:REPEATLINK allows an exception in these cases: "Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader." I mean, we should probably have the debate as to whether an exception should be had for team lists (I think it does aid the reader, especially if a teammate leaves a team and comes back after a few seasons) before we clamp down on users who are just following precedence. Anyway, I've been following the user in question's editing for quite some time, and I don't detect any maliciousness in any of his editing. His English isn't the best, so there's likely just a miscommunication. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric serving as proxy for banned user

It appears Winged Blades of Godric is serving as a proxy for banned user PunjabCinema07.

Background: In 2013 a domestic violence complain was made against Gurbaksh Chahal, a software entrepreneur. Police investigating the report obtained a 30-minute surveillance camera video tape of Chahal kicking and punching his girlfriend 117 times. He threatened to kill her four times and smothered her for ten minutes with a pillow. Chahal was charged with 47 felony counts. However, a judge ruled that the video was inadmissible because the police seized it improperly. The DA agreed to reduce the 47 felony charges to two misdemeanors, to which Chahal pleaded guilty. He received probation, 25 hours of community service, a $500 fine, and an order to take a 52-week domestic violence class.

In 2014, a second woman reported that Chahal had assaulted her. This time, the DA charged Chahal with violating his probation, and because it wasn’t a criminal case but a probation violation hearing, the DA was able to submit the video tape to the court. The judge sentence Chahal to 6 months in jail for violating his probation, and after an appeal he served the six months starting in 2018.

In the course of Chahal’s very public run-ins with the law, two software companies he started, RadiumOne and Gravity4, fired him from his position as CEO.

Article white-wash: For several years there has been a concerted effort to white-wash Gurbaksh Chahal on Misplaced Pages. Chahal is a wealthy software entrepreneur and soft-pedaling his past as a domestic abuser is in his self-interest. According to a 2014 newspaper article (“As an SF Internet Tycoon Admits to Domestic Violence, a Battle Continues on His Misplaced Pages Page) he paid a PR firm to edit to edit the Misplaced Pages article about him.

The article has been the subject of seven ANI threads.

Over the years administrators have had to protect or semi-protect the Gurbaksh Chahal article many, many times.

Here is a partial list of editors who were permanently blocked from Misplaced Pages for attempting to soft-pedal or remove descriptions of Gurbaksh Chahal’s violent past from the article about him and articles about his companies (RadiumOne and Gravity4): Ekcpr, JusticeBro, Jui89, 115.134.82.11, Joydeep Ghosh, Hardeep Pathak, Meeanaya

Recent activity: Most recently the article came under attack from PunjabCinema07 and his sockpuppets. (On 27 January, the day before he was permanently banned, PunjabCinema07 threatened me. “Walls are closing in on your operation,” he wrote among other things. Unfortunately, the Internet being what is, this wasn’t the first time a man threatened me online, and I never really know how seriously to take these threats.)

On January 27 the page was protected and made available only to users with extended confirmed rights.

At that point, Winged Blades of Godric began to make numerous edits to the article, all of them extolling Gurbaksh Chahal’s career as an entrepreneur, his awards, and his business prowess. Like the white-washers who came before him, he did his best to bury Chahal’s past as a domestic abuser under numerous laudatory descriptions of his achievements. Winged Blades put the words “Chahal maintains innocence” in the lede and moved material about his domestic violence to a subhead of his “Personal life.” Descriptions of Chahal being fired from his companies were scrubbed from the Gurbaksh Chahal article.

It appears Winged Blades of Godric is serving as a proxy for banned editor PunjabCinema07. Here is my evidence:

• On 3 February banned user Barrackpore2020 (a sockpuppet of PunjabCinema07) wrote a laundry list of suggestions for the Gurbaksh Chahal article on Winged Blades’ Talk page. Minutes later Praxidicae reverted the entry, but nevertheless, every single one of the editorial changes Barrackpore2020 asked for got put in the article -- put there by Winged Blades of Godric. In other words, Winged Blades of Godric served as a backchannel to enter edits for a notorious sockpuppet.
• On 23 January Winged Blades wiped clean the Gravity4 article with a redirect. He did this without consulting editors first. He did this because the article had some bad things to say about Gurbaksh Chahal, the founder of Gravity4: "The lawsuit alleges that, during her job interview, the plaintiff was questioned about her thoughts on Gurbaksh Chahal's criminal history of domestic violence, and that the conference room where the interview took place was bugged with cameras and microphones so that Chahal could watch the interview."
• On 4 February Winged Blades wiped clean the RadiumOne article with a redirect. He did this, once again, to spare Gurbaksh Chahal. From the RadiumOne article: "After CEO Gurbaksh Chahal pleaded guilty to domestic violence battery on April 23, 2014, there were calls for him to step down as CEO. He was fired on April 27."
• On Feb 4 User 49.130.130.57 from his Talk page pinged the following to Winged Blades of Godric: "Winged Blades of Godric, let me know when I should see your updates changes from the email you sent earlier today. You already did RB, now do the other." RB refers to Rubina Bajwa, Chahal's girlfriend. What is "the other"? If you look at 49.130.130.57's contributions, you will see that he/she attempted to scrub Chahal's criminal activity and firing from the RadiumOne article.

It’s clear to me that Winged Blades of Godric is getting marching orders from PunjabCinema07 and user 49.130.130.57. Who are these people? I have asked Winged Blades to explain on my Talk page and on the Gurbaksh Chahal Talk page. I haven’t heard peep.

I believe Winged Blades of Godric is not acting in good faith. He is the latest in a long line of white-washers endeavoring to scrub the Gurbaksh Chahal article of as many traces of his domestic violence history as possible.

Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that WBG has been partially blocked from the Gurbaksh Chahal and Radium One pages by Deepfriedokra. I'm well acquainted with this article's history of shenanigans and most of the POV-pushers have been relative newbies who shared a fondness for making empty threats and quoting policies they didn't understand. None of these individuals seemed to know how Misplaced Pages worked, nor were they particularly overburdened in the cranium. It would be decidedly against the mold for a long-term, competent editor like WBG to be under the influence of Chahal's minions. But while I certainly don't want to believe that WBG is guilty of any kind of wrongdoing, the evidence above is somewhat concerning and needs to be addressed. Lepricavark (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm on a Wikibreak and only came 'cause of the message on my talk page. I regretfully blocked WBG from editing three Chahal related articles until his can be sorted. Please don't draw any unwarranted conclusions. Please examine everything, including my block decision. Any admin should feel to undo or adjust if they feel it's neded. I will be increasingly busy in real life until about Tuesday, and may not respond quickly. The page and it's history are a horror show. (As well as the talk page. You get the full savor sifting through that history) It's become a battleground between the whitewashers and those who place too much emphasis on the domestic violence issue. Trouble is, if you look through reverted edits on WBG's talk page, you will see instructions. It looks to me as if those instructions have been carried out. Please see This earlier ANI thread and this one for more context. @Primefac: in case they wish to comment Thanks Y'all.-- Deepfriedokra 02:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. @Chisme: I appreciate you left a note for me in response to my question on WBG's talk page.
  Having looked a little more into the case since then, I really don't agree with how Deepfriedokra has handled the dispute between you two. His response has not de-escalated the situation between two good faith editors. He gave WBG a partial block citing your evidence, yet he also suggested you are not objective in this and also making the page a hatchet job. Here's my take:
  WBG's actions, to me, suggest that he wasn't being particularly skeptical of the motivations of the editors who made those suggestions. He also has his biases, but they aren't the ones you think. WBG has previously maintained the companies are not notable, and his redirecting the pages seems to be an expression of that. That is to say nothing of his edits which remove a lot of the puffery present on that page. His stated goal has been to maintain neutrality in tone for the article, and the pro-Chahal meatpuppets seem to have latched onto that if you ask me.
  Is this a case of UPE? Well, no since WBG wouldn't need to get "marching orders" onwiki if that was the case. Proxying? I don't think that is what happened here either. WBG had independent reasons to make the edits in question regardless if he knew they were coming from PunjabCinema07 or not.
  Regardless, you're really not assuming bad faith here. Chahal seems to have paid literally anyone he could for a better article. You are coming from a perspective of having fought these goons forever now. Despite the bans in place, the article isn't exactly where it should be and the disruption has yet to stop. WBG redirecting two related articles seems mad fish-y, and the fact the same meatpuppets seem to support his efforts is probably infuriating. However, take them away and this becomes just a genuine content dispute over how to cover Gurbaksh Chahal.
  There's more to it if you look at the whole picture. (edit conflict × 2) –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  I hope that doesn't sound like a lot of nothing, because it is something. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 03:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  For someone who (as best I recall) hasn't had any prior involvement with the article, you've constructed a very perceptive summary of the situation. Lepricavark (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: For what it's worth, Winged Blades of Godric accused the user PunjabCinema07 of being an undisclosed paid editor and pushed for this user to be blocked. Is it likely that a meat puppet or sock puppet would actually advocate for a ban of someone they were collaborating with? To me, that doesn't sound right; if WBG and PunjabCinema were in opposition to each other as recently as January 20, and were not cooperating with each other in an unethical way. It sounds from the history that this topic is intensely polarizing -- it's possible that WBG and PunjabCinema07 simply agree on content and that there isn't actual proxye diting going on. We can't rule it out though of course so it is worth hearing from what WBG has to say before assuming anything either way. Michepman (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Urgency makes sense if they were editing the other way, BLP and all. But how is an apparent whitewashing a block first sort later offence, that too for an editor with a clean block log? Did WBG stop responding to talk pages and start edit warring? Whatever happened to talking- "Hey WBG, serious concerns have been raised about your editing the following topics, please would you refrain from editing those articles until these concerns are addressed"? Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  @Usedtobecool: Honestly, that is the most concerning aspect of this entire situation if you ask me.
  Seriously, here is the reason this ANI report had to get filed. Also take a look at this justification.
  I sincerely suggest someone files a report on WP:AN next Tuesday about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 04:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• To some extent, I agree the article block was a bit much. The level of back and forth probably justifies full protection for a while to get things settled on the talk page. My suggestion would be to unblock WBG and fully protect the three articles. Ravensfire (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• This is weird.Weeks back, DeepfriedOkra (who blocked me) asserted that he found the entire personal life/domestic-violence section tabloidesque and deemed that it shall be massively trimmed and/or removed. He also wrote that If anyone wants to nominate for AfD, I thing it improve the encyclopedia. Regrettably, I see that deleting Chahal himself is not considered as a back-handed way of whitewashing Chahal. But, redirecting his company-pages are.I have indeed installed some of the edits (requested by his socks); there is no policy forbidding such acts and few days back, DeepFriedOkra explicitly noted The issue though is not Mr Chahal or the integrity of his minions. It is about our own integrity. If RS can be found to support the awards, or other content favorable to Mr Chahal, it would be best to have it.There is no edit-warring on the article (whatsoever) and I see that TSD has posted some kind of warning at Chisme's t/p (which was supported by DeepFriedOkra and Coffee, as well). Does the OP have clean hands? He argues that I moved DV section under personal life as a sign of whitewashing but carefully omits the t/p consensus in my favor. Also, I did not start editing the article after ECP was installed; much prior to that. Further, nothing about his firing has been scrubbed except that Chahal was not fired from Gravity4 contrary to Chisme's claims.I take a harsh interpretation of NCORP (as my AfD votes in domain of corporate-articles across the years will exhibit, I almost-always !vote delete/redirect) and have often redirected company articles, at unilateral discretion. The day I redirected Gravity4 (which has been since attributed a nefarious motive by Chisme) was the same day when I removed a bunch of awards from Chahal's bio as PR spam. ∯WBG 07:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• No comment on the block, but clearly an inferior option to just have asked WBG to not edit any of the articles. I will remove the block (as Okra stated any administrator can) as of now with the precondition that Winged Blades of Godric make no more edits to the any articles related to Gurbaksh Chahal, this is not an unblock condition but violating this voluntary restriction will definitely make it worse when (not if) this goes to ArbCom. A pre-emptive block should not be made per alleged white-washing, either this should be investigated first and approved by the community or it must come from ArbCom, not the other way around. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock, but I don't see the need to escalate this to an Arbcom case. I can see DFO's perspective in applying a partial block in a fast-moving situation but it strikes me as a bit of a panic move, although I think DFO recognized that possibility and thus commendably noted multiple times that any admin can unblock or modify the block. Unblocking is the right move because there is no risk of disruption to the article that we need a block to prevent. I commend WBG on a very level-headed response and explanation. I'm not seeing a problem with the edits put forward here, so I don't really see a need for a voluntary restriction on WBG's part, and the accusation of proxying doesn't make sense to me. If I wanted an editor to proxy for me, probably the worst way to go about it would be to make a sock and post instructions on the public talk page of an editor who was calling for me to be blocked. This seems to me to be one of those, "everybody go back to building an encyclopedia" situations. – Levivich 08:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  This thread is more about investigating wrongdoing in WBG's part than about the block (note that WBG did not state anything about the block itself). It is usually best when an editor stays away from the areas of dispute they have been blocked for, I cannot see any good come of WBG editing these articles other than to further Chisme's evidence, which I do not see as scant, but not as blockworthy either (yet). --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Winged Blades of Godric:Thanks for ani response and apologies for the trouble. Unblocked. Thanks and apologies to everyone in this thread. Hopefully, y'all can get this topic (Chahal) sifted. Gonna take some tylenol and return to bed. Next time I take a Wikibreak, I won't respond to messages on my talk. We'll all be better off. @QEDK: Deepfriedokra. Deepfriedokra is the name. :)-- Deepfriedokra   11:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Winged Blades of Godric I'm entirely uninvolved in this, and have always had a high regard for you as an editor. Your comment above addresses many of the concerns, but it doesn't touch on the messages in your talk page history that have been characterised as 'instructions'. Would you care to comment on them? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Chahal (or AGFing, someone who pretends to be him) and his socks have been long trying to recruit editors by mailing them content-instructions, threats absent their implementation and all that. This is not exactly a secret. There have been attempted outings of involved editors and double-crossing, as well. The part. message referred to was a slight variant of a miscellaneous set of demands that have been often posted on the article-t/p (and has been since fwd-ed to appropriate forums). I have also noted of its existence when I accepted Draft:Rubina Bajwa over the corresponding t/p (for reasons of transparency) and had pointed Chisme to the same, at Chahal's t/p (when queried by him, days back); CC has since noted of my reply. But Chisme (for some unknown reasons) chose to remain silent and now mention that I had evaded his queries, whose timing might be concerning, given others have already raised a multitude of issues about his own editing of a BLP. ∯WBG 11:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, thanks, I think that makes it clearer for those who aren't familiar with the situation. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• To clarify, only the blocking admin has characterised those messages as "instructions". And the blocking admin has also noted that If RS can be found to support the awards, or other content favorable to Mr Chahal, it would be best to have it. So yes, WBG has commented on those so-called instructions. Not that he had to: this entire thread is nonsense. ——SN54129 11:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I sorta understand why there's so much concern. It's clear that the article has a long and ongoing history of paid editing. While fixing something in the lead, I noticed another problem and posted about it on the talk page. I assume in part because what I suggested was favourable to Chahal, this meant a completely "new" editor posted on my talk page (and then followed this up with 10 minor edits). I reported them to SPI and socking was confirmed. However, I see no reason to think WBoG is doing anything other than trying to improve the article. As always editors may disagree with their desired changes, this can be discussed and consensus reached by non paid editors. We shouldn't let an understandable disdain of the shenanigans of paid editors stop us from using normal processes to improve the article. And yes, sometimes this will be in ways that Chahal probably likes, but that doesn't matter to us. (The stupidity of paid editing is demonstrated by the fact that I was, AFAIK, the first one to raise the point that we were saying something that wasn't really correct according to the sources.) Remember also this is a BLP, and we have to be fair to all living people we write about, including Chahal. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I am puzzled by edits like this one by TheSandDoctor. The principle, that reverted content might need to be discussed, is fine, but why that edit needed to be reverted other than to get a verified fact out of the first sentence of a paragraph, that is not clear to me. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:TheSandDoctor should use the talk page more often. Read=for the first time. ——SN54129 14:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Futhark1988 and User:Kruci are edit warriors with no regard for WP:V

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

Hello. Yesterday I reported them both for sockpuppetry (here), but who knows how long processing that report will take. Let me quote it for you:

"Diffs:

• Open-mid front unrounded vowel: , , , , (this one breaks WP:3RR)
• Near-open front unrounded vowel: ,

"Kruci" seems to have been created specifically to avoid WP:3RR accusations towards Futhark1988. The latter account kept reinserting Hungarian to the table in open-mid front unrounded vowel. They kept sourcing that entry with Szende (1994) who shows the vowel as near-open on the vowel chart, all the while claiming that Szende is not a reputable source (!). They also said in one of the reverts that Anyone with an ear can hear that it is incorrect. Instead of hiding behind extremely out-dated sources one should simply listen to how people actually speak. Well, "nem" is pronounced with a near-open vowel on about half of the recordings on Forvo. Their response to that? "Most of the recordings are pronounced by machines." They also vandalized my user page."

Basically, both of them have been edit warring on open-mid front unrounded vowel. IMO, Kruci is obviously Futhark, per WP:DUCK. They have no regard for WP:V (WP:BURDEN included) and WP:OR and have not provided a single source that would challenge Szende (1994). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

IP persistent unsourced edits

Despite four warnings, and requests for talk page discussion, 2600:1700:8440:42B0:6158:846F:F726:4979 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and several other IPs from the range 2600:1700:8440:42B0::/64, have repeatedly made changes to sourced population figures in People of the Dominican Republic without providing a source, and which blatantly contradict the existing reliable sources: , , , , , . The intent seems to be to increase the number of white people and discount the number of black people. I've been reverting them, but I don't want to be seen as edit warring.

At one point they did replace an existing source (CIA World Fact Book) with another source (World Atlas): but the figures are from a 1960 census. They are not the same figures as they've been using in the other edits, which are inconsistent and look to be made-up.

Request for discussion on article talk page: Talk:People of the Dominican Republic#Population ethnicity statistics

User talk page warnings about unsourced changes: , , ,

--IamNotU (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• I dropped a 31-hour block on the range; let's see if that makes them change their mind and lessens disruption. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully they'll take notice. I'll report back if they keep it up. --IamNotU (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Nazi block needed

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

His only edits have been to argue that qualifying Hitler's actions as evil in the lead to Adolf Hitler is wrong, combined with some edits painting Stalin as just as anti-semitic as Hitler because, you know, the communists need are evil too. His most recent edit argues for the fringe view that Winston Churchill was really responsible for the Holocaust by not making peace with Hitler earlier.

I'd ordinarily block, but I just got involved in the discussion yesterday to argue that evil is a reliably sourced, accurate, and precise description of the consensus view of reliable sources on Hitler's actions, so I'm technically involved in this discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Drmies (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Somalia/ Somaliland political dispute

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

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

My initial cleanup of Issa Musse: , , , , .

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

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

Request for deadlock-breaking on coronavirus disease move discussion

There seems to be deadlock at Talk:2019-nCoV_acute_respiratory_disease#RfC:_What_should_the_new_name_for_this_article_be?. There's overwhelming consensus that the current article title is wrong, and should be changed ASAP, and agreement on the two reasonable alternatives for the new name; but deadlock on whether COVID-19 or Coronavirus disease 2019 is the right one of the two to choose. The last discussion close ended with a request for admin help, but didn't post here. I'd toss a coin and fix it myself, but I've already participated in the discussion. -- The Anome (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Pure content dispute. I don’t see why this is here. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's procedural deadlock, and someone needs to come along to fix it in the spirit of WP:IAR. -- The Anome (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • What deadlock? The RfC (or RM masquerading as a RfC) wasn’t even open 9 hours. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Not really. The RM hasn't even run its full seven days yet. And this certainly isn't so urgent that it requires an incident resport here. WP:AN and WP:ANRFC are the more usual places to request admin eyes that aren't an incident. I do think the discussion is ripe for closure some time soon though, but what we don't want is someone who's just going to "toss a coin" on this... we need a considered analysis of the arguments made and the discussion, with hopefully a rationale that everyone can (albeit grudgingly) accept. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Kerfuffle at Race and Intelligence

We're having a bit too much fun over there again. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards