Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:FDW777's behaviour on Mary Lou McDonald article

At the beginning of February, I began taking part in a discussion on Talk:Mary Lou McDonald. Another user and I thought a piece of information should be included in that article, FDW777 did not. The discussion went back and forth with myself and the other user providing more and more evidence to support our claim, but FDW777 would not budge from their original position based around one singular source. As well as this, Proposal after proposal was offered by myself and the other editor for how the information could be phrased, but every single time FDW777 turned down the propose without offering a proposal of their own. In order to move things forward, I created a Request for Comment section. That Request for Comment section ultimately endorsed the view of myself and the other editor by over a 90% margin. However, now that the RfC has concluded, FDW777 is still reverting the information we wish to include in the article, even though it has been confirmed there is an overwhelming majority of editors in favour of inclusion, and is suggesting we need to "propose" how the information will be phrased. I do not believe that process will be conducted in good faith given their previous history of rejecting proposals. I also believe the intent will be to drag the discussion out for as long as possible ("stonewall"), much in the same manner as to how the discussion was going until the end of the RfC. If FDW777 wishes to alter the phrasing of the information, then I believe it should fall to them, not myself or others, to do so, considering the results of the RfC.

Furthermore, FDW777 has begun issuing "discretionary sanctions notifications" on my talk page, on the basis that Mary Lou McDonald falls under a 1-revert-per-day-restriction because...of the Troubles? What we're discussing has nothing to do with the Troubles, nor is the subject of the article particular related to the Troubles as a topic. I believe that to be a misuse of that function and is being done to prevent the inclusion of the now RfC supported information.

I did not want to have to bring this to the attention of Admins but I sought the advice of other, more experienced users and they informed me this was the correct channel to discuss this.

I would ask that an Admin review Talk:Mary Lou McDonald, particularlyTalk:Mary Lou McDonald#RfC about the subject's membership of a political party and confirm whether or not FDW777 has the right to continue to revert the RfC supported information and also review whether issuing Discretionary sanctions notification is appropriate in this context. This "process" has already been dragged out over the space of six weeks and I just want to conclude it at this point, it's already been quite draining.

Thank you CeltBrowne (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The wording of the closure stated However, the exact wording and precisely how to present the information, such as how or whether to contrast it with her denial, has not yet been determined and can still be discussed. Did CeltBrowne do that? No they did not. And despite me pointing out what the close actually said and inviting CeltBrowne to actually propose a wording, they have completely failed to do so and instead ran here. Why cannot they propose a wording on the talk page as requested? FDW777 (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(Crossposting from WP:AE) To be clear, as the one who wrote the text being quoted, the statement is not intended to imply that the information has to remain out of the article until agreement on the text is reached. Sunrise (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume then, it is also not intended to imply the full text just added currently has consensus? FDW777 (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, not an admin here. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to chime in, but it seems like the previous discussion has been closed with an overwhelming consensus on the inclusion of the paragraph argued in the talk page (or at the very least, a version of it) wherein her membership is confirmed but her more recent refutal is mentioned in order to contextualize any confusion that may arise. You can continue to contest the wording in a new discussion if you'd like, but I think it's more productive if you put forth more suggestions rather than waiting on others to make it more "neutral" because consensus indicates the current version is fine. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: I'm mostly with BriefEdits et al here. If you have objections to the specific addition, you need to actually discuss what those objections are. As it stands, there has been an edit war, but no one has actually said anything on the talk page about it. While ultimately someone needs to start the discussion, in this case with an RfC in support of an inclusion, the onus is especially on you if you have some objections to the addition to explain what they are. The one area where I differ from others is I perhaps wouldn't mind so much you removing the addition while discussion was ongoing provided you'd actually started a discussion and appeared to be genuinely trying to work out what to add rather than simply trying to go against or delay the RfC result. But the fact you didn't start a discussion makes it look very bad for you. Yes someone else should have started a discussion too rather than just edit-warring but again with the RfC result there is much more onus on you to do so. (Although even generally and I often say something similar, rather than complaining here on ANI that you invited CeltBrowne to start a discussion but they didn't, why weren't you be the one to start the discussion? It's far more productive if someone actually starts the discussion rather than everyone saying someone else should.) @CeltBrowne: putting aside the DS issue, while I understand you may be getting sick of this dispute, since the RfC only found consensus to add something but not precisely what to add, if you want to have a say in what goes in the article you need to participate in further discussion. Otherwise you will just need to accept the outcome that something is added eventually, but it might not be what you like. Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I would add ideally any discussion shouldn't just be why you feel the proposed/attempted addition was a problem, but how you feel it can be corrected. The consensus means even if you feel there should be no addition, this is no longer an acceptable outcome, so any editor who wants to get involved really should be able to come up with something that they feel meets the RfC and satisfies their concerns. Just saying what the problem is without offering suggestions on how it can be resolved may be seen as obstructing the consensus. Also, I realised this wasn't clear in my earlier comment but the attempted addition is effectively a proposed addition to fulfill the RfC/consensus, another reason why the onus is much more on FDW777 to start a discussion explaining problems, with or without a revert. No one else really has to explain why they feel the addition is an improvement since we've already established it is. So yeah, the ball is really in FDW777's court to start a discussion, or just edit, if they want to change the addition. Just reverting and asking for discussion doesn't work in a case like this. Nil Einne (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the point of that statement is that the process of editing and collaboration on the topic can still continue. However, there is a consensus for inclusion in some form. As such, simply removing the text (as opposed to e.g. changing the wording) would be editing against consensus. Sunrise (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I also suggest CeltBrowne read the 1RR restriction they are objecting to. It is not limited to the Troubles, but specifically says , along with other pages relating to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland. Are they seriously suggesting the president of Sinn Féin is not relating to Irish nationalism? FDW777 (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I would add that whether the article falls under the Troubles discretionary sanctions regime IMO ultimately doesn't even matter when it comes to the notification. The page is related enough that it seems fine to notify any getting heavily involved in it about the AE that apply that subject area. The notification doesn't make discretionary sanctions apply to any particular page or editing. The notification just means that an editor becomes aware of the process and the discretionary sanctions that apply to a particular area, and can be sanctioned if necessary when their editing in those area where they apply is a problem. It will be an uninvolved admin's judgment later whether any specific page or editing comes is in the area where discretionary sanctions apply. Once you're aware, you're aware for the one year or whatever. You don't become unaware just because you never edited in the areas where the discretionary sanctions apply. Nil Einne (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I missed that articles under the Troubles have an automatic 1RR. That being the case, it's fine to check whether this applies if there is doubt but that's what matters not the notification. Note that the article clearly comes under BLPDS so there's no question discretionary sanctions apply. Nil Einne (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

After FDW777 reverted the RfC approved content I restored it with an edit summary "consensus has been reached that this merits inclusion, but you're more than welcome to make appropriate edits as to wording and other details". FDW instead immediately posted in ARE; their report was extremely dishonest re the events that transpired, and rested on the same erroneous claims that led CeltBrowne to come here. The findings were in my favor: "The facts in the case don't match the claim. There was an RFC, OgamD218's edit appears to be consistent with the RFC AND their edit summary clearly invited others to tweak if they felt necessary. No action taken against OgamD218 in this case. I would warn FDW777 that when they file an AE/AN/ANI case, they need to more careful that the claims are substantiated by the facts." - Dennis Brown - 2¢, who also noted "Unless I'm missing something, what took place was exactly the opposite of what is being claimed here." CeltBrowne is correct, FDW uses baseless claims re WP rules to bully other editors. This user also has a history of tendentious editing in the Troubles area, the PIRA page was denied GAN by Peacemaker67 bc, referring to FDW, "it is clear that my concerns about the article meeting criteria #4 Neutrality (regarding sectarianism), will not be addressed by the nominator. In over 350 Good Article nomination reviews, I have never struck such a level of intransigence from a nominator when a serious concern has been raised about an article." OgamD218 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• As to whether 1RR restrictions on this article via the Troubles applies, it may not be a direct match but it is best to still operate under the assumption that 1RR applies. As for FDW777, as I said in my close at WP:AE, you have misrepresented the issue at hand. I would suggest you limit your participation to the talk page for this one paragraph. The RFC was very limited, but still crystal clear, and the addition is consistent with that RFC. Of course, the paragraph can be tweaked, but the smartest way is via talk page, an informal discussion, since 1RR may still apply. This should be a textbook example of using the standard editing process, not the admin boards. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Minor point, but FWIW any long-term Wikipedia editor who grew up in Ireland and is interested in history or politics is highly likely to run afoul of the 1RR restriction by accident at some point. I'm pretty sure I violated it on National Party (Ireland, 2016) on 15 May 2018, and don't recall ever having been aware of such a restriction. That being said, the Mary Lou article is definitely much more closely related to classical "Irish nationalism", and now that the point has been made, no reasonable argument can be made that the 1RR doesn't apply to the page under discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Danny794986432981498215: NOTHERE

Self-explanatory. Look at his contributions. Reported him at WP:AIV but removed as stale. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: I don't see any obvious vandalism, but there certainly is some WP:CIR concerns.. [1] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of this editor's edits seem OK but others, like these edits that I just reverted, seem to me to constitute a clear intentional insertion of false information -- there are just too many outlandish factual errors in the edit to explain otherwise (and they've made those edits to the article twice now). Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Now he's edit warring at KGTF over a non-free file. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Mvcg66b3r started a discussion on Commons about this same user. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Belteshazzar breaking their topic ban

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

---

Belteshazzar was topic banned from editing the Bates method article and from Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed [2] in December 2020 because this user very disruptive yet has been editing the Bates method article again and other articles related to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (vision therapy).

A user Alexbrn informed Belteshazzar [3] about their topic ban violation on 12:41, 20 March 2021 yet Belteshazzar ignored that and made an edit on the Bates method on 00:16, 21 March 2021.

As I understand it those who violate their topic bans are usually blocked. Can an admin please weigh in on this. Thank you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months (logged AE action). El_C 02:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Bshjsn repeatedly deleting sourced content; has received level 4 warning

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

---

Bshjsn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly deleting the (sourced) content about the members and support staff of Royal Challengers Bangalore, despite reverts from a variety of uninvolved users (including myself) and warnings. Some examples, all from today (there are plenty more in the page history): [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

I ran across this from Recent Changes, for the record. I have no particular knowledge on the subject. Kistaro Windrider (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 02:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Kistaro Windrider (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Lucasbishop reported by User:TheLionHasSeen

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

---

Lucasbishop, in apparent disregard to healthy dialogue and contribution to Wikipedia, has consistently rewritten information on the article, Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches, with blatantly biased information. This issue has been apparent since September 2020, per edit history here. This fellow contributor has written information as if it is merely from an advertisement or taken verbatim from that church's website showcasing also apparent conflict of interest; and they have, seemingly disregarded efforts to responsible communication as detailed on their talk page, which I initiated. Following, I notice what may also be a sockpuppet violation pertaining to these series of edits with the account TheJohnSnow. For that, I shall open a sockpuppet investigation. I am requesting swift investigation of this contributor, to prevent from involving myself in a never-ending edit war, which appears to occur on that article via its page history. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

An IP address has performed the same contributions. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucasbishop, they have been confirmed to have sockpuppeted on this encyclopedia. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Misuse of the Paid template

This week Beyond My Ken added the Paid template to most of the articles I had edited for my customers without starting the discussion on the Talk page as told in the Template:Paid_contributions: "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."

The user told that "No, you, the paid editor involved, are not allowed to remove the tag, and if you do, I will report you to administrators for sanctioning.

The paid contributions templates I added to articles you edited are strictly factual: you are a paid editor, you edited the article, you disclosed that editing on your user page and on the article talk page, therefore the article contains paid contributions. There is nothing to discuss. If another editor -- not you, and not another paid editor -- wants to discuss the template, they can contact me or start a discussion on the talk page, but as long as your contributions remain in theose articles, the template is factual and will remain."

The user did leave a comment on four talk pages Talk:Molok_(company), Talk:Aidon#Paid_contributions_tag, Talk:Konecranes and Stora Enso saying

"A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the paid contributions is a matter of fact and does not require discussion."

Here's a complete list of 52 articles the tag was added by the user. Orivesi is missing, as Bilby already removed the tag. Elli tried to remove some tags too but Beyond My Ken put them back. Aidon, Aki Yli-Salomäki, Basware, Biomin, Charlie Jabaley, Cimcorp, Comedian and 7 Wonders, Componenta, DA-Group, Digia, DNA Oyj, Draft:The APX, Efecte, Elematic, Elisa (company), Elisa Saunalahti, Elisa Viihde, Ensto, Feedback terminal, Fennovoima, Fingersoft, Fiskars, Framery, HappyOrNot, Honkarakenne, Innofactor, Ismo Leikola, Kemira, Kemppi, Konecranes, Kotipizza, Kotipizza Group, Metso, Mika Salo, Molok (company), Nancy Spector, Neste, Novita (company), Olvi, Orthex, Outotec, Rabbit Films, Raute (company), Solar Foods, Stora Enso, Suominen Corporation, Taura Stinson, Valmet & List of Valmet products, Voimaosakeyhtiö SF, You May Now Kill the Bride and Zibby Owens.

Thanks for reading about my concern.Jjanhone (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

How can we be sure which are paid and which are gratis? If BMK put them on articles you edited for customers, then that's correct. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

BMK found the list of articles I've edited from my user page so they are really paid as I've informed. But BMK is not leaving the comments as the template is asking and that's the problem.Jjanhone (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have started discussion threads on all the articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The threads are all alike I guess (haven't checked all 50+), so they are not based on the content of the article, I assume, just pointing out that there's a paid editor involved.Jjanhone (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Jjanhone appears to be a disclosed paid editor. I'm not a big fan of going around and tagging the pages of disclosed page editors with this template without any substantive reason to believe either that particular article is skewed, or that the paid editor has a habit of misbehaving. That kind of usage comes across as if the placer intends it to be a badge of shame. We have enough difficulty getting paid editors to disclose. If we start treating them like this when they do, why would they disclose? Somewhat seems like a backdoor to discouraging paid editing – something which, for better or worse, still has community support. The templates should be removed unless BMK can justify why this particular paid editor might be problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. BMK claims that the templates are purely factual so they do not need to justify their placement further - but this is contrary to how cleanup templates are intended to be used. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• The text of the template reads:

This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

If a paid editor has contributed to the article, then the first sentence is factual. The second sentence doesn't say that there is a problem with the article, it says that there may be a problem with the article. This is simply because paid editors are employed in some manner by the subject of the article, and therefore have a strong possibility of editing in a non-neutral manner. This is also factual. The placing of the template, therefore, on any article edited by a paid editor, is fully justified.

This is also an issue which is under discussion at TfD, [9] which the OP is well aware of, having participated in that discussion, part of which concerns the use of the template. Their opening this report in the middle of that discussion is pure WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and should therefore be closed. I have nothing more to say about this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have started discussion threads on all the articles listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The topic "the user which name I'm not allowed to use anymore" is referring is about a different thing: deleting 3 templates and starting to use other templates instead of them started by Locke Cole.Jjanhone (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You are only banned from posting on my talk page, not from mentioning my name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• A general message of something could be wrong maybe is not particularly helpful. Unless BMK can point to things in each article that are issues this would essentially be assuming bad faith and tag shaming with a hint of hounding. PackMecEng (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  Paid editing is fact. We can overtly talk about edits being paid without assuming bad faith. Paid editing does have the presumption of being promotional, because that is why companies pay for them. MarioGom (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  They are maintenance tags, if there is nothing to fix there is nothing to do. I could see something on the talk page, but on the article side unless an issue is identified, and paid editing does not qualify, they should probably be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, we're talking about the relevance of the tag (see the TFD discussion). But there is no AGF problem here. Just different interpretations on the usage of these tags. MarioGom (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  The AGF issue comes in that they are tagging all the articles they have listed without identifying issues. Basically the definition of assuming bad faith. PackMecEng (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  Obviously we have different opinions. I think all articles edited by paid editors need a review by an independent editor, always, no exceptions. MarioGom (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

So, given the backdrop of a rather tumultuous TFD that seems to have led to rather POINTy actions and swinging of bludgeons all around and the fact that I currently have ample opportunity to get stressed out by real life, I'm not going to delve into the conduct side of this – but for what it's worth, I clicked through some of those articles at random for a few minutes, and I did see POV issues to be addressed. Some things that caught my eye:

• Draft:The APX:
  • Their sound has been described e.g. as a "recreation of the sound of ‘80s electro-funk and proto house music with jaw-dropping faithfulness" – this does not belong in the lead; just because promotional language gets quoted instead of used directly doesn't make it due
  • While they wanted to do something more creative, they started working on original music, inspired by their love of classic funk, pop, and R&B – this strikes me as PR bio material
• HappyOrNot:
  • The premise behind HappyOrNot’s products and services is that people are busy and don’t want to give up their time to provide feedback. Selecting sentiment from one of four smileys is easy, it takes no time at all and is anonymous. No thought is required, no analyzing service levels, for example on a scale from one to ten.[17] Everyone can participate and provide feedback, there are no barriers due to age, culture or language.[7] Additionally, those providing feedback do so anonymously without risk of identify theft thus companies are not required to reference GDPR requirements.[3] – reads like it's taken from a product catalogue to me; it's part of a "The products" that strikes me as bloated
• Novita (company)
  • The company is a rare exception in the handicraft yarn industry, because it manages the value chain from raw material to consumer while its biggest competitors are wholesalers who do not manufacture their products themselves.[4] – this strikes me as promotional, and it does not belong in the lead (which as a whole seems to be intended to transport a "this is still a real, down-to-earth company" message and has some other issues too).
• Zibby Owens
  • She was inspired to share her enthusiasm and love of books with people like her.[9] – I think this is undue and of limited encyclopaedic value, especially given that it's sourced to a self-description in an interview
  • Her support of authors was critical at the times when many bookstores were shuttered nationwide, book tours were canceled, and even Amazon had put book deliveries in the slow lane.[10] – this is sourced to the New York Post, which is considered generally unreliable and doesn't appear to state this directly; what it does say is that the time was crutial, not her support per se. I also have some copyright concerns. From the source: The support comes at a crucial time: An author’s book launch can be make-or-break. Many bookstores are shuttered nationwide, all book tours canceled, and Amazon has put book deliveries in the slow lane for now, choosing to focus on delivering household goods.

This is somewhat concerning to me, especially the New York Post part – I feel that we might be venturing into advertising territory here, and that's prohibited regardless of tags and disclosures. I do appreciate Jjanhone's efforts to comply with our COI guidelines and properly disclose, but I would also encourage her to not edit mainspace directly and instead use edit requests (as is recommended). Blablubbs|talk 13:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to correct the chronology, I tagged the articles before the discussion on TfD began, not after. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I followed up on HappyOrNot and found another copyright issue:

• Article: Ville had worked with Heikki at Universomo, and they used the money they raised from the sale of that business to get HappyOrNot up and running. They used a Finnish manufacturer to build their terminals. Their first big customer was one of Finland's big-three supermarket groups, which was initially looking to check on the freshness of fruit and vegetables in its stores.
• Source: Väänänen and Levaniemi started the company with the money they raised from the sale of their company, Universomo, and contacted a Finnish manufacturer to build the terminals. Their first big customer was one of Finland's big-three supermarket groups curious to gauge the freshness of their vegetables and fruits.

I don't have time to look into this further, but it might warrant discussion or a deeper look by someone else. Best, Blablubbs|talk 14:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

To avoid confusion: The quoted passages were since rephrased ([10][11][12][13]), but the quotes were accurate as of the time of writing. Blablubbs|talk 14:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That's right and I'm very grateful for your concrete examples. Bear in mind that I'm not a native English speaker so my vocabulary is not that wide. If there are more concerns about the content of the articles I appreciate a ping and note on a relevant Talk page. Jjanhone (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

And I've already had a big discussion last fall on AN about if I'm allowed to edit or not.Jjanhone (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

You're certainly allowed to edit, but you are strongly discouraged from editing mainspace articles you have a COI with directly; but that isn't really pertinent to my promo and copyright concerns – those are rules that apply to everyone, regardless of paid/COI status. Blablubbs|talk 14:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, the article was mostly written before the NYP RfC was started/closed in September 2020. I'm guessing that portion was, too. Which makes that portion simply outdated, rather than intentionally using a GUN source. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if we leave the reliability aspect aside, I still think this qualifies as both promotional and a copyright violation. Blablubbs|talk 01:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Jjanhone Disclosed or not if you’re unquestionably implementing your client's edit requests no matter how unencyclopaedic, or promotional those requests are, then you are merely a meat-puppet of those individuals and corporations. Saying yes to every request without filtering those requests through our content policies is not editing it is meat puppetry. Let me give you some advice,

1. Always put Wikipedia before your clients. Paid or unpaid, your goal is to liberate knowledge from its caste system.

2. If your client asks you to post promotional material, make them aware of the European Court ruling that outlaws editing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. The majority of client's will back down and start to work with you, not against you. You might get the odd narcissistic lunatic who thinks they are above the law; in those instances, stand your ground and hold your own.

3. Make it clear that a company’s Wikipedia page is not an official company communication and they shouldn’t be held accountable for its content.

4. Don't be a yes person. You are an editor, and the editorial control must remain with you. Otherwise, you let inexperienced editors who don't share our vision contribute to Wikipedia without adequate content policy knowledge.

5. Always get paid half your money upfront so that your client can’t use money as a carrot or a stick. It is very easy to relinquish editorial control and break content policies when a client is withholding payment because you are upholding Wikipedia’s content policies.

And finally, use your own ethical compass. If you feel as though you might be misleading the public through what they believe is non-biased editorial content then don't do it and if your client insists draw their attention to the 1914 fair trading act.

These issues with paid editing happen when paid editors lack backbone. Don't give in to ridiculous requests like the ones highlighted green above. Instead, use it as an opportunity to educate your clients on what Wikipedia is and what we are trying to accomplish here.92.40.191.42 (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this is Off Topic but do you think one could have edited over ten years for over 150 customers in Finnish and in other languages as a meatpuppet? I trust journalists, not my customers' promo talk. And I only accept a handful of orders I get. So if you want to talk more about my editing, you are welcome to visit my talk page and let's discuss more. But talking about the content of 50+ articles on this chain is not ideal.Jjanhone (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the above edit. I am quite certain that there is no European Court (which one?) ruling against paid editing on Wikipedia. And even if there was, it would be impossible to enforce, even against the minority of editors who live in areas under the court's jurisdiction. And I have no idea what an unspecified "1914 fair trading act" could say or do about Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@RolandR: see WP:COVERT, but I'm skeptical of any analysis implying that we need these article space banners for legal reasons. We simply don't do disclaimers in article space even if some some editor breaks the law of one country or another. Just like we don't censor articles even if an editor contributes content that is illegal in some country. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, if this is an issue it should be added to the general disclaimer. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• This issue should not be conflated with the disagreements around paid editing, some of which are currently at TfD. I do not think the paid editing policy mandates or expects that paid editors will have all their pages tagged with Template:Paid_contributions (which, mind you, has less than 200 transclusions). To the extent that there is a dispute at TfD, I do not think it extends to this particular scenario, and I highly doubt broad community consensus supports this approach. Again, for as long as the community tolerates paid editing (and my or anyone's opinions on that are irrelevant to this matter) editors shouldn't do an end run around that consensus by doing things like this to discourage paid editing. It may be reasonable to do this if there's a valid reason to believe there's a pattern of issues with a paid editor's editing, but that should probably be reported to ANI/COIN for discussion, and apart from Blablubbs's commentary above nobody has provided any evidence of such. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm reviewing the tagged articles and adding the reviews to the talk pages. They present the usual problems that are common in paid editing (disclosed or not). I don't think some of them would have passed AFC if that was used. Paid editing disclosure do not exclude an editor from related Wikipedia policies that apply to every editor. See WP:PROMO (something that gets editors indef blocked every day) and WP:SOURCES. MarioGom (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

  To be fair, in some cases such as Rabbit Films the problems are not related to Jjanhone edits, but to previous editors. MarioGom (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

rolanr The broader legal framework is specified at Wp:COVERT as for jurisdictions if Wikipedia is online one the US and EU, then we have to comply with these laws whether we are editing from Wales, Staten Island or The Moon. I don't believe the majority of businesses procuring these services are aware of these directives. However, if you are running a paid editing operation, some basic knowledge of consumer protection laws is advantageous.2A04:4A43:497F:7217:546D:86EF:9AC9:2F9 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I checked four or five of Jjanhone's articles, and found two that had promotional language. Having her articles tagged for checking by other editors is not a bad idea. Two examples, truncated with ellipses and cherry-picking the worst bits:

• from Kalevala (brand) "Kalevala Koru Oy is the largest company in the jewelry industry in Finland, and one of the largest in the Nordic countries... Kalevala was the most appreciated jewelry brand in Finland... Kalevala Koru was the most valued jewelry brand for the third year in a row according to a study conducted by the Finnish Markkinointi&Mainonta magazine... New online stores for the brand were opened along with a new brand store on Keskuskatu, Helsinki. At the same time, the old store was closed. During the launch, the brand’s first new pieces of jewelry were also released... In November, an outlet store was opened at the Konala factory, replacing the Pitäjänmäki factory outlet that was closed in 2018... The jewelry of Kalevala is designed to stand the test of time..."
• from Molok (company) "... uses one of the largest rotation molding machines in the world's plastics industry... Another advantage of Molok products is that it takes up less space above the ground than the traditional rubbish bins, which leaves room for other needs of the residents. Also the amount of waste traffic is decreased as the containers do not need emptying as often than with traditional systems..."

And Molok trash cans are apparently better because "the vertical collection container utilizes gravity, which allows the new waste to compress the waste below into a more compact form. With help of the gravity the collection container can hold 20% more waste". Maybe things are done differently in Finland, but here in Canada we have been using gravity-based vertical trash containers for what seems like centuries.

The idea that she use AfC might be a good idea, particularly as she is not a native speaker of English (she states above I'm not a native English speaker), and the difference between promotional language and deadpan delivery can sometimes be very subtle. --- Possibly (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Side point, but if you watch the video [14] [oops, wrong link, here's the right one:] [15] the gravity thing turns out to make sense. EEng 05:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The video has nothing to do with trash containers nor gravity so don't watch it, it's some sort of joke about lesbians (I didn't find it funny). Is it really ok to leave this kind of comments here? Jjanhone (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Jjanhone: I have redacted the comment per WP:NPA. It is still visible in the history log and admins may decide to block the user. MarioGom (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Jjanhone (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, don't get your bowels in an uproar. I accidentally pasted in a link to the wrong video – the one used in my post to this thread [16] which, even if I do say so myself, was one of my better efforts recently. If you can't take pleasure in Terry Jones' celebration of letting people be what they want to be, in or out of bed, then I feel sorry for you. And if you didn't know that this was Terry Jones' celebration of letting people be what they want to be, in or out of bed, then make the effort to inform yourself next time before getting your knickers in a twist. A quick note on my talk page ("Hey, is this really what you meant???") would have made a lot more sense than high-handed talk of a block. EEng 21:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Whiel I understand and respect that it was an error, a better response would have been to apologise. It was very badly timed, in the middle of a serious discussion, to drop in a video that appears to be making fun of people for their sexual orientation (even if that is not what the video was intended to do). - Bilby (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, in case it wasn't obvious: sorry I unintentionally dropped the link into this serious discussion when (as described earlier) I had meant to use it only in a different serious discussion. Now where's my apology for the heedless AGF failure? EEng-

Nice to hear the background of the issue. We all come from different context so it is sometimes hard to undertand what the others really mean. Jjanhone (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Especially if you don't even try. EEng 11:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, you are maybe talking about Molok North America's containers, as Molok went to Canada in 1999. You might be able to help to evaluate the Canadian references Molok sent me, are they good enough to be used on Wikipedia or not? See Talk:Molok_(company). Jjanhone (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jjanhone: You might be able to help to evaluate the Canadian references Molok sent me. No thanks. You could read WP:BOGOF.--- Possibly (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Jjanhone

Let the participants of this ANI thread be aware that there is now a request for a case investigating possible copyright violations by Jjanhone, per Blablubbs. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked at those; I don't think that investigations has legs. In this one, for example, it is fine to copy the name of a creative work like "Lose Yourself to the Groove" and "Netflix film Nappily Ever". I did not see anything that went beyond the typical three-word threshold for copying of original text. --- Possibly (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, the problem isn't just the highlighted text, but its surroundings too – there's definitely close paraphrasing going on here. Two examples:

1. • Source: Amplified Experiment is supported by the Amplified Experiment Tour in which The APX will tour throughout major cities in Europe & USA.
   • Article: Amplified Experiment is supported by the Amplified Experiment Tour in which The APX will visit major cities in Europe and North America.
2. • Source: Amplified Experiment encores the duo's sound with a 2020 approach, fueled with the influence of the finest traditional 80's & 90's style funk, house, & soul. Including the previously released single Jupiter, Amplified Experiment includes a completely self-produced and masterfully crafted collection of brand new songs [...]
   • Article: Amplified Experiment is a completely self-produced collection of songs that has influences from traditional 80's & 90's style funk, house and soul. The album includes the previously released single Jupiter.

Haven't looked at the others yet, but both MrLinkinPark and Vami have substantial experience at CCI, so I trust their judgement. Blablubbs|talk 15:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The CCI process is not familiar to me but here's my reply to the cases [17]. Jjanhone (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on Nicki Minaj articles

Hello, this issue has been discussed quite thoroughly on the talk page of the Nicki Minaj article, but it has gone to such a bad level of dispute and even edit warring that I feel like it has to be solved here. I am a frankly new editor to Wikipedia, while I've been editing since 2019, I only recently learned about Wikipedia Policy, and am currently learning on how to make my editing better. So apologies for any noob or dumb behavior, I am always open to feedback, as long as it is constructive!

That being said, I know a long string of biased edits when I see it. User::Cornerstonepicker is a frequent editor on the Nicki Minaj article and anything else related to her, and yet somehow most of their edits relating to Minaj seem to be negative most of the time. This person adds irrelevant details about Nicki's personal life, discredits her work in other fields, such as acting and philanthropy and generally hides her achievements and impact as a female rap artist.

And this has been going on for months now. In July 2020, They were acccused of sockpuppetry by another editor. In that same very report, the editor had given proof of multiple negative edits towards Minaj. Some more:(2, 3,)

However, because the allegation itself was based on sockpuppetry, the user had admitted to using that IP, so it was dismissed. But it is worth noting that those investigations gave proof to a MOUNTAIN of negative edits, that constantly try to discredit Minaj's career achievements and impact on female rap.

Some more modern instances of these negative edits are as follows:

• The already mentioned adding of irrelevant details that has nothing to do with Minaj herself, which seems to be done in order to blame her for her husband's unfortunate actions
• This biased past edit trying to bring up an old wardrobe malfunction seeming to attempt to embarass her
• Consistently removing female rappers who have named Minaj AS an influence
• Reworking Minaj's 19 Top 10 hits achievement to make it sound less flattering. Normally, including the fact that a lot of her Top 10s are features would be okay, if not again for this user's history as already being biased towards Minaj. This clearly seems to be an attempt to lower the impact of the achievement.
• Removing the mention of an unofficial remix of Single Ladies, released in 2008 on Minaj's Myspace
• This.. confusingly snarky edit summary that is very aimed negatively towards Minaj. (Granted, I've been guilty of biased and unhelpful edit summaries before, but I've committed to stopping that behavior, at least giving reasons in my edit summaries now.) It seems to show a lot about his bias against Minaj, full stop.
• There are so many more of these biased edits that span over months and months. The history of edits by this person on Nicki's article should be enough proof.

Again it is not just me, multiple users such as User::Yikes2004 have recognized Cornerstonepicker's clear bias against Minaj. There are multiple instances of him adding content that is clearly negative towards Minaj, then another user having to removing the biased parts against Minaj.

This user even recognizes this, with citing the fact that multiple Nicki-focused users try to edit the page to undo the clear bias. Unfortunately, those users did not seem to know what they were doing, so I've heard that they got banned, but I really don't know anything about those three users specifically, so I'd like to know learn about the circumstances that led to it.

Subversively, in the Cardi B article, when I had added sourced controversy about Cardi's repeated transphobia, he removed it under the term of "gossip" but when it comes to editing Nicki's personal life (allegations) it's APPARENTLY not gossip. I am using sarcasm here, if you can't tell.

They accused me of being a troll, which is so far from the truth, but in the same breath seems to imply that I am not a noob on Wikipedia because I've been editing since 2019. Both statements cannot be true at the same time.

I have fully admitted to being a fan of Minaj and her music, my personal opinion is that she is one of the best rappers ever. She is very legendary and has achieved so much, that I think her accolades, sales, and charts should be reflected in her article, which is viewed by thousands and ten thousands of people everyday. I have been nothing but transparent when it comes to my edits. Subversively, however, I have not seen cornerstonepicker admit to being a fan of Cardi or disliking Nicki, at least in all the time that I have seen, so the validity and intent behind these edits is questioned. He claimed to have no bias when my list of clear proof seems to suggest otherwise. And the fact that this user has been doing these types of edits for months, ever since 2020, should show the effect that these anti-Nicki edits have. In fact, I only really started editing the article because I kept seeing the edits he was doing, seemingly attemtping to scrubbing away her achievements.

Granted, as a new user some of my behaviors have been at fault too, I participated in edit warring before going through the proper channels. I had done it because I didn't know there was a better way to solve dispute, and I humbly apologize for that. I also admit to not always having the best sources, I usually use google to look up articles, and I found older articles that didn't accurately represent today, such as the current record holder of Hot 100 entries, which as of my current research is Taylor, not Minaj. However, that still doesn't take away the mountainload of bad faith edits I have seen from cornerstonepicker. Heck, even his sockpuppet IP was warned for sudden content removal and vandalism!

I fully propose that Cornerstonepicker will be blocked from editing all Minaj-related articles, including, but not limited to,

1. Main celebrity page, being Nicki's article based on her as a person
2. All articles based on Nicki's discography, including albums, singles, and collaborations
3. To add to my last point, blocked from editing songs featuring Minaj, especially blocked from editing on the commercial performance of these songs
4. Groups that include Nicki, namely, Hoodstarz and Young Money
5. Parts of articles that mention Nicki's past feuds, namely, Lil' Kim, Remy Ma, and Cardi B

The only thing I care about is not having Nicki's article and her legacy vandalized, nothing else. I request that the Nicki articles be left alone, and in turn I will go back to normally editing stuff about TV shows and video games, as I usually do. Thank you! Redandvidya (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redandvidya: I don't understand why you think someone can't be not a noob and a troll at the same time. Some of our worst trolls are very experienced with Wikipedia. A small number were even good editors at one time. Nil Einne (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Also about the husband thing, it's a lot more complicated than you let on. That section includes specific allegations against Nicki Minaj. I'm not saying those allegations definitely belong since ultimately we don't deal with content disputes here anyway, but if they belong some background would be needed. Personally, I think the section may be a little too detailed, but if you can't resolve the problems on the article talk page, you should try WP:BLP/N. However try to be clearer what the issue is and don't suggest it's simply stuff to do with her husband that has nothing to do with her. Also I do not see any mention of transphobia on the current version of Nicki Minaj's article so it's difficult to see any easy comparison. But if something received sustained coverage for person A, but there is no sustained coverage for the same issue in relation to person B, it may be entirely reasonable that the article for person A covers it but the one for person B does not. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also whether there are any problems with cornerstonepicker editing, their edits are clearly not WP:Vandalism, so please don't say they are if you want to be taken seriously. Please remember that plenty of harmful edits are not vandalism. Finally do note that is Nicki Minaj is still active and Wikipedia is always a work in progress, there is zero chance the articles on her and stuff related to her will ever be "left alone" in the immediate future. If it distresses you so much that not all coverage is positive, it may be best to avoid them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 14:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Probably my final comment since it'll be better for others to have their say. I looked at Talk:Nicki Minaj and I have to say Redandvidya you come across quite poorly. You do need reliable, generally secondary, sources for content you add. It doesn't matter if you're sure the content you're adding is true. So you shouldn't be surprised or frustrated if someone challenges you because you didn't cite any sources for the content you added, or the sources you added aren't sufficiently reliable. The source needs to actually support what you're claiming it does. Also I really should have said this before but if you're more concerned with protecting her legacy than with writing an encyclopaedia, that's a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I think you may be confused, I was referring to me adding sourced edits about Cardi's use of the slur tr**y and this person immediately reverted it all, which given the history shows nothing but hypocrisy. The closest comparison I would say is the addition of Doja Cat discussing past use of the slur f*ggot, which is in her article. I do not think the edits are vandalism per se, I never implied that, what I'm saying is that this person has a history of adding unrelated negative edits towards Minaj for months now. I am not saying that all coverage about her should be positive- I definitely agree that the controversy stuff is necessary to maintain WP:NPOV, but given the edit bias, in my opinion context should be added for these controversy situations, for example, Nicki firing back at Cardi with allegations of her own seems to be completely valid context to add in both Nicki and Cardi's articles. As said in my first reply to Black Kite, I am actively working on getting better methods of sourcing achievements which ARE true. The Hot 100 stuff and the 19 Top 10 hits, are examples of edits I have made with good, reliable sources. It is not just me who is dissatisfied with Cornerstonepicker's clear bias against Nicki, as stated in the original post there are other editors who doubt Cornerstonepicker's motive. But I appreciate the constructive feedback and will promptly work on getting better sources. For music specifically, are there certain sites to prioritize over others? i.e, Billboard, Vox, Huffpo, a tier list on what is reliable or not would definitely be appreciated. Redandvidya (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redandvidya: If you don't think the edit's are vandalism, then why on earth did you start a discussion where the title was "Consistent vandalism by cornerstonepicker....."? Why in this very discussion did you say "not having Nicki's article and her legacy vandalized"? You can't continually use the term, and then claim you didn't intend to accuse cornerstonepicker of vandalism. If you don't think cornerstonepicker's edits are vandalism, then stop using the term. If you continue to do so, I will support an indefinite block for WP:NPA until you agree to stop.

As for the tranny stuff, your example shows why your comparisons are flawed. For starters, I thought we were talking about Nicki Minaj, so I was very confused when I checked out the article and found no mention of faggot. I then found Doja Cat is someone else. I have no idea why you're now bringing up someone else completely but whatever.

I checked the article, and it does indeed mention controversy over her use of the term faggot, but this controversy seems to have generated sustained coverage including surrounding cancel culture, with Doja Cat even declared Milkshake Duck by NME. Further, it seems that this controversy happened at a significant time, when Doja Cat was first starting to receive attention from a viral hit. (Indeed our article has only existed in March 2018 [18].) In other words, it seems to have been something which received a lot of attention at a time where she was just starting to receive significant attention, so raised questions over whether it would kill or at least significantly damage her career when it was just starting to succeed. 'Kill' doesn't seem to have happened, probably impossible to know if it significantly damaged it. But this does explain why it may be a significant part of Doja Cat's biography. By comparison I did not see anything like that in the section you tried to add to Cardi B.

Note I said 'may' because again we don't rule on content disputes here and indeed I haven't checked out the sources, I'm not saying the section in Doja Cat's article belongs or the text in Cardi B does not. I'm just emphasising what I said before. You cannot say X is allowed in article A so Y must be allowed in article B. It may be that the sourcing and significance of X means it is allowed in article A but the sourcing and significance of Y is not allowed in article B. Your attempt to prove bias on the part of cornerstonepicker seems to show the opposite. You are failing to properly evaluate the totality of circumstances but instead because of your own bias failing to see how stuff can be quite different, no matter if they are very superficially similar.

Finally it's great you are working to find good sources but until you do so, the information needs to remain out. Please don't complain here or anywhere, when you add information before you actually find the sources and it is removed. And again, and I can't emphasise this enough. Please make sure the information you are added are supported by the sources you are adding to support that information. I suggest you take you questions about suitable sources to somewhere else like WP:Help Desk, WP:Teahouse, WP:RSN or maybe Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Music or probably better one of the subprojects like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: To me, explicit vandalism is when someone deletes someone's entire page, or vandalizes it with racial slurs or homophobia. I apologize for using the term vandalism against user Cornerstonepicker because it is not accurate to this situation PER SE, I'd describe it as a concerning history of nitpicky biased edits and a questionable motive. Thank you!

• I hate using the word boomerang but... when I see an edit summary like "Undid all revisions for obvious bias and clear agenda. Leave Nicki alone", I immediately think "Here is someone who probably shouldn't be editing this article". When I read talkpage comments like "LEAVE the article alone and maybe I won't have to edit it so much" and "you are again showing your agenda against Nicki!!" I am tempted to remove the "probably", especially when I look at the quality of some of the sources they're using. Cornerstonepicker is explaining their edits in talk and in edit-summaries; Redandvidya is in most cases simply reverting them. Also, if my counting skills haven't deserted me completely, Redandvidya appears to have made five reverts and/or partial reverts on the article today. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I am actively working on getting more reliable sources- as I've said in my original post, I am new to policy in general, and I use google to search for references. Google doesn't automatically show me the most updated versions of these articles. I am reverting them because my edits WITH ACTUAL GOOD SOURCES are also removed when Cornerstonepicker attempts to remove the ones with weaker sources, for example the Hot 100 entries which have been confirmed by Billboard themselves. I apologize for the five revert and I acknowledge that I broke the rule- again I did not know that there were better ways of settling discourse between parties. Regardless of the final verdict on this dispute, I will continue adding Nicki's achievements that I feel like are worthy to be mentioned, and editing it to be more accurate about her achievements, but per Wikipedia policy will pay closer attention to the sources I'm using. Redandvidya (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redandvidya: While cornerstonepicker should take care not to remove acceptable sources when removing poor ones, they really shouldn't have to. Please stop adding crap sources and then there would be no need to remove them. I've already provided advice above how you can learn what sources are good. I'd note that cornerstonepicker seems to have been helping you too. If you'd pay attention to what they're telling you rather than just accusing them of bias, maybe you'd have more success? I'd note that going by the talk page, the info you are claiming was removed wasn't actually removed. It was simply somewhere else.

I don't understand what you mean by "Google doesn't automatically show me the most updated versions of these articles". But if you are saying you are are searching for sources, then using them based solely on Google's snippet, please stop this straight away. It doesn't matter whether Google is showing the most updated information. You need to check the actual source to make sure you aren't missing some context, or maybe something which would make it an unreliable source. (Is it a blog, an op-ed etc.) It's no wonder you are getting into trouble if you are doing this.

If the problem is when you search and check out the source, you end up with Google's Accelerated Mobile Pages which can be outdated, ask at the WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse or maybe WP:RDC for how you can avoid this problem. (Often simply removing amp from the URL will help if it's on the third party site's URL. If it's on a Google URL, it's a little more complicated.)

If the problem is that your searches for sources are failing because the information has changed between the index and when you view it so you thought you found a source but check it out and found you didn't (and you don't actually try adding it to our articles), this is why you should be using quality secondary sources not primary ones or crap secondary ones which continually change the information. Note that if there are no quality secondary sources which cover the information, this a strong indication the info doesn't belong. Always remember a lot of true information simply doesn't belong; if no one else cares, then we don't either. If you're not sure how to find secondary sources, again I suggest WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge Redandvidya's edit warring, which they admitted is due to them not being familiar with policy. With that being said, as the one who reported Cornerstonepicker for their sockpuppetry back in July last year, I fully support every proposition made by Redandvidya, as Cornerstonepicker's bias was made clear through not only their edits on their IP account, but also their continuing nitpicking of Nicki Minaj's article and articles related to her. It is extremly obvious that Cornerstonepicker is a fan of Cardi B, and is unable to edit the contents of a fellow female rapper, Minaj-related articles without neutrality. These points made above just prove once again that apart from their helpful work on Wikipedia, they have an agenda. Not to question or disavow the admin who reviewed their SPI (which speaks very loudly), but respectfully, Cornerstonepicker being the experienced user they were back then, and are, should have been blocked for their abusive sockpuppetry. It's pure irony that they had logged out while making abusive edits on their IP account. AshMusique (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree to this, and yes I have to improve my own encyclopedic skills and I recognize that, however ultiple other editors have also been dissatisfied with Cornerstonepicker's nitpicky edits. Redandvidya (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Biased editing is potentially a problem. "Nitpicky" probably not. For starters, it's not "nitpicky" to demand proper sources nor to demand that sources actually say what you claim they do. But also in general, having high standards for what goes in articles is reasonable. To be fair, if an editor removes/reverts well sourced and perfectly understandable content that isn't WP:UNDUE etc i.e. material which should be in the article just because of some minor language errors or because there were errors in the sourcing template which didn't prevent the source from being identified or something like that, this is likely a problem. But I've seen no sign this is what's happening here. Instead, you seem mostly frustrated about demands for high quality sourcing before adding content to the article. Or to put it a different way, if there really are problems with cornerstonepicker's editing, it's difficult to see it from this case since most of the complaints seem to be about behaviour which was reasonable. (As for the IP stuff, you're not likely to get a different judgment at ANI than SPI especially since it's over 6 months old with no signs of it reoccurring.) Likewise the fact that a number of fans are unhappy about such demands doesn't mean much. The number of people who are unhappy about our article Donald Trump is I suspect several magnitudes more people than have ever edited Wikipedia. The number of people who've complained about it in some way on Wikipedia is I suspect more than the number of active editors we have. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Two obvious Evlekis-socks needing a block

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

---

Killing Brownfingers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• The first one is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis per their user name and the edit summary of their first edit, and the second one is an obvious sock since they reverted me, in a tag-team job with the first one (and don't revert their edits on Surrey Commercial Docks, check the edits and you'll see why...). And, as always with Evlekis, they should be indeffed with talk page access removed, since Evlekis will otherwise start posting sh*te, including utterly rude personal attacks against anyone he dislikes here, on their talk pages. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've nuked the first one, that's obvious - but it actully reverted the second one, to restore your edit. Is this a thing as well with Evlekis? Black Kite (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: It's what Evlekis does all the time, and has been doing for years, following me around reverting almost every edit I make, using the same procedure: first reverting me with a throw-away account that usually does nothing else, like Monkeyfile, then reverting that account with an obvious sock, with the usual insults, hoping that someone will revert the obvious sock but not the other one, thereby removing my edit (which very often happens). So yes, Monkeyfile is Evlekis, without a shred of a doubt, just like countless other socks before it. So if you're checking edits made by an obvious Evlekis-sock also always check all edits made just before (and sometimes also just after) the edits that were made by the obvious sock. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll file that one away for future reference. Sro23 has blocked the other one in the meantime. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• In case there was any doubt, cu- Confirmed -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• While we're at it: @Zzuuzz: Raat ko aasmaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Evlekis (see talk page, showing that TPA should be removed...) in spite of having been blocked as a sock of someone else, so maybe everyone in that SPI is Evlekis (which wouldn't be the first time some other sockmaster has turned out to be Evlekis...). I haven't looked at that SPI though. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• TPA removed. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• That explains the CU result. I've encountered both sockmasters before, Evlekis has tried to get me to file a report on one of his socks as an IrzaKhanz69 one at times (see history of the actual SPI page to get an idea of what I mean). Pahunkat (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, "raat ko aasmaan" (Template:Lang-ur) means "the sky at night" in Hindustani. Why they would choose a name in that language I have no idea. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 18:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Probably a Googlish attempt at 'darkness'; Evlekis isn't known for being a subtle sockmaster by any means. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe Evlekis was listening to music? He is Serb, "Noćno nebo" (meaning "night sky") is a popular 1980's song by Serbian band Van Gogh, and if you translate "Noćno nebo" into Urdu in a machine translator you get the username we're discussing. He's done things like that before: picked a random phrase or something, translated it to a random language in a machine translator, and then used it as name for a sock. In this case I don't think the choice of language to translate to was random, though, since he was deliberately trying to pass for being another sock master. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thomas.W You reckon? Seeing the history of this person's user talk I found this image. Presuming Mr Evlekis is the lanky guy to the left (about 2 meters tall given he is same height as door, not unusual for a Serb I admit), that most definitely is not a Serbian police uniform he is wearing. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Google Translate gives me رات کا آسمان (raat ka aasmaan), i.e. "night's sky", for "Noćno nebo". Only different by one vowel, and a better translation, but it still seems to contradict Thomas.W's theory. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 03:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

M Imtiaz Snap! I am personally more comfortable with ноћно небо (Cyrillic for Night Sky) than the Urdu, particularly as we say нічне небо. But our Slavic languages have the cases you'd associate with Latin and if you wanted to give the term "of the night sky" then it becomes нічного неба. Both the adjective and the noun decline. As such, the "ko" is clearly not wrong given it brings back over a thousand results; it is clearly just another tense, case, circumstance or it may be poetic prose. Now just maybe the editor here could originate from the Indian subcontinent, or it might be some cunning clown from any part of the world being helped by an Urdu speaker. The options are endless and do not point the finger at one specific editor who hasn't hit the edit button in close to eight years. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Coldtrack: Evlekis hits the edit button every single day of the year: he's the most prolific sockmaster, and vandal, on en-WP, and has been ever since he was indeffed close to eight years ago... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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

User CejeroC disruptively editing

CejeroC (talk · contribs) has been inserting the parameter color_process into the infobox for multiple live-action film articles, and while it is a valid parameter, the documentation explicitly states, in fact in the first sentence of the description of the parameter, "For animated films only." I first notified Cejero of their misuse of the parameter in December of last year. On March 16 I became aware that they were continuing to misuse the parmeter and issued another warning that day. The following day I issued a final warning as they had continued to insert this parameter on live-action films. As far as I'm aware, neither any of my warnings nor any other messages left on their Talk page have been acknowledged, perhaps because they appear to be editing using a mobile device. I understand that as a result of that they may not even be aware that they are receiving notifications at their Talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that leaves any options other than to block them until they acknowledge that they have read and understand that they are misusing the parameter in question. I would be happy to see them unblocked as soon as they indicated that they would stop applying that parameter for non-animated films, and am amenable to other options that will similarly result in their no longer making these disruptive edits.

Examples of misuse of parameter (all from March 17 or later):

• March 21 (after final warning) - [19]
• March 21 (after final warning) - [20]
• March 17 (precipitating final warning) - [21]

Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also observed no evidence of acknowledgement, apology or refutation argument from the user. The ability to acknowledge and either explain or apologise for disruptive editing (with merit or not) is essential. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC appears to have always edited on mobile, and almost all their edits are tagged as being made with the WMF mobile app rather than mobile web. They do not appear to have ever edited either a user talk page or an article talk page. It is my understanding (I don't have a smartphone but have seen Iridescent raise this issue) that the mobile app gives editors no indication they have messages other than a number that they may well overlook or misinterpret, and no link to their talk page. This person may well have no idea they have been warned against doing this. Is there a page they have hit repeatedly where a hidden note could be left? I know this came up here concerning another editor recently, and I've seen disbelief expressed on a Wikipedia-criticism site that I should not name on-wiki (by, IIRC, a member of Arbcom), so please excuse me if I have this wrong, but we urgently need to develop heuristics for such situations, because the WMF is apparently not likely to fix this glaring problem that we can't communicate with a very large class of relatively new community members. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The only pattern I saw is that their edits have focused on articles for older films, articles that probably don't have a lot of eyes on them. Unfortunately they appear to go in, make their edits, and then don't revisit the same article for months at a time, likely assisted by the aforementioned limited-oversight on such articles (i.e. if an article on your watchlist never updates, why would you go back to it?). I undid a large number of their erroneous edits last week, which may get their attention, but that's speculation. Unfortunately, in the interests of getting their attention, given their unpredictable editing habits, I'm not sure there's any option other than to block them. It's not what I'd prefer; I just don't know any other way to flag them down at this point. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

They don't have e-mail enabled either, so I took a radical step and plopped a big fat message to them at the top of Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1950–1959), which I saw they'd edited a couple of times recently. I'm not sure whether the app shows hidden messages, so I restricted my WP:IAR to disfiguring a draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the Android app (for me at least) gives logged-in users a very jarring and hard-to-ignore system-level alert. No idea how reliable that is, though. It's logged out users (on all apps and the mobile web), and all iOS app users who live in a bubble. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you. I'm flying utterly blind here, I know almost nothing about using smartphones, so, a stupid question: after the ding and vibrate, can an Android app user then find the message? Is there a way to get to their talk page? IIRC Iridescent was laying a lot of the blame on the Minerva skin that's forced on mobile users by default? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Just tried a few more tests. Even with the app closed and the phone locked, I got a system-level push notification a few minutes after leaving a message on my alt's talk page. In it, there was a link to the talk page. I tried again with notifications for the app blocked (in Android settings), and of course got no push notification, as expected. But there was also no in-app notification, or at least it was so subtle that I missed it. I have no idea how many people block notifications for the app.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T274359

Aside, I tried using the app to reply here. Put "wp:ani" into the search bar and clicked the first result. Got a copy of ANI from August 2020! Going to sign off for tonight. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits continue. [22]. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Redroses10

Please urgently unblock User:Redroses10 who is a student on a course I'm currently delivering, and a bona fide new contributor; as is User:ArazAGHA, whom User:Nick Moyes, the blocking admin, incorrectly believes to be the same person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 11:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A complaint about Fram

This user is going to each and every one of my articles and either moving to draftspace or tagging them with a speedy deletion for reasons like 'unreliable sources' or 'this needs to be rewritten' instead of tagging my articles with a template. For example, on Draft:Bromley, Victoria, I reworded 60% of the source, with the exception of a quote and a population table, which is enough recreation to not warrant copyright infringement, and yet he still tags it with a speedy deletion, saying that 'even the uncopied information is hardly understandable'. He is trying to deliberately delete all of my pages, and he's the only one complaining about them. He even went as far as outright saying 'this article is bad, really?' on one of my articles. You have to stop him — Preceding unsigned comment added by TableSalt342 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I was just writing the below as a new section, so here goes

Can we please get a restriction for User:TableSalt342 forcing him to only create articles through WP:AFC? I have moved many of his creations to draft space, and tagged a few others for copyvio violations. I've tried explaining the issues, but nothing seems to register.

Recent creations (in the mainspace originally) include things like

• Draft:Källeryd (everything is a problem, from the first sentence to the ridiculous section on "Other names", or the fact that none of the 10 sources should ever be used as a reference on enwiki)
• Draft:Mubarak Al-Abdullah (with the sentence "According to Airbnb, amenities in Mubarak Al-Abdullah include kitchens, Wi-Fi, pools, free parking and air conditioning" as icing on the cake)
• Draft:Nugunek (intro: "Nugunek is a town in Turkmenistan without earthquakes")
• Draft:Cotrilla which is just a farm apparently
• Draft:Ruanaich, which not only informs us that it has three minerals, but also that "The BNB in Ruanaich, Ruanaich Bed and Breakfast, was rated 7 of the islands' 12 inns and BNBs, averaging top reviews in location, cleanliness, service and value, with the hotel style being described as 'quaint' and 'charming'.", or that "Shops in Ruanaich include 4 model shops, 1 craft store, 1 coffee shop and 1 other shop.", sourced to a site[23] which not only isn't reliable (just like most sources they use), but also that none of these shops are in Ruanaich actually.

Nearly all their creations are displaying the same qualities, and aren't fit for the mainspace. Fram (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• After reviewing the examples given, I have to agree with Fram on this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• The "main settlement" on Mull is Baile Mòr (where the Abbey is), and this is "also known locally as "The Village"." The island certainly has no towns and, as far I can see, Ruanaich is just a farm. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Describing the location of towns and such right down to the tectonic place on which they reside ("Ruanaich is a town on the center of Isle of Iona, a small island in the Hebrides of Scotland, United Kingdom, British Isles, Europe, Eurasian Plate") is, well, interesting. Seems like a very eager but also very misguided stab at editing, but the writing style is just not up to the quality an article needs. ValarianB (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion in this manner is unlikely to be productive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hmm. Is Draft:Källeryd being lined up for DYK April Fool’s? (The opening line reminds me of a 6 year old me writing my postal address for the first time). DeCausa (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Earth, Sol system, Gould Belt, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe Prime. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Omission of Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex — unforgivable. El_C 15:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Now we'll all have to send out change-of-address cards. *sigh* Cabayi (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC) This is exactly what I wrote as my address when I was in third grade. Brilliant.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Apparently at the moment there’s no rental accommodation available in Draft:Cane, Western Australia. But it is an English-speaking human settlement with four streets. DeCausa (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Population: 12. I am not making this up. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC) @DeCausa: if you are seriously looking for rental properties, you need to check out Draft:Bromley, Victoria, where "There are 19 properties for sale in Bromley according to domain.com."--- Possibly (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC) yes, but what are the 12 burghers of Cane doing? They’re missing a trick. They’re gonna feel foolish when their new Wikipedia article results in a horde of incomers? DeCausa (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Forget about the metropolis of Cane. If you ever stay at Ruanaich you can visit the "nearby city" of Londonderry, which is only about 100 miles away (but unfortunately across the Malin Sea). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) @Martinevans123: Personally I prefer Lianqun, Shanghai, where "Four of Shanghai's buses pass the local bus stop" and "the average house prices in Lianqun are ¥3000", which I find very hard to believe.---Possibly (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Arrrgghh. I have only now seen how prolific this editor has been.... "You wait all year for a dodgy article and then three quite a lot all come at once". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I can’t get past Cane. How do 12 people live in four streets? what, do they have a mansion each? And they won’t rent out anything? Who do these Cane-ites think they are? DeCausa (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC) If one traveled west of Camas Prairie towards Mullan, Idaho, they would end up in the Pacific Time Zone of Idaho. Ha, imagine adding this kind of information to every single article on every location. And why stop at west?  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Nugunek does not include good sources, and there is no town in Turmenistan with such name (probably a small village, needs to be researched, but certainly not anything one can call a town).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• But wherever it is, it doesn't have earthquakes. Booking my flight now. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Not for me. It doesn't have the minerals. nagualdesign 22:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Look y'all, I enjoy making light of strange editorial decisions as much as the next smartass admin, but can we tone it down? At this point you're going through the editor's creations and it's getting uncomfortably close to making fun of the editor. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect Cane, Western Australia is not even big enough to throw a boomerang. But I'm sure the editor has contributed in perfectly good faith and should be encouraged to improve their article-building skills. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, quite right SubjectiveNotability. Apologies to TableSalt342. WP:AGF - almost certainly not a hoax account. DeCausa (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GeneralNotability, for saying that. I also think the thread on location precision is probably not as funny to the newer participant to the project who is the subject of this ANI discussion, as it is to more experienced editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Or to people who live in Iona. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@TableSalt342:, the places that you are attempting to write about seem to be extremely, extremely obscure, and span the globe. Would you care to share how you came to know about the existence of these? Some trip advisor or travel destination website? They are proving to be a bit difficult to research. ValarianB (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This is rather odd: an article created with “Carlisle” spelled wrongly, but with a piped link to the correct spelling. Brunton (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I guess Fram was right. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Oppose - TableSalt342's request that we "stop Fram". - wolf 22:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Fram's request that TableSalt342 be required to create pages only via AfC. (they seem to be confusing Wikipedia with Wikitravel). - wolf 22:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• they seem to be confusing Wikipedia with Wikitravel -- that would be Wikivoyage -- but please don't point this guy to Wikivoyage! I've already posted on our local noticeboard to keep an eye out for if he joins. Vaticidalprophet 15:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Fram's suggestion for a restriction to only AfC creations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Fram’s proposal. Joking aside, I really don’t know whether or not it’s a hoax account. DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Having seen the back and forth between the editor and Fram today, it’s obviously not a hoax. Just very very misguided and stubborn. DeCausa (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Fram's suggestion for a restriction to only AfC creations as reasonable. The AfC team can help mentor TableSalt342 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Fram's AfC proposal - Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• So much for "collaboration" — Sigh... RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't have the faintest desire to work on an article about it, but as a Western Australian, I can explain Cane. It's a bounded locality that indeed had a population of 13 in 2016, living in an area of 3,460.3 km² (1,336.0 sq mi) (see the zip file). I imagine this area doesn't contain any towns but it might well contain roadhouses for passing traffic (it's near the Nanutarra roadhouse) and/or stations for farming. Such isolation isn't at all unusual for areas in this part of the world. Cane is mentioned at North West Coastal Highway. Articles like this are certainly not a new phenomenon; see the first revision of Oombulgurri Community, Western Australia, an article I rescued back in the day. Cane is undoubtedly much less interesting than Oombulgurri ... and I can attest from experience that most people going to or even living in the Cane area probably couldn't care less which bounded locality they're in. There might be people who would want to work on an article about this place, but the current draft would be singularly unhelpful to them. Graham87 09:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Fram's suggestion that AFC be used. However, this personal attack might indicate other problems.--- Possibly (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support requiring TableSalt342 to use AFC, after reading their comments on User talk:Fram; perhaps with a clause that after they have had 20 articles accepted via AFC, they can request to have the restriction removed. Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Just had to move another one of the articles to draftspace. Noah ^💬 18:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support AFC restriction/creation ban: There is absolutely no reason why TableSalt should not be creating drafts first, and no reason for them to get upset when their obviously problematic articles get moved to draft space. The occasional personal attack doesn't help. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support TableSalt342 needs to do more thorough research before publishing articles. I think an AFC restriction would be helpful for the time being. I would only support ending their restriction if a mentor deems their draftspace content to be problem-free. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support The weakness is solely because AFC is overloaded. The backlog is growing faster than new reviewers become effective and esablished reviewers are finding it hard to cope. I guess this became a good idea with frequent article creators who had almost as many misses as hits, but that set a precedent for "Let's delegate this to the dedicated reviewers at AFC and solve it that way." And so AFC reviews get delayed for what appears to be the valid reason of mentoring an editor, when, really WP:CIR is important. For that reasn I will add cautious support to Fram's proposal below, a proposal which I hope will overtake this one on the noticeboard participants' thoughts Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support My worry with an AfC restriction is that the user may move on to expanding existing articles in a disruptive manner causing more work for other editors. I am inclined to give support to Frams proposal below. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 09:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Time for a WP:CIR ban instead?

Instead of a ban on creation in article space, I wonder if we shouldn't just skip the hassle and go straight to a WP:CIR ban. Their latest creation, during the above discussion, is Silas, Texas. It looked like this when they were finished with it. User:Fences and windows did some necessary cleaning and removed a few major errors already[24], and then I tagged all(?) remaining errors[25] and explained all issues on the article talk page[26].

Tablesalt then undid my tags[27], and reverted again[28] after User:Star Mississippi reinstated the tags. The tagged version was then again reinstated by User:Moriori, after which TableSalt started a section on the user talk page of all three of us[29][30][31], instead of taking it to the article talk page.

I invite people to read the article and talk page, and to check the replies by TableSalt. They seem to be unable to accurately read texts, and make basic errors against English to boot (well, so do I probably, but still), using "primarily sectered" and "secondarily sectered" to describe the primary sector and Secondary sector of the economy (and defending this use in their user talk page messages). I fear that, even when we force them to use AfC, they will be a massive drain on the time of other editors, and/or they will simply switch from creating articles to expanding existing ones. Fram (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Conditional support I would not wish to see an indefinite block. I have no idea if competence can be learned by this editor, but I think we must try. And I feel that short acting blocks and a formal mentoring scheme should be used until competence is acquired. Despite the many issues, I feel we should look at this editor's contributions with the same gaze that AFC does. If they have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process then that is all we should be asking for.

I accept completely that this editor lacks some skills at present. I accept that they may be incapable of taking, or be unwilling to take, those skills on board. I wonder whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention might be well placed to provide the firm assitance this editor appears to require during and between short acting CIR blocks

I would very much like my weak support in the section above to be seen as what it is, a heartfelt sigh that AFC is not the place for extra work and should not be a dumpimg ground. Fiddle Faddle 09:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support It’s not just about competence. They’re also resistant to learning/changing despite multiple editors giving them the same message. Two days ago they told Fram that they would go through AFC but then ignored it, generated a poor article and edit warred on it. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Intimidating behavior by User:Jeffrey Beall

So this guy did the whole bite the newbie thing to me a week or so ago on Wikimedia, treated me like a criminal. I think he thinks he's the sheriff of copyright law. IDK. Yesterday he changed the article on San Luis, Colorado after I had edited it the previous day. He's already been super rude so I left a snide message on his talk page, intending to give him polite "up yours" and then move on and avoid him. He responded with a message that identified my exact location, something I embarrassingly didn't realize you could do with an IP (thought it gave vague loc info). I took it as a veiled threat, an "I know where you live" statement. He uses his real name here, so I've seen his social media and he's a lonely, frustrated, old man. This is America and people like him have guns. I no longer feel safe editing under this name and, in fact, I won't really feel safe until I've moved and have a new IP. Even then, I'd be hesitant to edit anything in his claimed domain (Southern Colorado), for fear that he'd figure out it was the same person. Even if you banned him, I still feel I need to abandon this user name and move on. It'sOnlyMakeBelieve (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

1) you need to notify the user in question of this thread, as per when you edited this page in the box at the top of the edit screen. 2) I would have removed that undue image gallery from San Luis as well, it doesn't add anything to the article in that format. That being said the NHRP places could be mentioned in the text with wikilinks or as see alsos (not external links). 3) Yes that comment of Jeffrey Beall was out of hand, and constitutes WP:OUTING. We should look into that one for definite. 4) Jeffrey Beal does not own any articles, so feel free to edit wherever you like. Canterbury Tail talk 15:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Jeffrey Beall notified of this thread and warned about WP:OUTING in no uncertain terms. Edit revdeleted. El_C 15:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, no comment on the warning to Beall, since I cannot see the wording of his comments and they may, indeed, have had a threatening nature. But as far as outing, the OP explicitly linked his account with an IP address on his userpage. The OP explicitly informing us he felt free to leave snide comments on other users' pages because of vague, un-diffed rudeness merits at least some degree of warning. And He uses his real name here, so I've seen his social media and he's a lonely, frustrated, old man is certainly creepy, too. Grandpallama (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

^^. According to this, the only time Jeffrey has edited after IOMB was at San Luis, Colorado, where he used the edit summary Removed gallery per WP:IUP "Wikipedia is not an image repository." The existing link to Commons is sufficient. Also updated external links. - This is a pretty standard edit summary, so that the very next step wasn't more editing or use of the talk page but a "polite 'up yours'" is a little troubling. Disagreements happen, and discussion is a really important next step. A single edit changing something you added is not "ownership". To be clear, clicking the "geolocate" link that appears at the bottom of an IP's contribs page and highlighting that location to someone is a bit creepy and probably worth a warning (I can't see the message itself), but no more or less creepy than looking up someone social media and bringing that up here. How about let's all leave people's real life identities out of our on-wiki dealings and when someone makes an edit you disagree with, make some attempt at using the talk page before leaving them an "up yours" message. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I see a diff-less quote mentioned twice above, of which I was unaware. In any case, documentation for it is still absent. El_C 17:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C, are you talking about "up yours"? The OP states in this complaint that was their intention: I left a snide message on his talk page, intending to give him polite "up yours". Grandpallama (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

How did Jeffrey Beall see OnlyMakeBelieve‘s IP? Did they log out to leave the “up yours” comment? I can’t see any IP posting on Jeffrey Beall’s talk page history. How was OnlyMakeBelieve geolocated then? And as Rhododendrites says, Jeffrey Beall’s rather innocuous edit summary doesn’t warrant an “up yours” from OnlyMakeBelieve. Something doesn’t stack up. Is there a history between the two not disclosed? DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, see my earlier comment; OnlyMakeBelieve explicitly linked themselves to an IP on their userpage. A userpage which they have now updated to claim they were threatened by Jeffrey Beall, which seems like it should be removed. Grandpallama (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, so you did. That message should be removed. DeCausa (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

So, in summary:

• Jeffrey Bealle is being unfairly accused of outing. that is not true. All information was clearly on It'sOnlyMakeBelieve's user page. I've taken the liberty of deleting IOMB's user page, and everyone should assume that, starting now, the formerly-public info on that page should be considered private.
• If we don't want people to geolocate IP's, we really shouldn't have a Mediawiki-generated link to geolocate IP's on every IP's contribs page.
• JB's comment was of the form "[name] of [place], have a nice day", where [place] required using Geolocate on their clearly-linked IP address. That was a jerk move. Don't be that guy.
• IOMB's opening paragraph here is full of jerk moves, as was their comment on JB's talk page. And apparently IOMB did some off-wiki research on JB too. I'm not sure why El C warned one and not the other. It is really, really annoying when someone reports someone else for the same crap that they're doing. Don't be that guy.
• If IOMB really is doing a clean start (per their talk page), they need to stay away from JB. New accounts that mysteriously appear and immediately attack JB will be blocked with little to no warning.
• Just FYI, there is no such thing as a polite "up yours". By definition.

Other than that, I'm not sure what more needs to be done here. El C has warned JB, and IOMB says they're abandoning their account, so warning for the attacks in the first paragraph here would probably be moot. Unless someone wants to argue that IOMB is ineligible for a clean start, which is probably a lot of effort for no payoff. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

To repeat: I was unaware of IOMB's aforementioned transgressions at the time of issuing the warning to JB. And then, as you say, it became moot. But, I disagree about OUTING —which I called "borderline OUTING," to be precise— because expecting users to be aware of whatever MediaWiki features (like Geolocation, or even about the general properties of IPs) may be unrealistic. If a user feels like they're being outed, that in itself is a serious problem which could bring about acute distress. El_C 21:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

What? IOMB's aforementioned transgressions are in the first paragraph of this report. How could you possibly not be aware of them? And I'm not saying IOMB should have known about geolocation; I'm saying you should have. If a user feels like they've been outed when they haven't, then the solution is to educate them, not punish the person who didn't out them for outing them. Seems like it would be easier for you to just warn IOMB instead of grasping at tenuous justifications. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it’s unrealistic to “protect” those that edit with their IP in that way. The WHOIS and Geolocate tabs are there for all to see. WP:OUTING (a policy) makes it clear that it doesn’t extend to where “that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia”. I think it is deeply iniquitous that an editor (JB) should be in any way penalised or criticised where they do something that is not inconsistent with policy on the basis that it is “unrealistic” for the “victim” to have properly understood that policy. That’s carte blanche to ignore policy. DeCausa (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'm the " tenuous justifications" bad guy. Why not. El_C 22:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No, that’s not what I think FWIW. DeCausa 23:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't talking to (or quoting) you, but okay... El_C 23:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're the "tenuous justifications" guy. The "bad" is your addition. --Calton | Talk 10:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A pleasure as always, Calton. I still think that geolocating the IP of a user one is in dispute with, then greeting them with the name of their school is creepy, but what do I know? El_C 12:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

True, and I don't see anyone arguing against that. But creepy =/= outing. Grandpallama (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, I used the word "borderline," but whatever. El_C 14:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

...but what do I know? You certainly know how to move goalposts. And use passive-aggressive rhetoric. --Calton | Talk 23:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Project much? El_C 23:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Khiya ram jaat

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

---

• Khiya ram jaat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yet another in a long string of OpIndia meatpuppets. (They have a call out to their users to "fix" Wikipedia.) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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

13 years of unsupported credits from bassist Isaac Wriston

• Isaac wriston
• Talk:Isaac wriston
• Iwriston (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• MusicRightsNow (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 108.221.182.187 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:843:C200:A040:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Isaac Wriston says he played bass on more than a dozen major artist collaborations. He's a musician from the Nashville area, and his personal website says he played bass on all these songs, the same ones listed in the talk page. In the link here he says "I never signed an agreement with the producer" to be credited as bassist. The problem is that nothing aside from his personal website confirms his participation. Not album liner notes, or credits on Discogs, Apple Music, AllMusic, or Tidal. Nobody says they worked with this guy.

For 13 years he has inserted his name into various musical projects as the bass player. For all I know, he might have actually played bass on some or all of these songs, as a work-for-hire anonymous contributor, but nobody is crediting him officially, and none of the media descriptions mention his presence. Lacking any verification, this effort has the appearance of hoaxing and self-promotion.

The range Special:Contributions/2601:843:C200:A040:0:0:0:0/64 has been active recently. What's the next step? Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

13 years? Jesus. If no other sources mention him outside his website, I'd say that's 13 years of either lies and self-promotion, or truth, but still blatant unsourced self-promotion. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Its disruptive but it seems to be weirdly good faith as well, they seem to own up to all of it "As a session musician, I never signed an agreement with the producer, Cardiak, for said credits. Apologies if I stepped on anyone's toes but that is 100% me on bass. You can remove any and all credits I have added to WikiPedia if it makes you happy. I'm just a musician.” I think we’re looking at a bit of self promotion, a bit of good faith wikipedia building, and a bit of a protest against industry practices around intellectual property rights/attribution here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "weirdly good faith" is dead on. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Huh. Shit that someone can put so much work into an industry and never get any credit. If we're going by policy, it has to be removed, but I have to admit, that's one of those jobs I'd go "god, I can't be arsed" to. Weirdly good faith indeed. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't the talk page be deleted? AFAICT it s just masquerading as an article at the moment. I was about to add a speedy delete tag but thought I should ask here in case there is some guideline about this that I am unaware of. MarnetteD|Talk 20:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I've deleted it as a G8. Seems there was a major WP:V fail there. Mjroots (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots. MarnetteD|Talk 20:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

If everything is unsourced, then it's basically a fire sale; everything must go... - wolf 00:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Assuming everything IW says is true (and why not?), I don't think criticism of industry practice is necessarily justified. He may have built a reputation as a reliable session musician who will turn up, play, take his fee, and not make a fuss about royalties, songwriting credits or even acknowledgments. That was common practice in, for example, 1960s London (although in 1960s London, it's quite possible that no-one could remember by the next day). That's how Jimmy Page for one made a living.

That said - without WP:RS the information doesn't belong on WP. Narky Blert (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Back in the day, he used to tour with a band in the midwest quite a bit. I knew the lead singer of that band when he was a small time stage actor. Wow, small world. But yeah, without RS to support his credits, then it should be removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he was in Starlume, and he has played with people famous enough to have Wikipedia articles, for instance Jana Kramer.[32] He's not a Nobody, nor is he a Somebody per WP:NMUSICBIO. And without official credits or WP:SECONDARY confirmation he's not getting wiki credits. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, totally agree - without RS to support his credits, then it should be removed. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism in the Opinion polling for the next Greek legislative election

A fan of Ilias Kasidiaris, through an anonymous ip (User:87.228.220.198), is constantly vandalizing, adding false percentages. I ask an administrator to punish him exemplary for repeated vandalism. --Αθλητικά (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

We do not punish. That is not our role. er, thanks.10:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Αθλητικά: Your edit summary, however raises concerns about your neutrality. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Cannot tell if it's vandalism or a content dispute. Warned IP, who was not notified of this discussion. so much for civility in edit summaries. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Ip adds false percentages that were never shown in a poll (as you can see from the sources in the entry). And he has not done it once but repeatedly.

To be honest, if I go to the sources I do not see anything even close to what is in the table. Either there is massive vandalism in the article, or the sources do not match, or the sources quickly become outdated, in which case they should not be used.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick spam block please

Can we have a quick block of Multi-GPU rendering for Large models works please? Currently busily spamming weird benchmarking references into random small mammal articles (...?!). Seeing as AIV is looking rather languid ATM, I'm placing this here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's really weird. Indeffed, but watch out for socks. Canterbury Tail talk 13:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Legal Threat by D33psp33dAI

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

---

D33psp33dAI made a legal threat in their edit summary here--VViking_TalkEdits 14:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

lblocked. El_C 14:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Aleyamma38

I'm having some issues with Aleyamma38 and am looking for assistance. Others that have been involved include Drmies, Onel5969, Fizconiz, Celestina007 They have a communication style that is challenging to work with in good circumstances, full of bolding and all caps (and bolded all caps!) Excuse me please first you go and learn English! You are ACCUSING me of personally attacking. Like seriously, BIG LOL. Anyways, no thanks for this USELESS ADVICE of yours. Keep it yourself. Because I know I'M ON JUST SIDE [33] When they get into an editorial dispute, it becomes very difficult to communicate with them, with personal attacks and conspriracy accusations [34]. They recently created Priyanka Choudhary that I felt had some issues around notability as this is a fairly new actress with only one significant role. Tag removed, added back, and I get a somewhat aggressive and hostile note on my talk page. I asked them to calm down some and use the article talk page and it went south from there.

After some back and forth, I started a talk page discussion Talk:Priyanka_Choudhary#Notability_concerns and their response was not helpful You just TARGET certain EDITORS. Well, it was already clear when a Wikipedian Admin along with two editors were bugged to cleanup a single sentence of the article Udaariyaan, from the moment I added it. Fine! Keep up this GREAT WIKIPEDIAN WORK![35]. I left them a second NPA warning after that and their response [36].

You can see from their talk page that others are having the same issues. I'd someone to review the interactions they've had with me as well as other in the past few weeks. I'm hopeful that warnings and advice from someone they've never dealt with would be helpful, but this has been going on for over a week (mostly with others, not me) and their style hasn't changed. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruption, false allegations, yelling, harassment...

• Aleyamma38 (talk · contribs)

Aleyamma38 is on a tear. It's hard to figure out the timeline because it's in so many places. I suppose it started on Udaariyaan where the editor was beefing up the plot, and User:Fizconiz made a few minor changes, and got "corrected" and then chewed out on their talk page and in an edit summary. Then User:Schazjmd, who tried patience, gets lectured in an edit summary. Then User:Cyphoidbomb gets it also. Meanwhile the shit is hitting the fan on Aleyamma's user page, and this is the last diff in a section full of yelling. (Note I had removed a not so friendly comment by Fizconiz, which I warned them about on their own talk page.) In the next section, Schazjmd tries again, and Aleyamma proves that no good deed goes unpunished. In the meantime I had asked them not to ping me anymore, which they did again (here, here, and here three times while saying they wouldn't ping me anymore--this is the last diff in that section (note I said "this is stupid", not "the editor is stupid"--I'm speaking of the commentary, the yelling, the ongoing pinging of all previous editors, etc.). Also in the meantime User:Ravensfire gets yelled at, and this is the end of another rant.

If you want more, check Talk:Priyanka Choudhary, User talk:Ravensfire, and User_talk:Onel5969. Particularly jarring are the silly claims of admins ganging up, a cabal against them, etc. But this report is long enough already and I get a headache from all the bold caps. This user cannot edit in a collaborative atmosphere and makes a battleground of whatever they touch--and they feel the need to touch everything. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• I was gonna partial block them and direct them here, but OK. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I considered that, but didn't think that would have amounted to a productive exchange at this time. El_C 14:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah. How long have they been like this?Oy! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
    • It appears to have kicked off on 15 March when Fizconiz challenged a DOB source on a BLP Aleyamma38 was editing and A38 posted this on Fizconiz's talk page. Prior to that, A38's exchanges with other editors tended toward the obsequious. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
      • I'll have you know I looked up that word before Uncle G makes fun of me again. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
        • Everything must be good with the world if our favourite Uncle has been editing. I was going to hold you up as a perfect Wikipedia editor, but you just reminded me that perfection is even harder to achieve than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
          • I have been soothing Drmies' brow with furniture makers and a bus stop. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• And the thing that got them blocked, they did it in their unblock request. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  Their latest unblock request still worries me, with onestly, even, I want a break from the baseless brawls. And, if there is to be any resolution made. I promise I will only carry out my regular edits as usual once my block is removed. Just hope, the Targeting game doesn't continue,. I'm going to be hopeful that they are still upset and will be back without (or at least significantly reduced) drama. Ravensfire (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Des Valee overwriting protected commons file at Rojava without consensus

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

---

Previous report at the commons board about the same user [37], led to file being protected. After which the the user made a protected edit request [38]. Following opposition to this edit request user overwrote the file with the summary. "more updated map, from wikimedia nonsense". Also submitted this report at Commons since it concerns both Commons & Wikipedia. StuffedDance (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow obvious retaliatory posting from a discussion on commons by a user who completely lacks any knowledge on Wikipedia. I would recommend to read up on WP:BATTLEGROUND and other Wikipedia policies. Wikimedia and Wikipedia are two separate projects and nothing states you can't upload an image if it has your best judgement. Your report on commons was shot down because it was a simple dispute trying to get attention. Des Vallee (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Also want to point this user's excellence in assuming good faith and personal attacks:

"In fact they both show the contrary map. Either case you either need to have your eyesight checked or stop editing in bad faith."

"Accurate map made less accurate with the summary of ”improving” lets assume that wasn’t deliberate..." Des Vallee (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Before this goes much further here:

1. SD, do not import Commons disputes to Wikipedia. DV, while tempting, please don't reply to such a report with comments about SD's Commons edits. We have enough disputes here already, we do not need another site's disputes too.
2. If there is a problem with the map Des Vallee switched to in the article, then no doubt someone who actually edits en.wiki will bring it up on the article talk page.

I think this should just be closed as no action before it becomes a timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam this isn't in relation to Wikipedia and is just retaliatory posting in my view. Des Vallee (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Canvassing in Malassezia

MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)

Malassezia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I formally request to look at Talk:Malassezia#WIP discussion. WP:CANVASS in broad daylight in an questionable attempt to enforce WP:MEDRS. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Evidence1: 1013864045 - Parties which called are already involved in discussion with me on the opposite side of the dispute. The article and matters are separate from this one.
• Evidence2: 1013478970 - The same.

They brought it to the attention of editors that commented on the same issue elsewhere. WP:CANVASS does not prohibit all canvassing, just inappropriate canvassing. And you had already brought attention to the topic here. Natureium (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Natureium: And you had already brought I only pointed out at reverts, not discussion as evidence of poor application of WP:MEDRS. People called by MrOllie don't overlap with those in MEDRS talk. Don't forget to take dates and times into account as well.

@Natureium: They brought it to the attention of editors that commented MrOllie canvassed those who confronted me at here (Pancreatic cancer). The matters discussed here (Malassezia) and here (Pancreatic cancer) are related only indirectly as reverts concern different sub families of fungus (Malassezia restricta vs Malassezia globosa) and different diseases (Crohn's Disease vs Pancreas cancer). The matters concern only relationship in either exacerbating immune response or cancer. Both contributions were sourced differently. Parties which were called by MrOllie are biased and may not participate in the indirectly-related discussion and pinging them out intentionally is a sign of ill intent.

Moreover, considering that MrOllie took less than a 3 minutes to make a revert, failed to deliver any clues on problem with sources, failed to point in clear direction of WP:MEDRES provisions, didn't contribute to the original article and yet somehow figured I was participated in here (Pancreatic cancer) I summarily consider this as reliable evidence of violation of WP:CANVASS. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• As a side note: My recent contributions are WIP in at least 2 places and this is well known to all parties involved in the Pancreas discussion. Bluntly reverting anything is always a disservice to wikipedia, let alone, direct guideline violation (assuming WP:MEDRS is applicable): WP:BMI#What_to_do_if_you_want_a_more_appropriate_source.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• If there had been commenters on both sides of the issue, and MrOllie had notified everyone, pro and con, that would not be canvassing, right? And if he had only notified those that agreed with him, that would be canvassing. But the fact that everyone in the discussion disagreed with you doesn't somehow mean MrOllie can no longer notify everyone of a similar discussion. The note at Talk:Malassezia#WIP seems fine. The note at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus seems a little non-neutrally worded, but not significantly, and not enough to worry about. I don't think there is a canvassing issue here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, User:Alexander Davronov in the future, please note the big orange banner at the top of the page. You're supposed to notify people you report here. I've done that for you this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Let's do it: MrOllie --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: ... If there had been commenters on both sides of the issue ... I'm not sure which "issues" are you talking about as MrOllie didn't clarify any in details. His bulk edits (one,two) touch a lot of text, both old and recent. He made it clear he was aware of Pancreas cancer discussion in his revert summary:Revision as of 21:20, March 23, 2021, MrOllie so it's a conclusively dishonest bold-faced attempt to influence discussion by having "right" people (WP:VOTESTACK?). --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Seems pretty courageous of the OP to complain here when they are attempting to edit-war[39][40][41] poorly-sourced medical content into the article – and they know it's poorly-sourced as elswhere they're trying to gets MEDRS changed to lower its sourcing standards: see WT:MEDRS#Primary sources usage. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: ...when they are attempting to edit-war
I immediately took matters into Talk:Malassezia (March 23, 2021) WIP discussion, so this is simply false. In response to that MrOllie has failed to provide details on his revert (as I requested here) at the same time calling others (seemingly involved) parties instead (Evidence1/Evidence2).

Making 2 reverts in bulk in consequence (one,two) content of which includes a whole range of information (see details above) overlaps with Pancreas cancer discussion only in part. Nobody so far has elaborated on the rest of "issues". The time that took MrOllie to revert changes was so short after my last edits so it's apparent that he didn't assess anything. He seems to have ignored that the said discussion he is fully aware of is still going on.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring. The diffs show you did that. Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You are amongst those called in by MrOllie in Revision as of 21:45, March 23, 2021.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:TPO Violation

User talk:MrOllie (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

MrOllie removed ANI notice (related to this case) left by me without having my permission. It wasn't page clean up. I'm aware that Floquenbeam already notified him. I took no action. Revisions timeline:

• 13:32, March 24, 2021 - I left notice as per WP:ANI
• 14:00, March 24, 2021 - I replaced it with {{ANI-notice}} template.
• 14:45, March 24, 2021) - WP:TPO violation

Additional cases of possible WP:TPO-breach worth to look at on User talk:MrOllie:

• 17:54, March 22, 2021 (Reverted 1 edit by Ice-eleven (talk): Rv duplicate message, again) - NO duplication.
• 17:47, March 22, 2021 (Restored revision 1013625252 by MrOllie (talk): Rv duplicate message) - NO duplication.
  --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• You're going to need to buy a clue, and stop accusing MrOllie of all kinds of unrelated "violations" in order to get him in trouble. Editors are allowed to manage their own talk like this. No one needs your permission to remove a post from their talk page. If anything, you were in the wrong for spamming a repeated warning to his talk page when i already told you I had notified him. This is veering rather quickly into a battleground attitude. You risk sanctions if you continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Users can remove basically whatever they want from their own talk pages, see the third bullet point exception in WP:TPO and WP:OWNTALK - "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". There's nothing actionable here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@86.23.109.101: WP:OWNTALK is a subject to the same WP:TPO (WP:TPG policy) which lists clean up not as exception, but as «... examples of appropriately editing others' comments», which doesn't automatically gives a right to clean up whatever they think is "unnecessary" once they are objected. I object such actions here and of course asking admins to take this as an evidence of anti-collaborative behavior (and as the fact of awareness of the notice). The rest of revisions listed above shows such tendency pretty clearly. This misbehavior is clearly actionable. It's not the major issue here though and should be only considered in conjunction with canvassing. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, yes they can remove those comments and notifications. The only things you are not allowed to remove from your talk page are declined unblock requests while the block is active, deletion tags on the page (as in the boxes stating that the talk page is being considered for deletion, not notifications of deletion discussions) and shared IP notices. Users can delete anything else they want from their own talk page - see WP:BLANKING. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

AXONOV, you need to drop this. The IP is right. There’s nothing wrong with removing an ANI notice (or pretty much anything else) from your own talk page. it’s done all the time. As Floquenbeam has already suggested, you coming across as completely lacking clue pursuing this. DeCausa (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa,86.23.109.101: I'll let admins handle & close this section. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Boomerang?

In this thread, so far, the OP has made clear that they don't understand WP:CANVASS, WP:TPO, and most importantly WP:MEDRS. At what point is it time to talk about a WP:BOOMERANG on WP:CIR grounds? - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon goading banned users into a violation - What is the policy?

I am topic banned from one topic and my talk page is being riddled with provoking discussions from Guy Macon, trying to prompt me to violate my ban. Is there any entrapment policy here? --Frobozz1 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

[42], [43] - Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, here – written after the ban was imposed – you quite clearly imply he has misbehaved, so it's unsurprising that Guy Macon feels the need to reply to defend himself. Filing an ANI claiming an editor is provoking you and gravedancing, whilst you appear to be provoking him, is probably not a great look? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You can ask Guy Macon to stop posting to your talk page and this should be respected. But if you're going to do that, you need to shut up about Guy Macon. Don't refer to them directly or indirectly. I suspect if you do that Guy Macon will also stop posting to your talk page without asking. If you ask Guy Macon to stay away from your talk page but then keep talking about them there, I'd fully support an indefinite block of you. BTW I'm sure you've been told this before, but stop posting random requests for help on ANI. Use the WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk or frankly just ask on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Editor with close connection to page topic engaged in edit warring

User:AFGFactChecker has engaged in several disruptive edits and reverts on the Ahmad Zahir page within the last 24 hours. They have admitted having a personal connection with the topic of the page here: [44], so there is a conflict of interest on top of inappropriate editing. I have reverted their edits several times, considering it to be vandalism, and asked for appropriate references. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You should at least please remove the reference to him being Pashtun, there's absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. You can verify it with literally anybody that speaks or can read Persian that the sources Im posting are authentic, to the best of my knowledge there is no rule on Wikipedia that states that every single source must be posted in English. Just because I'm from Afghanistan doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest, what kind of reasoning is that? Are you saying that I shouldn't contribute anything at all regarding information about my country because that would be incredibly bigoted of you? I'm just trying to prevent Ahmad Zahir from being claimed as a Pashtun when he was clearly not. I even edited Aryana Saeds page to include her being half Pashtun even though some user had claimed her as Tajik as well as Farhad Daryas page to include him being paternally Pashtun so you can't acuse me of bias. How on earth is posting a historical document from Mohammad Sediq Farhang and video testimony from Ahmad Zahirs closest friend in Persian considered to be disruptive editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFGFactChecker (talk • contribs) 03:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@AFGFactChecker: Youtube is not a reliable source, nor is some hosted screen shot of a page from a book. While non English sources are allowed, you would need to provide all the necessary information like book title, author, publisher, etc. Blackmane (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this to me, I will make my best effort to include the source in the format you stated, however, I'm confused, do you mean I don't need to provide a screenshot of the page in the book as long as I format the reference for the book correctly? Also, how would I go about posting the video in Persian of Ahmad Zahirs best friend and biographer stating him to be from the ethnic Tajiks of Afghanistan if not through YouTube? is there some alternative video platform that would be acceptable?AFGFactChecker (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

AFGFactChecker - Are there other sources that you can cite to support the content you're adding? The sources you're trying to reference are not reliable sources. Also, please refrain from edit warring. If there's a dispute over content between users, they need to resolve it properly by discussing it on the article's talk page and working to come to a consensus. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I tried working with the guy and discussing this issue with him on his talk page but he somehow accused me of having a conflict of interest just because I'm from Afghanistan and told me there was some rule where you can post any sources that aren't in English. Can someone please explain to me how a book reference by a contemporary historian and a video from his biographer and close friend aren't reliable sources.

AFGFactChecker I restored the reference to Pashtun background in the lede, and provided an RS for it. If there's dispute on this, you're going to need to find better reliable sources to support your claim.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Some random article with no source backing up the claim of him being Pashtun is not a reliable source. I posted the book where historian Mohammad Sediq Ferhang who personally knew his father stated him to have a Tajik background. How the heck is that not a RS?

AFGFactChecker - videos are almost never reliable sources. If this chap is Zahir's biographer, why are you not providing a link to a published biography (not necessarily in English) with proper publishing information, so that our Farsi- or Pashto- or Tajik-reading editors can check it? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

There are tons of videos posted in references throughout Wikipedia what sort of standard is this? You do know there exist things such as oral biography right? Search the guy's name across the internet and you'll find a ton of info regarding his relationship with Ahmad Zahir or you can have someone who actually understands Persian to watch the video to confirm it? TOLO News which is Afghanistan's biggest news network even had him on a program to discuss Ahmad Zahirs life which was included in the video reference I posted.

Edit warring and possible COI

• Patrioticvoterp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.88.105.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.208.9.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The sole activity of these IP addresses and the new account has been persistently adding a blog prediction called "Patriotic Voter" on opinion polling sections in various election articles, in particular on 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. Possibly has COI issues, regardlessly they have been edit warring well past 3RR. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi, I see you have blocked the account due to their username and the sandbox text. Could you take a look at this though? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Pblocked 59.xx from 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election & 2021 Puducherry Legislative Assembly election articles for the duration of the election (end of April). 117.xx doesn't appear to have warred. ​- Cabayi (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Cabayi, sorry about that. Look at this IP range 117.208.13.215/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Imo, it looks like a duck. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  You could tighten that range to the /21's contributions & still be causing collateral damage with a rangeblock. Cabayi (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, you are right. The main page is semi-protected now anyways so I suppose it's not necessary. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Nurupa - already found guilty of sockpuppetry and still causing disruption - sock/canvas fest at Mutahir Showkat

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

---

• Pkdolly001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muneeb Bashir Wani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nurupa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Faizan Hameed Lone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi all, Nurupa has already been found guilty of misuse of the Pkdolly account, see here. CU also found them to be misusing the Faizan account, see here. I have also reported the Muneeb account and added it to the Nurupa SPI. As you can see from Talk:Mutahir Showkat and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutahir Showkat, there is a massive amount of canvassing and sockpuppetry surrounding Showkat. It's unclear whether the accounts are all Showkat himself or whether they are people associated with or paid by Showkat. In my opinion, it doesn't matter either way and their editing is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and warrants investigation.

Please could an admin investigate and issue an appropriate sanction? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Help talk:Getting started deleted

Hi Admins, your urgent attention is requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests to put out a dumpster fire caused by a user moving the Help talk:Getting started to user space. Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I tried to move it back, and I got a database error. Something in Wikipedia tried to perform the move, and it quit after 3 seconds and said "database error". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard, I guess an admin with "renaming" rights may be able to help us. Otherwise, copy-paste, histmerge, and move-protect. Let's see where it goes. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  @TheAafi: Has anyone asked you, yet, why you were moving it in the first place?! ——Serial 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, you were undoing User:Saisagione's move of the page into "his" new userspace. Bizarre! ——Serial 14:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, here's the result. Swapping turned unhelpful as well. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've requested system admin help on the meta. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 15:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up the redirects that you left behind, as requested. So the problem is just putting User talk:TheAafi/Help talk and Special:Undelete/User talk:TheAafi/Help talk back at Help talk:Getting started it appears. Uncle G (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. For information, a Phabricator ticket has been filed. Polyamorph (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, Polyamorph, Worth noticing is that Help talk:Getting started is not accepting the move, but what is now at User talk:TheAafi/Help talk can be moved easily to some other destination. HJ Mitchell is trying something. Seems so. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The stack trace implies that this is a database problem that is unlikely to be fixable by administrators with just administrator tools. Uncle G (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The suspicion at Special:Diff/1013985028 has been reported as correct. The (earlier) page move is still being completed, all these hours later. Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
        • 5a5ha seven just moved it to Help talk:Getting Started without discussion - this is the WRONG page. Why could they not just wait, the sysadmins are on it. Polyamorph (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

          Polyamorph, this should be reverted quickly to prevent further disruption and Move-Protected as well so that an admin/sysadmin may perform the action only imo ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 20:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

          Not able to revert the move. It gives database error. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 20:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

          TheAafi, I think you should stop moving the page yourself. There was no need for you to move it to your own userspace in the first place, after several pagemovers had already highlighted the problem. Just leave it to the experts now, please. Polyamorph (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• If all of this isn't enough, I think this may be a block-evading sockpuppet that's caused this mess. Pahunkat (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Polyamorph, please update the phabricator bug report to note that the original page history is now split between Help talk:Getting Started and Special:Undelete/User talk:TheAafi/Help talk, because of attempts to revert this, and that that needs repair by whichever sysadmin takes this on. Everyone else, please note that it is a distinct possibility that repeatedly moving this page around will create further watchlist updates and exacerbate the problem. Please leave this to sysadmins to fix until/unless they hand it back to us. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G, I will update the ticket. Polyamorph (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

User gaming the system

Not sure if this is exactly the right place to put this, but here goes. User:KNOTTARRY's edits make it seem like they are WP:NOTHERE, specifically it looks like they are trying to WP:PGAME. They have no edits to mainspace, but over 400 edits to their sandbox, with over 300 in the past hour at the time of writing. All edits made by them to the sandbox are just rapidly reverting between 2 versions (see page history), so to me this definitely doesn't look like anything constructive. Thanks in advance for any advice. ANM🐁^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by Izno. 🍻 Chlod (say hi!) 17:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that he is trying to get extended confirmed for an unknown reason--85.99.17.51 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

My finger slipped... Izno (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Izno: Ah, I see... ;). Thanks for the quick response, recent changes was full of sandbox edits :). ANM🐁^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban request for User:JNoXK

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

I don't think I can do a topic ban unilaterally. We have an editor who advertised that they are a member of a group that believes in male supremacy. They are slow-motion edit warring at Sexual dimorphism to remove studies saying men and women have different brain architecture, and to replace them with a claim that men have superior brain architecture. I also note this edit. Can we get a quick topic ban from human sexuality and gender (or whatever the current approved wording is), broadly construed? Unless people think (based on their comments here) that they should just be blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support anything up to a full community ban. There's no place for misogynistic bigotry here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, and another revert and you can block them for EW. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Support' anything up to a full community ban. per Boing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC) stiking 'cause I partial blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  I just added what is said in the other article( white matter) to there. Also, i do not believe in male supremacist ideology. This is a misunderstanding JNoXK 18:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  This diff from March 23, 2021 shows JNoXK re-adding the already-deleted template {{Member of Men Going Their Own Way}} to his user page, after being reverted by Floquenbeam because the userbox wasn't allowed anymore. So it seems there's no misunderstanding here, given what Men Going Their Own Way is. —El Millo (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Your statements at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User mgtow show otherwise. A blatant twisting of the sciences of human biology. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, but not community ban. There’s enough there not to AGF his edits in that topic area. Community ban goes too far for me - we don’t vet beliefs (however ill-founded) to participate in WP. If he doesn’t edit in that area (unless other unpleasant POVs emerge) I don’t see the harm. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  That's where the problem is, people assume MGTOW is a hate group, i already mentioned that i am a member, but unlike what people think, it's just a group promotes men to take a break from the hardships of society. It is literally in the name, Men Going Their Own Way. That's all it is to me. I don't promote any form of hate towards any sex or gender.People just assume i do because they generalize. JNoXK 19:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, "take a break from the hardships of society", where you define those hardships as women and feminism. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  It fascinates me when someone sees their group has been described by some people as a hate group and conclude that the issue is with those people, not the group. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN or (preferably) community ban. WP:NONAZIS only directly talks about excluding members of racist groups, but the same reasoning applies to avowed members (per El Millo's diff above) of misogynist groups. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Well, then as per the reasoning in WP:NONAZIS,article Sexual dimorphism is supporting supremacist ideologies because it says males have a physical advantage.JNoXK 19:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, fun fact: since MGOTW fall under the Gender & Sexuality sanctions topic area ("gender-related controversy" and the page has a DS notice for such), and since JNoXK has been alerted to the existence of discretionary sanctions in this topic area, you can absolutely do a unilateral topic ban here. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @GeneralNotability: d'oh. I always forget about DS. I guess since this is already open, we can wait to see if consensus is a topic ban or something more, but yeah, I probably wasted some people's time here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that people should not be banned from Wikipedia because of their opinions, even if we dont agree with their opinions. If we do that, we would be no better than Twitter or any of the other platforms that are known for censoring people unfairly. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban, topic or site. Here he added POV material about men having more gray matter when the source is much more balanced and indicates advantages elsewhere for women as well; here I added balance. Then JNoXK replaced that material with stuff about men supposedly having more white matter from an older study. That and their other statements show clear POV pushing for a male supremacist ideology. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Because the white matter difference was already given in the article of the same name, i just copy pasted EXACTLY what was written there in order to not cause confusion.JNoXK 19:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Especially, when i am not even free to edit the MGTOW article, they will just revert it back based on articles that only they believe and turns a blind eye to even us, the real members. So automatically, MGTOW is a hate group for anyone who looks at the article.JNoXK 19:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not care what you say about yourself. We care about what reliable sources say. If you read SPS, you may say "well, it says that: may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, so there!", but you'll see it also says: so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
• the article is not based primarily on such sources

So, in short, you can't tell about your group or it's member if you are a part of it. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 19:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support CBAN or (second choice) TBan but also urge any admin to levy a DS-based TBan on them immediately, regardless of this thread having been started. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have partially blocked JNoXK from editing (Sexual dimorphism pending outcome ANI thread. Any admin may undo at their discretion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• support an absolute site ban We do not need more aggressively sexist editors who cannot separate fact from fiction editing anything. VAXIDICAE💉 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban for an editor who is clearly here for POV-pushing. Furthermore, I am strongly of the opinion that there is no room for editors with supremacist views on Wikipedia, and while JNoXK may say he does not hold supremacist views, he does so in the same breath as he shares these very views. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Quite. "I don't support male supremacy, I just think women have inferior brains and cause all the problems that MGTOW want to get away from." (Actually, thinking about it, if they all went their own way and kept away from women at least until beyond reproduction age... problem solved!) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban per GorillaWarfare. I've just read Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User mgtow and the combination of a profound misunderstanding of scientific information with blatant sexism and cynism is astounding, literally saying something to the effects of "misoginy would be telling you [a long sentence full of sexist remarks], but I don't tell you that, so I'm not a mysognist". —El Millo (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban per GorillaWarfare. Mysogynists have no place on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Suppert siteban per WP:NONAZIS and per GorillaWarfare. Blatant misogyny and sexism, along with seemingly enough cognitive dissonance to claim their views are not exactly what they are; is not acceptable; and is either a case of severe CIR or, more probably, NONAZIS as stated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban per GorillaWarfare. Misogynistic POV edits that imo definitely fall under NONAZIS. ~ANM🐁 T · C 23:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban I saw the userbox discussion this morning, and I am surprised that a full block has yet to take place. I do not think a topic ban is sufficient. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban — above quote mentioned by Boing just about sums this up. I'm quite surprised a WP:NOTHERE block hasn't been levied yet. — csc^-1 23:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban per GorrilaWarfare. Misogyny and sexism such as this has no place on wikipedia. Like Scorpions13256 said, I can't believe a full block is not yet in place. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 23:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I mistakenly closed this and implemented the siteban but realized that at least 24 hours must elapse before such a close per WP:CBAN. I apologize for jumping the gun. I support this siteban proposal. I was unsure earlier today when I only looked at the sexual dimorphism page as the user's intent was not evident in the edits. But after reading the user's comments here and on the MfD it is clear that this user's espoused beliefs are incompatible with Wikipedia's community and mission. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Support92.40.190.219 (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Cboi Sandlin

Cboi Sandlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this user welcoming an obvious vandal with "Also, COVID is a scam made by our government trying to control us via fear". Possibly NOTHERE based on their edit history, or just massively incompetent. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NOTHERE We do not need more disinformation spreaders or conspiracy theorists disrupting the encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm already a hair away from indeffing this user for their disparaging comments about other religions ([45], [46]) and this COVID conspiracy BS. I was giving them WP:ROPE. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I was only trying to converse with this user by showing him that there was no reason to fear about the virus, as it is obvious that the COVID pandemic is greatly exagretaed by the media. I apologize if I offended anyone. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Also those religious things were what i beleived to be vandalsim (like somebody saying that Judaism was a mental disorder XD). I was merely trying to stop vandalism. I am sorry that i caused anyone offense. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand you were not endorsing the antisemitic vandalism, but calling Judaism wrong and telling people to come to Jesus is not remotely appropriate here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c)It's not so much causing offense, as pushing COVID-denialism (evidence you are not smart enough to edit here) and proselytizing (evidence you can't be trusted to be neutral). I'm concerned that even if you agree to stop lying about COVID and pushing your religion, you'll just find something else to screw up. How can you assure us that isn't the case? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, now look, I was not denying COVID, i was meaning to say that it was exagerated, which it was, there is much evidence that it has been greatly exagerated. I mean think about it, why would anyone think that it is logical to completely ruin our economy because of virus with a 99.4% survival rate. You saying that i am stupid because I have a dont buy into the popular opinion about the pandemic is very rude. I do understand that my wording could have been improved, as when i said "scam", that would imply that i think that COVID-19 does not exist, which is not what i meant. And, moving on, I was telling that person about Jesus because, as you know, us christians like to tell people about Jesus. Just because i am religious does not mean that i am biased. Still, i now can see how those remarks would possibly be considered by some to be disruptive, so i apologize. I will try to be more careful about contreversial topics in the future and only speak about subjects that are directly about the topic of the article or user i am speaking about. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cboi Sandlin, the fact that you still made an attempt to justify both actions shows you still do not grasp the magnitude of your errors. Floquenbeam wasn’t being rude, they were factual, anyone buying into any conspiracy theories denying the existence of covid or downplaying it, is simply too naive to edit here. How about studying policy and guidelines before returning to mainspace editing? Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Topic ban from Covid-19 for sure, as we've already had far too many dangerous denialists here (and denying its severity contrary to the overwhelming medical evidence is still denialism). I'd also consider a topic ban from religion if we see any more proselytising or denigration of other people's beliefs, but I prefer a second chance on that one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Having read your user page, Cboi Sandlin, I realise now that you are still at high school. That means you certainly don't have any university degrees, no medical qualifications, no expertise in virology or epidemiology, and no medical experience. A school kid basing their claims on ignorance and "I mean think about it, why would anyone..." is *not* qualified to give advice about Covid-19 - and that would be the case even if your advice wasn't so stunningly stupid uninformed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Cboi Sandlin: RE:was no reason to fear about the virus, as it is obvious that the COVID pandemic is greatly exagretaed by the media. Speaking as a nurse, that is 100% bullshit. You have no business spreading such disinformation here. People I've known have died or become seriously ill, or wound up in ICU. If anything, the media have underplayed this disease. So stop trying to justify or defend your actions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Just indef block him and have done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have done this. El_C 20:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, I've no strong objection to an unblock request that properly addresses these acute problems, but I think a strong message is needed here. El_C 20:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

IP vandalism/trolling

IP 203.37.7.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made 3 edits since November 2020, all are trolling/vandalism on topics under discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBGG and WP:ARBAP2 respectively. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. Three edits too many. Revdeleted all. El_C 21:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, El_C. I notice that the piecemeal reversions of one of their comments didn't get revdeleted. A case of too many cooks maybe? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, of course, SineBot —aka the Robot Devil— strikes back. El_C 23:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The devil, as they say, is in the details ... and I see another: [47] (I'm not a robot, I swear. The jury is still out vis-a-vis the devil ;-) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Pinging El_C just to make sure they see the preceding diff. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Persistent promotion and disruptive accusations

• The Fly Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Matthew Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Archsurfing (talk · contribs)
• 108.21.194.122 (talk · contribs)

Matthew Austin and the associated Fly Stop article have been the beneficiaries of promotional campaigns here, though neither appears to meet our notability guidelines. Today, in response to my nominating the latter for speedy deletion, a new WP:SPA attacked me for ignorance of the subject and accused me of a disruptive agenda [48], [49], [50], [51]. I can't see that any credible WP:RELIABLE sources which would establish notability have been added to the article since its promotional creation in 2015, and rather than add any today, the user is choosing to go on the attack. I'd appreciate more eyes on the article, as well as the WP:COI accounts. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I ran a check on Archsurfing due to the evidence provided here that there may be logged-out editing and harassment by this user. I found and  Confirmed that sock puppet accounts were created, one of them was used to edit The Fly Stop, and I've blocked all socks indefinitely and blocked Archsurfing for one week. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Archsurfing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah, thank you. The 108 IP looks to be the same user, too. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a responsible mediator

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

---

The discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_for_User:Tenebrae has devolved into a feeding frenzy of insults and Schadenfreude. I'd like to request a responsible mediator to help tone down the toxic rhetoric, sarcasm and insults. The group is composed virtually entirely of people I've been on opposite sides of RFCs with the past, people with a personal dislike, and I've been told I'm not allowed to invited character witnesses. And I've been ordered to out myself.

I've edited on Wikipedia for nearly 16 years, generally without issue, with some 155,000 edits. And these people with a personal dislike of me are fixating on literally fewer than 1% of them.

To put it more colorfully, the pitchforks and torches are out, and that's not how a town hall meeting should go. Thank you for any help.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor cyberstalking my edits

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

---

User:Praxidicae is currently systemically reverting edits that several articles in which I added necessary cites for WP:BLP claims of birthdates. This editor claims, without evidence, WP:CIRCULAR and that United Press International, a decades-only journalistic institution, is swiping its "This Day in History" birthdates from Wikipedia. UPI has run "This Day in History" page since well before there was a Wikipedia. UPI has its own standard databases, such as voter registrations. Nowhere does UPI say: "Source: Wikipedia."

This editor has refused to discuss the issue in any serious way, instead commenting with sarcasm and even threatening me with a block if I press to get a definitive answer for her. Complicating matters, this is an editor with an extreme dislike of me, so this cyberstalking my perfectly proper UPI edits seems a deliberately antagonistic act that is leaving uncited BLP claims in its wake. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

{{cn}} I'm done with your ridiculous accusations, WP:IDHT and tendentious editing. I explained no less than 4 times now why I removed your garbage sourcing and you forum shopping now in a 5th place is just disruptive. VAXIDICAE💉 01:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So you're saying this is all POV supposition on your part. You think UPI is swiping Wikipedia, so it must be so.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) UPI was one of the two primary US news services, along with the AP, but it is not now anything like what it once was - a fact which can be confirmed simply by reading our article on it, especially the "Decline" section. For one thing, it's owned by the Unification Church, which also owns the Washington Times, a terribly biased newspaper which (I believe) has been quasi-deprecated as an RS here. It's not in the realm of the impossible that UPI might go that direction as well. In any case, citing UPI's past history as an indication of its reliability today is very misleading, which is something I'm sure Tenebrae knows perfectly well.

On the other hand. Tenebrae is on the cusp of being site banned from en.wiki (see above) in a discussion which is literally just waiting for the clock to hit 24 hours before it is closed, so I don't think that anyone really needs to exert any energy to deal with this complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I'd like to propose an immediate boomerang here and believe that Tenebrae should be blocked for their persistently disruptive editing and failure to get a clue after deliberately editing my comments and misquoting me to make a stupid, asinine point that no one agrees with. This is now the 4th thread they've started at various venues to take up a non-issue while bludgeoning the discussion on their own site ban at WP:AN. VAXIDICAE💉 01:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering what's happening in the other thread (28-3 in favor of a site ban at the moment), a boomerang at this juncture would be pretty pointless, don't you think? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Content dispute. Even if Praxidicae is in the wrong, using an editor's contributions to systematically revert the widespread addition of a source on the basis that you believe it is unreliable and thus should not be added for content reasons does not constitute the "stalking" form of harassment known as "Wikihounding". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Especially considering I explained it no less than 5 times now, despite his claim that I did it "without explanation" and I provided a cogent explanation as to how I determined they used Wikipedia for their source material. VAXIDICAE💉 01:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Serial unsourced changes of data to WP:BLPs

New account 183.171.127.168 (talk · contribs). In many cases, the previous content wasn't sourced, either. Requesting more eyes, and mass reversion if this is seen as disruptive. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned thrice. Reverted some. Falling asleep in my chair. G'night. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and good night. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

WIKIHOUNDING

User:Amaury is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. This is happening right now.Simonrankin (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

He's also gone past WP:3RR on the Harley Quinn (TV series) page.Simonrankin (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, you are requited to notify any person you report here. Clearly, you have failed. Thankfully, I watch this page. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pwt898‎, as it's strongly suspected that this user is a sock, as well as User talk:Geraldo Perez#Simonrankin and User talk:IJBall#Please stop reverting me for no reason. for context. (Courtesy pings for Geraldo Perez and IJBall.) In response to a warning IJBall left them on their talk page, they claimed they would stop being disruptive, but clearly they haven't. And if they're a sock, as I strongly suspect, then the point is moot, anyway. Amaury • 08:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I did notify you and you deleted it. I've never done disruptive editing! It's not my fault you guys want errors on an encyclopedia. I have no understanding why you're being like this?Simonrankin (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

When you have several different editors reverting and warning you for the same thing, you are clearly being disruptive. You acknowledged your warning at 7:40 PM (PDT), yet you continue to be disruptive. Amaury • 08:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether a sock or not, the user is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and I blocked indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)